Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4369 OF 2006

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited                   …     Appellant

Versus

Ghanshyam Dass & Ors.                             … Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4370 of 2006  

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited                   …     Appellant

Versus

Chhidu Singh & Ors.                             … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

These  two  appeals  are  against  two  separate  but  

identical  orders  passed  by  a  Division  Bench  of  the  High  

Court of Delhi on 22.05.2003 in C.W. No.4555 of 2002 and  

C.W. No.4556 of 2002.

2. The facts  very  briefly  are  that  in  the  Department  of  

Telecommunications of the Government of India there are  

four Grades of employees and these are:

2

Basic Grade [Telegraph Assistant / Telegraphist]   =  Pay  Scale Rs.975-1660.

Grade II [Section Supervisor / Telegraph Master] = Pay  Scale Rs.1400-2300.

Grade  III  [Senior  Section  Supervisor]  =  Pay  Scale  Rs.1600-2660.

Grade IV [Chief Section Supervisor] = Pay Scale Rs.2000- 3200.

2. Initially,  promotions  from  one  Grade  to  the  higher  

grade were made on the basis of seniority to the 2/3rd  

of  the  posts  and  on  the  basis  of  departmental  

examination to the 1/3rd of the posts.  With effect from  

30.11.1983,  the  Government  of  India,  Ministry  of  

Communications,  Department of  Telecommunications  

(for  short  ‘the  Government’)  introduced  One  Time  

Bound  Promotion  Scheme  under  which  regular  

employees, who had completed sixteen years of service  

in  a  grade,  were  placed  in  the  next  higher  grade.  

Thereafter,  by  a  circular  dated  16.10.1990  the  

Government  introduced  a  new  Scheme  known  as  

‘Biennial Cadre Review’ (for short ‘the BCR Scheme’).  

Under the BCR Scheme, those employees, who were on  

regular service as on 01.01.1990 and had completed  

3

26 years  of  satisfactory  service  in  the  basic  grades,  

were to be screened by a duly constituted Committee  

to  assess  their  performance  and  determine  their  

suitability  for  advancement  and  if  they  were  found  

suitable they were to be upgraded in the higher scale.  

The circular dated 16.10.1990, however, limited such  

upgradation to 10% of the posts in the lower pay-scale  

and the review of the cadres for the purpose of such  

upgradation was to take place once in two years.  The  

Government then issued clarifications on some points  

in  its  letter  dated  11.03.1991  on  the  BCR  Scheme.  

Point No.10 and the clarification thereon in the letter  

dated 11.03.1991 are quoted hereunder:-  

“Point raised by the field unit Clarification

“10.  Whether  Officers  already having pay scale of  Rs.1600-2600  will  rank  senior  to  Officials  in  the  scale  of  Rs.1400-2300  for  the  10%  quota  (Rs.2000- 3200)

The seniority of officials is  to  be  maintained  with  reference  to  the  basic  cadres  and  functional  promotional  posts  they  hold  and  not  merely  with  reference  to  the  pay  scales.”

