PURNENDU MUKHOPADHYAY AND ORS. v. V.K. KAPOOR AND ANR

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 462

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S.B. SINHA, H.S. BEDI

Case summary

PURNENDU MUKHOPADHYAY AND ORS. v. V.K. KAPOOR AND ANR.pdf

Judgment text

PURNENDU MUKHOPADHYAY AND ORS. r f ~ v. V. K. KAPOOR AND ANR. OCTOBER 12, 2007 [S. B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ. ] Service Law: Seniority-Posts ofCharge-man Grade IIISupervisor Grade-A- Examination for-Some employees getting marginally less marks appointedas Supervisor Grade A-Under the Scheme such employees were to be given a chance to appear in examination to be graded as Charge-man Grade II, but no such examination held and a pick and choose policy adopted-Later, both posts merged as Charge-man Grade-II-Tribunal allowing the claim ofaffected employees anq directing to refix iheir notional seniority as Charge-man Grade !!

- Benefit oforder ofTribunal given to some employees andnot to others on the plea ofinterpretation as regards concept ofnotional seniority in thejudgment ofthe Tribunal-HELD: Action on part ofdepartment in giving benefit oforder ofTribunal to some employees and denying the same to other similarly situated and affected employees is wholly unjustifiable-Judgment ofa Court should not be read as a statute, it should be read in its entirety-Constitution ofIndia-Article I4- Judgment. The appellants, who appeared in the examination for appointment to the post of Charge-man Grade II or Supenrisor Grade A, were appointed as SupenrisorGrade-A on account ofthe marginal difference in the marks obtained by them. By an order ofthe Director General issued on 4. 5. 1967 they were to be given another chance to appear in the examination to enable them to be graded as Charge-man Grade-II, but the said orderwas not implemented and a policy ofpickand choose was adopted to grant the benefit.

With effect from 1. 1. 1-980 the posts of ; SupenisorGrade-Aand Charge-man Grade-II were merged. The issue of seniority led to the litigation and, ultimately, the Central Administrative Tribunal by its order dated 9. 7. 1990 directed the department to refix notional seniority ofthe affected employees, as if all the applicants came outsuccessful in theselection test for promotion to the post of Charge-man Grade-II, from their respective dates of B examination; and that the decision would be binding on all persons similarly situated. Itwas also observed that the employees will not be entitled to any back wages or any other financial benefits save and except the notional seniority. Meanwhile, a Full Bench ofthe Tribunal also held that the beneficiaries in the case filed by appellants could be allowed notional seniority in the grade ofCharge-man Grade-II only for determining revised date from which presumptive pay should be fixed. Relying on the said judgment, some otheremployees filed O.

A. which was allowed and the department implemented the order ofthe Tribunalwith reganl to them, butnotin the caseofappellants. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the instant appeal and the contempt petition. Itwas contended for the appellants that in view ofthe judgment ofthe Central Administrative Tribunal as confirmed by the Supreme Court, the appellants were not only entitled to be appointed as Chargeman Grade-II, but also entitled to promotion to higher grades and respective notional seniority at each level having regard to the fact that those who were juniors to them had been promoted in terms ofRule 18. 4. 3. On the direction ofthe Court, the departmentfiled a status report _.. ,.. admitting that benefit ofthe order ofthe Tribunal was givento some employees, but could not be given to the appellants due to the pendency ofthe appeal as also interpretation on concept ofnotional seniority by the Full Bench ofthe Tribunal in its judgment. Allowing the appeal, the Court ~-'- HELD: 1.

According to the appellants, their case falls under category I of the Full Bench judgment ofthe Tribunal. This fact has also been accepted by the respondents in their status report. Thus, if H ~ ~ I* -1. : . ,. the appellants were to be appointed and or promoted as Charge-man Grade-II before 1st January, 1973, they became senior to the other employees. Some employees had been given the benefit of the order passed by the Tribunal. The action on the part ofthe respondents giving benefit ofthe order ofthe Tribunal to some employees and denying the same to the appellants is wholly unjustifiable. The judgment ofa court, as is well known, should not be read as a statute. It has to be read in its entirety. So read, the appellants had become entitled to the grant of ~--- ' benefits contemplated thereby. There is no reason why the same shall ---r be denied to them. The State cannot treat employees similarly situated ;' differently.

