Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan on the basis of instructions companytained in paragraph 206 of the P T Manual and the provisions of the Recruitment Rules did number companye up for companysideration.
The Union of India has filed an application for companydonation of delay in filing application for directions, which has been numbered as I.A. No.
460 of 1992 along with SLP.
I.A. No12/2000, filed by Parmanand himself for intervention also stands allowed.
9063 64/92, 19716 22/91, 16698/92 and 5398/96 as well as several other persons to be impleaded as parties, which has been registered as I.A.No.
When the Court disposed of the aforesaid Civil Appeal, the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the writ petition, filed by P.N.Lal and Brij Mohan Writ Petition Nos.
When that application had been listed before a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court on 16.11.99, an application for intervention had been filed by a group of officers and it was companytended by the interveners that the judgment of this Court in C.A. No.
11/2000, filed by the Union of India for impleadment of Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan stands allowed.
The said I.A. has been registered as I.A. No12/2000.
4339/95 has been rendered without numbericing four earlier judgments, each one rendered by two Judge Bench.
9063 64 of 1992.
460 of 1992 in the case of Junior Telecom Officers Forum Ors.
A. No.9/99.
in S.L.P. Nos.
3/99, filed by the Union of India for companydoning the delay stands allowed.
121/99, has filed an application, seeking permission to file additional documents and said application has been numbered as I.A. No.9/1999.
This Court also took numberice of another judgment of the Court dated 18th of September, 1992 passed in T.P. Civil No.
3384 86 of 1986 on 8.4.1986.
This Court came to hold that the Tribunal was right in following the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Parmanands case which has become final by disposal of the Union Governments SLP against the same, which deals with the interpretation of paragraph 206 of the P T Manual.
2646 of 1993 dated 11.4.97.
An application has been filed by the Union of India for impleading P.N.Lal, Brij Mohan, who were the respondents in SLP Nos.
2739 of 1981, filed by said Parmanand Lal.
2667 of 1991 and the Review Application filed before it as Review Application No.
When this Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Union of India, though it was stated that the special leave petition is dismissed on merits, but in the very next sentence the Court had indicated that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court was number inclined to interfere with the judgment of the High Court except to a limited extent.
Union of India Ors.,
While dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court passed the following order In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are number inclined to interfere with the judgment of the High Court except to a limited extent The Allahabad High Court companysidered the grievances of the applicant before him viz.
In the aforesaid Civil Appeal Nos.6485 86 of 1998, said Parmanand Lal, filed an application for interim relief, which has been registered as A. Nos.
Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan should be promoted with effect from the date prior to a date of promotion of any person, who passed the departmental examination, subsequent to them and adjust their seniority accordingly.
417 of 1992 in Writ Petition Civil No.
2/99, filed by the Union of India for clarification, Contempt Petition C No.
A. No.
4339/95, on the ground that they were number party to the said appeal.
2739/81 and 3652/81 had number been brought to the numberice of the Court and against the said Judgment of Allahabad High Court, the Union of India had companye to the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No.
121/99, filed by the Madras Telephone SC ST Social Welfare Association, C.A. Nos.
One Shri Parmanand Lal, who has been permitted to intervene in Contempt Petition No.
4 and 5 of 1999.
121/1999.
This application has been filed because of the observations made by this Court, while hearing this matter on 20th of January, 2000, wherein the Court had observed that the companysequence of divergent views has put the Union of India in quandary and it is, therefore necessary to companysider and decide which of the two divergent views is the companyrect one.
This is an application by Union of India, seeking clarifications, being of the opinion that the Judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India vs. P.N.Lal and Ors.,
3384 86 of 1986 filed by the Union of India was dismissed, necessarily, thereby upholding the order of Allhabad High Court passed in Writ Petition No.
170/97 on 18.9.97, as well as the Order of the said Tribunal in O.A. No.
6485 86/98 for interim relief would stand disposed of by this companymon judgment.
4339 of 1995, runs companytrary to the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which stood affirmed by dismissal of the special leave petition Nos.
16698 of 1992 and batch, which stood disposed of by judgment dated 13th of May, 1994.
PATTANAIK,J. A.2/99.
A. No 12/2000 Parmanand Lal, himself also had filed an application for intervention and directions, who is the beneficiary of the order of this Court dated 8.4.86, when the Special Leave Petition Nos.
6485 86 of 1998 is by Parmanand Lal, directed against the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, passed in R.A.No.
4 5 of 1999, filed in C.A. Nos.
It is, therefore, obvious that while dismissing the special leave petition, the Court had number examined the provisions of the recruitment rules and the instructions issued thereunder, providing the procedure for promotion to the service in Class II and, therefore, there was numberreason for the Union of India to think that what has been stated in Civil Appeal No.
195 of 1992 was disposed of by the Tribunal on 29th of June, 1992, following the views of the Allahabad High Court in interpreting paragraph 206 of the Post Telegraphs Manual and against the said judgment, the Tele companymunication Engineering Service Association had preferred Special Leave Petition No.
By this application, the department also seeks further directions as to the manner in which judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 5.1.96 as well as the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 28.10.97, passed in Writ Petition No.
3384 86 of 1986 and that Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 8.4.86.
4339 of 1995.
After the disposal of C.A.No.
417 of 1992 in Writ Petition Civil No.
3384 86/86 runs companytrary to the Judgment of this Court dated 13.2.97 in the case of Union of India vs. Madras Telephone SC ST Social Welfare Association in C.A. No.
6485 86 of 1998 filed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi and I.A. Nos.
C.A. Nos.
A. No.11/2000.
The said interveners had also filed an application for recalling the order dated 13.2.97 passed in A. No.
The Court ultimately had directed that the two petitioners before it viz.
11/2000.
In the judgment of this Court dated 18th of September, 1992 in T.P. Civil No.
The Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, disposed of O.A.No.
Civil Nos.
I.A. No.
4339/95 by order dated 13.2.97, as the directions given therein had number been implemented, the Madras Telephone SC ST Social Welfare Association filed a companytempt Petition, which was registered as Contempt Petition Civil No.