4. Some officers of Grade III who were senior in the basic  

grade but had lost  their  seniority in Grade III  because of  

4

their  later  promotions  and  who  were  not  considered  for  

upgradation to Grade IV under the BCR Scheme, namely,  

Smt. Santosh Kapoor and others, filed O.A. No.1455 of 1991  

before  the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal,  New  Delhi,  

contending on the basis of clarification on Point No.10 made  

in the letter dated 11.0.3.1991 that under the BCR Scheme,  

seniority  in  the  basic  grade  was  to  be  counted  for  the  

purpose of upgradation on completion of 26 years of service  

and this contention was resisted by the Government and  

other respondents in the O.A. and the Tribunal in its order  

dated 07.07.1992 directed that promotions of 10% posts in  

the  scale  of  Rs.2000-3200  (Grade  IV)  would  have  to  be  

based on seniority in the basic grade subject to fulfillment of  

other conditions in the BCR Scheme and further directed  

the Government to consider the applicants in the O.A. from  

due dates with consequential benefits.  In the order dated  

07.07.1992, the Tribunal, however, observed that employees  

who may be senior to the applicants in the O.A. in the scale  

of Rs.1600-2660 (Grade III) and who may have already been  

given the scale of  Rs.2000-3200 (Grade IV) at the cost of  

those who were senior in the basic grades by any different  

5

interpretation of the BCR Scheme, may in the discretion of  

the Government instead of being reverted, be considered for  

promotion to scale of Rs.2000-3200 (Grade IV) by suitable  

adjustments  in  the  number  of  posts  by  upgradation  as  

necessary.   The  Government  challenged  the  order  dated  

07.07.1992 of the Tribunal in Civil Appeal No.3201 of 1993  

but  by  order  dated  09.09.1993  this  Court  held  that  the  

direction by the Tribunal cannot be faulted and accordingly  

dismissed the appeal.  

5. Pursuant  to  the  order  dated  07.07.1992  of  the  

Tribunal in O.A. No.1455 of 1991 as affirmed by this Court  

in Civil Appeal No.3201 of 1993, supernumerary posts were  

created in the scale of Rs.2000-3200 (Grade IV) to adjust  

the  employees  who  had  already  been  given  the  scale  of  

Rs.2000-3200 on the basis of their seniority in the scale of  

Rs.1600-2660 (Grade III).  Moreover, after a review of the  

procedure for promotions from Grade III  to Grade IV, the  

Government  issued  a  fresh  circular  dated  13.12.1995  

saying  that  promotion  to  Grade-IV  may  be  given  from  

amongst officials in Grade-III on the basis of their seniority  

in the basic grade, subject to fitness determined by the DPC  

6

and subject to the ceiling of 10% of the posts in Grade-III  

(scale Rs.1600-2660) as provided in the BCR Scheme.     

6. The  respondents  in  C.A.  No.4369  of  2006  Shri  

Ghanshyam Dass  and others  filed  O.A.  No.2484 of  1997  

and the respondents in C.A. No.4370 of 2006 Shri Chiddu  

Singh  and  others  filed  O.A.  No.2099  of  1997  before  the  

Central Administrative Tribunal contending that employees  

who were juniors to them in the basic grade but otherwise  

senior in Grade-III, had been given promotion to Grade-IV  

earlier to the dates when the respondents were given such  

promotion and by a common order dated 11.08.2000 the  

Tribunal allowed the O.As. and directed the Government to  

consider promoting them to Grade IV with effect from the  

dates their immediate juniors in the basic grade seniority  

were so promoted subject to their otherwise being found fit  

for  promotion  on  such  dates  with  consequential  benefits  

including seniority and arrears of pay and allowances and  

retiral  benefits  in  the  case  of  those  who  had  retired  on  

superannuation.  The Government filed writ petitions C.W.  

No.4555 of  2000 and C.W.  No.4556 of  2000 in  the  High  

Court of Delhi, but by the two separate impugned orders the  

7

High  Court  found  that  the  Tribunal,  while  allowing  the  

applications, had directed the Government to follow its own  

circular dated 13.12.1995 which had been issued pursuant  

to  the  order  of  the  Tribunal  dated  07.07.1992  in  O.A.  

No.1455 of 1991 which had attained finality after dismissal  

of the appeals by this Court and accordingly dismissed the  

two writ petitions.

7. When  these  two  Civil  Appeals  were  heard  by  a  two  

Judge Bench of this Court on 14.03.2007, they were of the  

view that the matter should be referred to a larger Bench for  

the reasons stated in the order dated 14.03.2007, which are  

quoted hereinunder:

“……..  The question is that on what basis the  promotion is  to  be given.   In normal  course of  business a person in Grade-I is to be promoted  on the basis of seniority from Grade I to Grade II  and likewise from Grade II to Grade III and from  Grade  III  to  Grade  IV.   But  because  of  a  clarification  issued  by  the  Department  dated  3.4.1991,  the  basic  Grade  seniority  should  be  taken into consideration for  promotion and not  the pay-scales.  If this is to be taken, then this  will  mean that a person who is in Grade I and  has put in 26 years of service on 1.1.1990 will be  entitled for promotion from Grade I to Grade IV.  Therefore,  the concept of basic cadre has to be  interpreted with reference to the seniority in each  Grade.  But on account of the order passed by  the CAT which has been affirmed by this Court  on 9.9.1993 in Civil Appeal No.3201 of 1993 this  

8

anomalous  situation  has  been  created.  Therefore,  in  our  view,  it  is  appropriate  if  this  matter is referred to a larger Bench so that the  controversy  involved  in  the  matter  can  be  resolved. …..”