It, while implementing the orders in relation to one cannot refuse fo do so in relation to others. [Paras 19 and 20) (473-B, C, D, E, G; 474-A] Ramesh ChandDagav. Rameshwari Bai [2005) 4 SCC 772; Islamic Academy ofEducation v. State ofKarnataka, [2003) 6 SCC 697; Zee Telefilms Ltd v. Union ofIndia, [2005) 4 SCC 649 and P. S. Sathappan v. ? - Andhra BankLtd, [2004) 11SCC672, relied on. ;-- JS. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar and Ors. , [1996) 6 SCC 291; and Vijay Singh, Secretary Home andAnr. v. Mittan/al Hindoliya, (1997] 1SCC 258, distinguished. State ofBiharv. Rani Sonabati Kumari, AIR(l961) SC 221; State of Kerala v. Unni, (2007) 2 SCC 365 and Sneh Enterprises v. Commissioner ofCustoms, (2006) 7 SCC 714, referred to. ;,... ' 2. As regards the contempt petition for taking punitive action ~against the contemnors, at this stagethey are directed to fully implement the orders ofthis Court as modified on the same terms as was done in the case ofemployees similarly situated.

[Para 21] [474-C, D] CIVIL APPELLATE JURiSDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4862 of 2007. From the final Judgment and Order dated 5. 7. 2002 of the Central >--... Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench at Calcutta in CPC 78/1990 in T. A. No. 1069 of 1986. Sushil Kumar Jain, Puneet Jain, H. D. Thanvi, Piyush Jain and Pratibha Jain for the Appellants. K. S. Bhati, Aman Sinha, Ishiita Sinha, Nupoor Sinha, Sweta, Sanjoli and Yash Pal Dhingra for the Respondents. The Judgment ofthe Court was delivered by S. B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This case has a chequered history. Appellants herein were appointed as Chargeman Grade-II. They were, in terms ofthe Scheme dated 23rd April, 1965, required to appear in an examination for appointment to the post ofChargeman Grade-II or Supervisor Grade-A initially. They appeared in the said examination.

They were, however, appointed as Supervisor Grade-A on account ofthe marginal difference in the marks obtained by them from the others who were appointed as Chargeman Grade-IL The Director General on or about 4th May, 1967 taking into consideration the marginal difference in the marks obtained by the appellants decided to give another chance to the appellants to appear within six months in the next examination so as to enable them to be graded as Chargeman Grade-II, in the event, ifthey qualify therein.

It resulted in issuance ofGovernment order dated 4th May, 1967 in terms of which the 1965 Scheme was amended as under:- "The Supervisory Apprentices who secure 5% marks less in the aggregate than prescribed by the Central Selection Board for gradation as Chargeman Grade II in a particular gradation p examination will be graded as Supervisor Grade A/or equivalent but will be allowed to take another chance at the next gradation examination and on the basis oftheir performance may be graded by the D. G. O. F. as fit for appointment as Chargeman Grade II and appointed as such with effect from a date after they are so graded in the subsequent gradation examination. This will have retrospective effect to cover the past cases in which the DGOF has already allowed the Supervisory Apprentices another chance to appear in the gradation examination. " 3.

Allegedly, however, the Government oflndia adopted a policy ofpick and choose and did not grant the benefit ofthe said Scheme to which they were otherwise entitled thereto. {\. K. Saxena and others filed \\-Tit petition before the Delhi High Court. Appellant herein filed a similar writ petition before the Calcutta High Court which was marked as CR1671-W/83. On establishment ofthe Central Administrative Tribunal under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 those petitions were transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal and were • marked as TA-1069/86. However, with effect from 1st J8:nuary, 1980 'l the post of Supervisor Grade-A and the Chargeman Grade-II were directed to merge. The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the said Transferred Application ofthe appellants by an order dated 9th July, 1990 directing:- "On the facts and circumstances ofthis case, we with respect, agree with the observations of the Supreme Court set ont above.

We are also ofthe view that the respondent authorities, in not calling the applicants to sit in the examinations held earlier had acted discriminately. As the course for the official respondents has admitted that holding ofintended examination is not necessary. We direct the respondent authorities not to hold the examination. We also direct the respondent authorities to refix the respective notional seniority ofthe applicants and fix their pay scale and all benefits attached thereto as per rule on the basis that all the applicants came out successful in the selection test for promotion to the post of Chargeman Grade II from their respective dates ofexamination. But they will not be entitled to any back wages or any other financial benefit save and except the notional seniority. The applicants will be entitled to be paid in accordance with the fixed pay scale and all these directions must be completed within 90 days from date.

