NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  NO(S).  5203/2016

ABDUL JAWAD M.F  & ANR.                            APPELLANT(S)

                               VERSUS

R. RAJ PRADEEP & ORS.                              RESPONDENT(S)

                                                                   WITH

C.A. NO. 5204-5205/2016

C.A. NO. 6055/2016

C.A. NO. 6059/2016

C.A. NO. 6057/2016

C.A. NO. 6056/2016  

C.A. NO. 8460/2016

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1. The issue raised in all these appeals pertains to

the irregular promotions granted to 97 Upper Division

Clerks in the Kerala Panchayat Department to the post

of Executive Officer, Grade-I.  No doubt all those

promotions were ad hoc but the problem arose when the

Government sought to regularize them with effect from

the  date  of  ad  hoc  promotion.   In  respect  of  61

1

persons,  the  Government  order  dated  19.07.2012

followed  by  the  order  dated  23.08.2012  were  the

subject  matter  of  challenge  before  the  Kerala

Administrative Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

There were other issues pertaining to the seniority

as well.  The Tribunal vide order dated 06.03.2015

held that the regularization of 61 promotions were

impermissible under the law, being in excess of the

eligible quota.  As far as regularization granted to

36  UDCs  are  concerned,  they  had  already  been

eliminated by Government Order dated 17.06.2010.  The

order passed by the Tribunal has been affirmed by the

Division Bench of the High Court as per the impugned

order dated 11.03.2016.  The said judgment is under

challenge in these appeals.

2. When  these  matters  came  up  before  this  Court,

after extensively hearing the parties, the following

order was passed on 29.03.2017:-

“On 13.05.2016, this Court inter alia passed the following order:-

“Leave granted. Status  quo,  obtaining  as  on  today,

shall be maintained by the parties.”

The  order,  as  above,  shall  stand

modified as follows:

2

The Government is free to take steps to

implement  the  orders  passed  by  the  Kerala

Administrative  Tribunal  dated  6.3.2015,  as

affirmed by the High Court in the impugned

order  dated  11.3.2016.   But,  in  case

reversion of any officer is to be effected

in the process, the same shall be done only

after obtaining orders from this Court.

A Report on the steps thus taken shall

be submitted before this Court, within three

months.

Post on 12.07.2017. “

3. The  said  order  was  passed  taking  into

consideration one of the submissions that in view of

efflux of time the implementation of the judgment may

not  cause  any  serious  impact  on  the  existing

incumbents, as far as reversion is concerned.

4. We have heard Mr. Gopal Shankarnarayan, learned

counsel  appearing  for  the  appellants,  in  C.A.

Nos.5203/2016 & 8460/2016, Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned

senior counsel appearing for the State and learned

counsel  for  the  other  contesting  respondents

extensively today also.

5. There  cannot  be  any  dispute  on  the  factual

scenario that all the 97 promotions were in excess of

the eligible quota.  There cannot also be any dispute

3

on  the  fact  that  all  the  promotions  given  to  the

incumbents  were  ad  hoc.   Therefore,  when  a  final

seniority list is to be drawn up, a call has to be

taken as to the fate of the ad hoc promotions.    In

our view, the view taken by the Tribunal, as affirmed

by  the  High  Court,  cannot  be  faulted  since  97

incumbents could not have occupied the positions on

regular basis, since it was in excess of the eligible

quota.

6. We  have  ascertained  that  there  cannot  be  more

than two incumbents out of 61 in office as of now.

Having regard to the decades of service rendered by

them, we direct that they shall not be reverted in

the process of implementation of the judgment.  It is

also directed that the incumbents who have already

retired from service shall not be disturbed as far as

their pension is concerned.

7. We  make  it  clear  that  in  the  process  of

implementation of the impugned judgment, in case any

of the individual incumbents has any other grievance,

it will be open to him/her to pursue the same in

appropriate proceedings.

8. Subject  to  the  above,  these  appeals  are

dismissed.

4

9. Pending  applications,  if  any,  shall  stand

disposed of.

10. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J.               [KURIAN JOSEPH]  

.......................J.               [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]  

NEW DELHI; AUGUST 02, 2018.

5