Thus, the learned Judges were of the view that on account  

of the order passed by Central  Administrative Tribunal in  

O.A.  No.  1455  of  1991  which  had been affirmed by  this  

Court  on  09.09.1993  in  C.A.  No.  No.3201  of  1993  an  

anomalous  situation  has  been  created  inasmuch  as  a  

person who is in Grade I and had put in 26 years of service  

would be entitled for promotion from Grade I to Grade IV.  

They were of the view that the concept of basic cadre has to  

be interpreted with reference to the seniority in each grade.  

8. In  the  course  of  hearing  before  us,  however,  it  has  

been  brought  to  our  notice  by  learned  counsel  for  the  

parties  that  the  controversy  before  us  is  confined  to  

promotions  of  only  employees  from Grade-III  to  Grade-IV  

and not of employees working in either Grade-I or Grade-II.  

This will  be clear from the order dated 07.07.1992 of the  

Central  Administrative  Tribunal  in  O.A.  No.1455  of  1991  

[Smt.  Santosh  Kapoor  and  others  v.  Union  of  India  and  

others] in which the Tribunal has directed that promotions  

9

to 10% posts in Grade-IV (Pay Scale 2000-3200) would have  

to  be  based  on  seniority  in  basic  cadres  subject  to  

fulfillment of other conditions in the BCR Scheme and it is  

this order of the Tribunal which was affirmed by this Court  

in the order dated 09.09.1993 in Civil  Appeal  No.3201 of  

1993.  This will also be clear from the fresh circular dated  

13.12.1995 which was confined to promotions from Grade  

III to Grade IV under the BCR Scheme.  Hence, the question  

of an employee of the basic Grade (Grade-I) being promoted  

to Grade-IV directly does not arise in the appeals before us.