As the present application was filed in the representative capacity by obtaining leave under Rule 11 ofCPC from tlie Hon'ble High Court on 18-3-83, this decision will be binding on all other persons similarly situated and similarly affected. The respondents are directive to give the same benefits to them to avoid future litigation on the same issue. " 4. However, the said direction was partially modified by this Court ) } to which we would advert to a little later. 5. The said order was challenged before this Court. No stay, however, was granted therein. As the Central Government was not implementing the said order the present contempt petition was filed. Appellants herein also filed an interlocutory application which was marked as IA 3 of 1992 for a direction upon the Central Government not to make • any promotion ignoring the order ofthe Tribunal dated 9th July, 1990.

-y- This Court by its orders dated 2Ist September, 1992 directed :- "Heard learned counsel for both the parties on JA 3. Taking in view, the entire facts and circumstances ofthis case, we direct Union oflndia not to make promotions on the posts ofForeman, Assistant Works Manager and further higher posts ignoring the judgment ofthe Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta dated 9th July, 1990 till the final disposal ofthe present appeal. The appeal may be listed for disposal in the month ofJanuary, 1993. ". --i 6. The said order passed in IA No. 3 of I992, however, was modified on an application filed in that behalfby the Union ofIndia. We may place on record that another application was also filed on behalfof All India Association of Non-Gazetted Officers for intervention and direction, whereupon by an order dated 13th May, 1993 this Court directed:- "Union oflndia has filed an application for modifying the order dated 21. 9.

92 stating that this stay has been causing bottlenecks in the operational system due to the promotions having been stayed by this Court. Since the appeal has already been directed to be ~r posted for final disposal, the stay creates difficulty for the administration to function. We permit the Union oflndia to make promotions in respect ofthe posts above the post of Foreman on according to the rules but any promotion made will be further reviewed and be subject to the result of the appeal. IA No. 5 is disposed ofaccordingly. The Registry is directed to post this appeal immediately after vacation subject to part-heard. " 7. The appeal preferred by the Union of India was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 5th August, 1993, observing: * ~~ -{ "Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant we must confess our inability to appreciate the attitude ofthe Union ofIndia for approaching this Court by way ofSpecial Leave Petition and delay the matters b y another three years. " 8.

Appellants contend that by the said order dismissirig the appeal preferred by the Union oflndia, this Court was alive to the fact that the • dispute between the parties not only related to original appellants/ -r· petitioners but also affected their seniority and promotion occurring during the pendency thereof. While considering the question of removal of discrimination allegedly meted out to the appellants and determination of their seniority which was material for their promotion to higher post, it was observed:-. "Needless to say that despite appointment ofevery supervisor Grade "A" Chargeman Grade II the discrimination which occurred due to enforcement ofthe modified scheme since 1965 permitted only few supervisors Grade A to appear in the next examination persisted so far those Supervisor Grade "A" were concerned who were appointed prior to coming into force ofthis scheme and were denied similar opportunity even though they came in field of eligibility.

The injustice arose as, if the policy of permitted Supervisors Grade "A" to improve their grade would not have been introduced then the seniority amongst the Supervisors would have remained the same and those appointed in one year would have remained senior to those appointed in latter year. " 9. With regard . to seniority and the effect on promotion to higher ~post, this Court observed:- "It is not the appointment ofpetitioners ofChargeman Grade II from 1980 but also the determination oftheir seniority which was material as it is admitted that the higher posts are available for promotion on the basis of seniority cum merit. Jbe question of ;.... _ seniority therefore was ofutmost importance and unless there was some such difficulty which could not be resolved the appellant should have taken care to see that the order of the High Court } PURNENDU MUKHOPADHYAYv. V. K. KAPOOR 469 was complied. " 10.

The Hon'ble Court further observed:- "In any case the Tribunal in directing the respondents to be granted notional appointment as Charegeman grade II from the date oftheir first examination. In the peculiar circumstances ofthe case, does not appear to have committed any error of law. In our opinion, ... this was the only possible manner in which the injustice could have y been remedied. " 11. The Court, however, modified the said order to the following extent:- "In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. It is however, clarified that the placement ofall those supervisor grade A who came in the field ofeligibility namely ofsecuring less than 5% marks in aggregate fixed for selection as Chargeman Grade II, should be fixed by directing that they were selected for that post six months from the date oftheir Gradation Examination. " 12. We may also notice here that the appellants were not to be granted any back wages in terms ofthe order ofthe Tribunal dated 9th July, 1990.