9. Coming now to the merits of the two appeals before us,  

Mr.  R.D.  Agrawala,  learned  counsel  for  the  appellants,  

submitted that the Central Administrative Tribunal allowed  

the claims of  the  respondents  on the ground that  in  the  

basic grade they were senior to some employees who had  

already  been  promoted  to  Grade-IV  and  this  was  clearly  

contrary  to  the  fresh  circular  dated  13.12.1995  of  the  

Government  according  to  which  promotions  to  Grade-IV  

may  be  given  from  amongst  officials  in  Grade-III  on  the  

basis of their seniority in the basic grade. He submitted that  

the Tribunal in its common order in the two O.As. has given  

10

the illustrative example of Lakhpat Rai Gumbar who was at  

serial No.73 of the seniority list in the basic cadre while the  

respondents  Ghanshyam  Dass  and  Shyamlal  Sachdeva,  

who were applicants in O.A. No. 2484 of 1997, were placed  

above him in the seniority list of the basic cadre at serial  

Nos.69  and  70  and  yet  Lakhpat  Rai  Gumbar  had  been  

promoted to Grade-IV by order dated 08.01.1993 while the  

said  two Ghanshayam Dass  and Shyamlal  Sachdeva  had  

been promoted to Grade-IV with effect from 01.01.1997 and  

01.07.1997 respectively.  Mr. Agrawala submitted that the  

Tribunal failed to appreciate that Lakhpat Rai Gumbar had  

been promoted from Grade-III to Grade-IV with effect from  

08.01.1993 pursuant to the order dated 07.07.1992 of the  

Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.1455 of 1991 in  

which the Tribunal had allowed the Government to create  

supernumerary posts  for  promotion to Grade-IV for  those  

employees who were senior to the applicants in the O.A. in  

the  scale  of  Rs.1600-2600 (Grade  III)  and who had been  

given the scale of  Rs.2000-3200 (Grade IV) at the cost of  

those who were  senior  in  the  basic  grades by a different  

interpretation  of  the  BCR  Scheme.  He  further  submitted  

11

that  the  Tribunal  also  failed  to  appreciate  that  the  fresh  

circular  dated  13.12.1995 of  the  Government  could  have  

only  prospective  effect  and could  govern  only  promotions  

made after 13.12.1995 and in fact Ghanshyam Dass and  

Shyamlal Sachdeva, the two applicants in O.A. No. 2484 of  

1997, and many other employees had been promoted from  

Grade-III to Grade-IV on the basis of seniority in the basic  

cadre  after  the  fresh  circular  dated  13.12.1995.   He  

submitted that the High Court  has lost  sight of  all  these  

aspects and has affirmed the order of the Tribunal in the  

two O.As. erroneously.  

10. Mr.  Sudarshan Rajan, learned counsel  appearing for  

the respondents, in reply, submitted that the consolidated  

list of promotions under the BCR Scheme (Annexure P/1 in  

C.A.No.4370 of  2006)  would show that  Ghanshyam Dass  

was at serial No.69 and Shyamlal Sachdeva was at serial  

No.70, whereas Lakhpat Rai Gumbar was at serial No.73 in  

the seniority list of the basic grade.  He submitted that since  

the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal  in  its  order  dated  

07.07.1992  in  O.A.  No.1455  of  1991  has  held  that  

promotions  to  10%  posts  in  Grade-IV  would  have  to  be  

12

based on seniority  in  the  basic  Cadre,  Ghanshyam Dass  

and Shyamlal Sachdeva ought to have been promoted before  

Lakhpat  Rai  Gumbar  but  the  chart  at  page  34A in  C.A.  

No.4370 of 2006 would show that Lakhpat Rai Gumbar was  

promoted  on  08.01.1993  whereas  Ghanshyam  Dass  and  

Shyamlal  Sachdeva  were  promoted  much  later  on  

01.01.1997  and  01.07.1997  respectively.   He  vehemently  

submitted that Ghanshyam Dass and Shyamlal  Sachdeva  

and all other respondents have to be given the benefit of the  

order dated 07.07.1992 of the Tribunal in O.A. No.1455 of  

1991 as affirmed by this Court, even though they were not  

parties in the aforesaid O.A. before the Tribunal or before  

this  Court.   He  cited  the  decision  in  K.I.  Shephard  and  

others v.  Union of India and others [(1987) 4 SCC 431] in  

which this Court held that employees who had not come to  

the Court should not be penalized for not having litigated  

and would be entitled to the same benefits as the petitioners  

in that case.  Mr. Rajan further submitted that the Central  

Administrative  Tribunal  in  its  order  dated  07.07.1992  in  

O.A.  No.1455  of  1991  had  only  observed  that  employees  

who may be senior to the applicants in the O.A. in the scale  

13

Rs.1600-2600 and which may have been given the scale of  

Rs.2000-3200 at the cost of those senior in the basic grades  

may be ‘considered for promotion’ and the Tribunal had not  

given any direction to promote all such employees such as  

Lakhpat Rai Gumbar.  He submitted that the clarification  

on  Point  No.6  in  the  letter  dated  11.03.1991  of  the  

Government on the BCR Scheme was that the selection for  

promotion from Grade-III to Grade-IV was to be based on  

merit  and not  simply  fitness  and,  therefore,  Lakhpat  Rai  

Gumbar  and  others  could  not  have  been  promoted  to  

supernumerary posts without a proper selection on merit  

pursuant to the order dated 07.07.1992 of the Tribunal in  

O.A. No.1455 of 1991.

11. We  have  considered  the  submissions  of  learned  

counsel for the parties.  The order dated 07.07.1992 of the  

Central  Administrative  Tribunal  in  O.A.  No.1455  of  1991  

(Smt. Santosh Kapoor and Others v. Union of India & Ors.),  

contained the following directions:

“In the above view of the matter, we direct that  the  promotions  to  10%  posts  in  scale  2000- 3200  would  have  to  be  based  on  seniority  in  basic  cadres  subject  to  fulfillment  of  other  conditions in the BCR Scheme viz.  those  who  were regular employees as on 1.1.1990 and had  

14

completed  26 years  of  service  in basic  grades  (including higher scales).  The respondents are  directed to consider applicants accordingly from  due  dates  with  consequential  benefits.   The  employees who may be senior to applicants in  the scale of Rs.1600-2660 and who may have  already been given the scale of Rs.2000-3200 at  the cost of those senior in basic grades by any  different interpretation of the BCR Scheme, may  in the discretion of the respondents, instead of  being reverted, be considered for promotion to  scale of Rs.2000-3500 by suitable adjustments  in  the  matter  of  posts  by  upgradation  as  necessary.”

It  will  be  clear  from the directions in the aforesaid order  

dated  07.07.1992  in  O.A.  No.1455  of  1991  that  the  

Government was directed to consider only the applicants in  

the O.A. for promotion to 10% posts in the scale Rs.2000-

3200 (Grade-IV) on the basis of seniority in the basic cadres  

from  the  due  dates  with  consequential  benefits.   The  

respondents in the two Civil Appeals before us were not the  

applicants  in  O.A.  No.1455  of  1991  and  there  was  no  

direction to the Government to consider the respondents in  

the  two  appeals  for  promotion  to  Grade-IV  scale  on  the  

basis of seniority in the basic cadre as per the BCR Scheme.  

Hence,  the  respondents  were  not  entitled  to  claim  any  

promotion to Grade-IV on the basis of their seniority in the  

basic grade on the basis of the order dated 07.07.1992 of  

15

the Tribunal  in O.A.  No.1455 of  1991 as affirmed by the  

order  dated  09.09.1993  of  this  Court  in  Civil  Appeal  

No.3201 of 1993.

12. In  K.I.  Shephard (supra)  relied  upon by  the  learned  

counsel for the respondents, this Court directed that  

each  of  the  transferee  banks  should  take  over  the  

employees who had been excluded from employment  

under the amalgamation schemes of the banks on the  

same terms and conditions of employment under the  

respective banking companies prior  to amalgamation  

and further  directed that such employees, who were  

taken  over,  would  be  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  

continuity of service for all purposes including salary  

and perks.  This Court further found that some of the  

excluded employees had not come to Court and held  

that there was no justification to penalize them for not  

having litigated and that they too shall be entitled to  

the  same  benefits  as  the  petitioners  in  that  case.  

There was, therefore, a clear direction in the judgment  

of this Court in K.I. Shephard (supra) that the excluded  

employees, who had not approached the Court, shall  

16

also be entitled to the same benefits as the petitioners  

in that case were entitled under the judgment of this  

Court.   In  the  present  case,  as  we  have  seen,  the  

Central Administrative Tribunal has not directed in its  

order dated 07.07.1992 in O.A. No.1455 of 1991 that  

the  benefits  of  the  order  would  also  be  extended  to  

those who had not approached the Tribunal.  

13. The principle laid down in K.I. Shephard (supra) that it  

is not necessary for every person to approach the court for  

relief and it is the duty of the authority to extend the benefit  

of a concluded decision in all similar cases without driving  

every affected person to court to seek relief would apply only  

in the following circumstances:

a) where  the  order  is  made  in  a  petition  filed  in  a  representative  capacity  on  behalf  of  all  similarly  situated employees;

b) where the relief granted by the court is a declaratory  relief which is intended to apply to all employees in  a  particular  category,  irrespective  of  whether  they  are parties to the litigation or not;  

c) where  an  order  or  rule  of  general  application  to  employees  is  quashed  without  any  condition  or  reservation  that  the  relief  is  restricted  to  the  petitioners before the court; and

17

d) where  the  court  expressly  directs  that  the  relief  granted should be extended to those who have not  approached the court.  