They, however, claimed to be entitled to all the benefits attached thereto including seniority and promotion to the higher posts. The said order, according to them, was partially implemented wherefor two letters one being dated 4th November, 1993 and another being dated 10th November, 1993 were issued stating :- -r "... on the basis that all the applicants came out successful in the selection test for promotion to the post ofChargeman Gr. II from their respective dates ofexamination. But they will not be entitled to any back wages or any other financial benefits save and except the notional seniority. " "It was necessary to firm up the seniority position ofthe individuals ~-1. in the grades ofChargeman Gr. I Assistant Foreman and Foreman as required by holding review DPCs on the basis ofthe amended seniority list in the grade ofChargeman Gr. II as on 1. 1. 77" 13.

The said orders were, however, withdrawn purported to be on the basis ofa Full Benchjudgment ofthe Central Administrative Tribunal which was rendered in the meanwhile. It was stated : "In view ofthe above, the beneficiaries in the case ofPumendu Mukhopadhyay & Ors. can be allowed notional seniority in the grade ofChargeman Gr. II (Tech) only, for determining revised date from which presumptive pay should be fixed. The persons ,,. who are granted notional seniority can be superceded by persons regularly promoted. " "f 14. Later on the said order dated 4th November, 1983 was also withdrawn directing:- "12. Thus the seniority of Pumendu Mukhopadhyay and ors. in the revised seniority list ofChargeman Gr. II (fech) will count from the dates when they were regularly promoted or appointed as Chargeman Gr. II (Tech) according to recruitment rules. " ')--- 15. It is not in dispute that one S. K.

Ganguly and others relying on the judgment and order ofthe Central Administrative Tribunal filed an Original Application before it. The said 0. A was allowed. The order of the Tribunal in the case ofGanguly was implemented. The Tribunal by reason ofthe impugned judgment, however, inter alia placing reliance upon a decision of this Court in JS. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar and Ors. , [1996] 6 SCC 291 and Vijay Singh, Secretary Home and Anr. V. Mittan/al Hindoliya, [1997] 1 sec 258 accepted the said plea of Union oflndia and inter alia directed :- "While finalizing such revised seniority, for deciding inter se seniority ~vis-a-viz the 26 petitioners of OA 789/96, who have been indentified by the official respondents as similarly circumstance with the successful applicants of TA. 1069 of 1986 (Purnendu Mukhopadhyay & Ors. v. Union ofIndia and Ors. ,) and have accordingly been notified as such by the offici;;tl respondents through their notifications dated 14. 8. 85 and 14. 11.

95 vide Anenxures E >---~ and F respectively to OA 789/96, read with D. G. O. F. Notification dated 23. 2. ,96, Annexure Gin MA 222/1995 it will be necessary j ~ ... r that they are treated as belonging to the group described at para A. 80(1) of the Full Bench (PB) judgment dated 22. 12. 1995, reproduced at para 51(1) above, in the instant judgment. In other words, they would be in the first category ofemployees who were appointed as Chargeman Gr. II pfiorto 1. 1. 73. " 16. This Court by an order dated 1st March, 2007 with a view to .. ascertain the correct position in regard to the implemenw:on ofthe earlier y orders, directed the respondents to file a status report. Pursuant to the said direction a status report has been filed. In the said status report it has been accepted that the benefits given to S. K.

Ganguly and others have not been given to the appellants inter alia in view ofthe pendency ofthe present special leave petition as also interpretation on the concept of notional seniority by the Full Bench ofthe Central Administrative Tribunal dated 22nd December, 1995. 17. The bone of contention of the respondents, therefore, is the judgment ofthe Full Bench ofthe Central Administrative Tribunal dated _ __. 22nd December, 1995 as appearing in their affidavit, which is as under: "(i) The judgment decided the principles ofseniority ofthe various categories ofChargeman Grade Il(T). All the candidates in the present SLP got their notional seniority prior to 01. 01. 73 in pursuance ofthe judgment ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court oflndia dt. 05. 08. 1993.

Hence they are the first lot of persons for the purpose ofseniority in the post ofChargeman Grade II(T) as per ~ the judgment ofthe Full Bench ofthe Hon'ble Tribunal and have been given the seniority in the grade as per sub-para (i) and para -r 80 ofthe Full Benchjudgment. (ii) The judgment of Full Bench had also interpreted the concept ofnotional seniority and its consequential benefits in Para 76, 77 & 78 ofthe judgment ofthe Full Bench ofthe Hon'ble Tribunal. As per the interpretation the notional seniority is used only for ~ ...!. _ determining the date with effect from which the presumptive pay should be fixed. It does not give the benefit bfseniority. Higher notional seniority cannot be given to the detriment ofothers who have been actually promoted earlier. It is not always necessary that retrospective promotion should also be accompanied by retrospective seniority. " 18. Submissions ofMr.

Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, inter alia are - (i) In view ofthejudgment ofthe Central Administrative Tribunal as confirmed by this Court with modification, the appellants were not only entitled to be appointed as Chargeman Graden but also were entitled to promotion to higher grades and respective notional seniority at each level. (ii) Determination ofseniority at each grade therefore was material. (ill) Although an order of stay was passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 521 of 1988 but the same related to only paragraph 13 ofthe judgment ofthe Tribunal and not paragraphs 11 and 12 thereof. )-.. (iv) The appellants were entitled to promotion having regard to the facts that those who were juniors to them have been promoted in terms ofRule 18. 4. 3 which reads as under :- "18. 4.

3 Ifthe officers placed junior to the officer concerned have been promoted, he should be promoted immediately and ifthere is no vacancy thejunior most person officiating in the higher grade should be reverted to accommodate him. On promotion, his pay . ' should be fixed under F. R. 27 as the stage it would have reached, had he been promoted from the date the officer immediately below him was promoted but no arrears would be admissible. The seniority ofthe officer would be determined in the order in which his name, on review, has been placed in the select list by D. P. C. If in any such case a minimum period of qualifying service is prescribed for promotion to higher grade, the period from which an officer placed below the officer concerned in the select list was promoted to the higher grade, should be reckoned towards the qualifying period ofservice for the purpose determining his eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade.

" (v) The contention ofthe respondents that the employees who had been accorded notional seniority cannot be equated with those who had been regularly appointed is unsustainable as the object and purport ofthe order ofthe Tribunal as also ofthis Court were to remove discrimination meted out to the' appellants by promoting their juniors. (vi) The order ofthe Full Bench dated 22nd December, 1995 is not applicable. 19. According to the appellants, their case falls under category I of. the Full Bench judgment. This fact has also been accepted by the respondents in their status report. Thus if the appellants were to be , appointed and or promoted as Chargeman Grade-II before 1st January, 1973 they became seniors to the other employees. As we have noticed ' hereinbefore that S. K. Ganguli and others had been given the benefit of the order passed by the Tribunal.

We do not appreciate the stand ofthe ' D respondents in this behalfinasmuch as whereas one set oforder involving , employees who were similarly situated to those ofthe appellants, benefits have been given but the same are being denied to them. Such an action . on the part ofthe respondents in our opinion is wholly unjustifiable. The judgment ofacourt, as is well known, should not be read as a statute. It has to be read in its entirety. So read, the appellants had become entitled to the grant of benefits contemplated thereby. There is no reason why the same shall be denied to them. [See Ramesh Chand Daga v. Rameshwari Bai, [2005] 4 SCC 772, Islamic Academy ofEducation v. State ofKarnataka, [2003] 6 sec 697, Zee Telefilms Ltd. V. Union I --'r ofIndia, (2005] 4 SCC 649 and P. S. Sathappan v. Andhra Bank Ltd. , (2004] 11 SCC 672. Our attention has also been drawn to the fact that apart from S. K.

Ganguly and others some other persons who were similarly situated, namely - Prem Kumar Saha; S. K. Majumdar and Alopi Lal, have also been granted the same benefits. 20. In a case ofthis nature, in particular having regard to the fact that the respondents have granted similar benefits to others, we fail to understand as to how the decision ofthis Court in JS. Parihar (supra) and Mittan/al (supra) could be applicable. The State cannot treat ' . ~ employees similarly situated differently. It cannot implement the orders in relation to one and refuse to do so in relation to others. It is also not a case like JS Parihar (supra) where while implementing the orders, a particular stand has been taken by the employer giving rise to a subsequent cause of action. It is also not a case where the order of this Court is capable to two interpretations. [See State ofBihar v. Rani Sonabati Kumari, AIR (1961) SC 221, State ofKerala v. Unni, [2007] 2 SCC ) 365 and Sneh Enterprises V.

Commissioner ofCustoms, [~006] 7 sec 714]. For the reasons aforementioned the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. The appeal is allowed. We, however, before taking any punitive action against the contemnors at this stage, would like to issue a direction upon them to fully implement the orders ofthis Court as modified by this Court on the same terms as was done in the case ofemployees similarly situated. In facts and circumstances ofthe case the appellants shall also be entitled to costs which we quantify at Rs. 25,000/-. RP. Appeal allowed.