14. On  the  other  hand,  where  only  the  affected  parties  

approach the court and relief is given to those parties, the  

fence-sitters who did not approach the court cannot claim  

that such relief should have been extended to them thereby  

upsetting or interfering with the rights which had accrued  

to others. In Jagdish Lal and others v. State of Haryana and  

others [(1997) 6 SCC 538], the appellants who were general  

candidates belatedly challenged the promotion of Scheduled  

Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates on the basis of the  

decisions in  Ajit  Singh Januja v.  State  of Punjab [(1996) 2  

SCC 715], Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan [(1995) 6  

SCC 684] and  R.K. Sabharwal v.  State of Punjab [(1995) 2  

SCC 745] and this Court refused to grant the relief saying:

“….this  Court  has  repeatedly  held,  the  delay  disentitles  the  party  to  the  discretionary  relief  under  Article  226  or  Article  32  of  the  Constitution.  It is not necessary to reiterate all  the catena of precedents in this behalf.  Suffice it  to  state  that  the  appellants  kept  sleeping  over  their rights for long and elected to wake up when  they had the impetus from  Virpal Chauhan and  Ajit  Singh ratios.   But  Virpal  Chauhan and  Sabharwal cases,  kept  at  rest  the  promotion  already made by that date, and declared them as  

18

valid; they were limited to the question of future  promotions  given  by  applying  the  rule  of  reservation to all the persons prior to the date of  judgment in Sabharwal case which required to be  examined  in  the  light  of  the  law  laid  in  Sabharwal case.  Thus earlier promotions cannot  be reopened.  Only those cases arising after that  date would be examined in the light of the law  laid down in Sabharwal case and Virpal Chauhan  case and equally Ajit Singh case.  If the candidate  has already been further promoted to the higher  echelons of service, his seniority is not open to be  reviewed.   In  A.B.S.  Karamchari  Sangh  case a  Bench  of  two  Judges  to  which  two  of  us,  K.  Ramaswamy  and  G.B.  Pattanaik,  JJ.  were  members,  had reiterated the above  view and it  was also held that all  the prior promotions are  not  open to judicial  review.  In  Chander  Pal v.  State  of  Haryana a  Bench  of  two  Judges  consisting of S.C. Agrawal and G.T. Nanavati, JJ.  considered  the  effect  of  Virpal  Chauhan,  Ajit   Singh, Sabharwal  and A.B.S. Karamchari  Sangh  cases and  held  that  the  seniority  of  those  respondents who had already retired or had been  promoted to higher posts could not be disturbed.  The  seniority  of  the  petitioner  therein  and  the  respondents  who  were  holding  the  post  in  the  same  level  or  in  the  same  cadre  would  be  adjusted  keeping  in  view  the  ratio  in  Virpal  Chauhan and  Ajit  Singh;  but promotion,  if  any,  had  been  given  to  any  of  them  during  the  pendency of this writ petition was directed not to  be disturbed….”  

Since the respondents preferred to sleep over their  rights  

and approached the Central Administrative Tribunal only in  

1997,  they  cannot  get  the  benefit  of  the  order  dated  

07.07.1992 of the Tribunal in O.A. No.1455 of 1991 and will  

19

only  be  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  the  circular  dated  

13.12.1995 which was in force in 1997.

15. We also find on a reading of paragraph 8 of the order  

dated 07.07.1992 of the Central Administrative Tribunal in  

O.A. No.1455 of 1991 that the Tribunal gave liberty to the  

Government to consider employees who were senior to the  

applicants in that case in a scale of Rs.1600-2660 (Grade-

III)  and  who  may  have  already  been  given  the  scale  of  

Rs.2000-3200 (Grade-IV) at the cost of those senior in the  

basic  grades  by  any  different  interpretation  of  the  BCR  

Scheme  then  one  given  by  the  Tribunal  by  suitable  

adjustments  in  the  number  of  posts  by  upgradation  as  

necessary.  It appears that pursuant to this liberty granted  

to  the  Government,  Lakhpat  Rai  Gumbar  had  been  

promoted to Grade-IV scale w.e.f. 08.01.1993 because of his  

seniority in Grade-III scale over two the respondents in the  

Civil Appeal No.4369 of 2006, Ghanshyam Dass and others  

and Shyamlal Sachdeva, even though he was junior to these  

officers in the basic grade.  Hence, Lakhpat Rai Gumber was  

promoted to one of  the  posts  in  Grade-IV created  by the  

Government  for  the  specific  purpose  of  protecting  

20

promotions done on a different  interpretation of  the  BCR  

Scheme by the Government as allowed by the Tribunal in  

the order dated 07.07.1992 in O.A. No.1455 of 1991 and the  

respondents  in  these  appeals  can  have  no  claim  of  

promotion to these supernumerary posts.  Moreover, if the  

respondents were in any way aggrieved by the promotion of  

Lakhpat Rai Gumber and others who were junior to them in  

the basic grade, they could have challenged their promotion  

in the appropriate forum, but they have not done so.

16. We  further  find  on  a  reading  of  the  circular  dated  

13.12.1995 of  the  Government  that  after  the  order  dated  

07.07.1992 of  the  Tribunal  in  OA.  No.1455 of  1991  was  

affirmed by this Court in Civil Appeal No.3201 of 1993 on  

09.09.1993  the  Government  undertook  a  review  of  the  

existing procedure of promotion to Grade-IV and decided in  

supersession  of  earlier  instructions  that  promotion  to  

Grade-IV may be given from amongst officials in Grade-III  

on  the  basis  of  their  seniority  in  the  basic  grade.   This  

would  be  clear  from  the  relevant  portion  of  the  circular  

dated 13.12.1995 extracted below:

“Review of the existing procedure of promotion  to  Grade-IV  (now designated  as  Chief  Section  

21

Supervisor)  under  the  BCR Scheme  has  been  under consideration in view of the judgment of  Principal  Bench,  New  Delhi  upheld  by  the  Supreme Court.   It  has  now been  decided  in  supersession  of  earlier  instructions  that  promotion  to  the  said  Grade-IV may  be  given  from amongst officials in Grade-III on the basis  of their seniority in the basic grade. ……”

17. The language of the circular dated 13.12.1995 makes  

it crystal clear that the Government took a fresh decision in  

supersession  of  earlier  instructions  that  promotion  to  

Grade-IV may be given from amongst officials in Grade-III  

on the basis of their seniority in the basic grade.  Hence, the  

decision of the Government to make promotions to Grade-IV  

on the basis of their seniority in the basic grade could take  

effect only from 13.12.1995 and not from a prior date and  

the respondents, who had filed O.A. No.2484 of 1997 and  

O.A. No.2099 of 1997 in the Central Administrative Tribunal  

could not claim any promotion to Grade-IV on the basis of  

their seniority in the basic cadre with effect from any date  

prior to 13.12.1995.  The Central Administrative Tribunal  

was, therefore, not right in allowing O.A. No.2484 of 1997  

and  O.A.  No.2099  of  1997  by  order  dated  11.08.2000,  

directing  the  Government  to  consider  promoting  the  

22

applicants  to  Grade-IV  with  effect  from  the  dates  their  

immediate  juniors  in  the  basic  grade  seniority  were  so  

promoted subject to their being found fit with consequential  

benefits of seniority as well as arrears of pay and allowance  

and of retiral benefits in the case of those of the applicants  

in the O.As. who had retired on superannuation.  In our  

considered opinion, the High Court ought to have interfered  

with the decision of the Tribunal.

18. We accordingly allow these appeals and set aside the  

impugned orders dated 22.05.2003 of the High Court and  

the  common  order  dated  11.08.2000  of  the  Central  

Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 2484 of 1997 and O.A.  

No.2099 of 1997.  The two O.As. stand rejected. There will  

be no order as to costs.      

.……………………….J.                                                            (R. V. Raveendran)

………………………..J.                                                            (P. Sathasivam)

………………………..J.                                                            (A. K. Patnaik) New Delhi, February 17, 2011.    

23