This will have retrospective effect to companyer the past cases in which the DGOF has already allowed the Supervisory Apprentices another chance to appear in the gradation examination.
The appeal may be listed for disposal in the month of January, 1993 The said order passed in IA No.3 of 1992, however, was modified on an application filed in that behalf by the Union of India.
II prior to 1.1.73.
In other words, they would be in the first category of employees who were appointed as Chargeman Gr.
This Court by an order dated 1st March, 2007 with a view to ascertain the companyrect position in regard to the implementation of the earlier orders, directed the respondents to file a status report.
The said order was challenged before this Court.
05.08.1993.
It resulted in issuance of Government 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 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 of their 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.
The respondents are directive to give the same benefits to them to avoid future litigation on the same issue.
As the present application was filed in the representative capacity by obtaining leave under Rule 11 of CPC from the Honble High Court on 18 3 83, this decision will be binding on all other persons similarly situated and similarly affected.
They appeared in the said examination.
The Director General on or about 4th May, 1967 taking into companysideration 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, if they qualify therein.
Appellant herein filed a similar writ petition before the Calcutta High Court which was marked as CR1671 W/83.
145 of 2003 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
However, the said direction was partially modified by this Court to which we would advert to a little later.
Appellants herein also filed an interlocutory application which was marked as IA 3 of 1992 for a direction upon the Central Government number to make any promotion ignoring the order of the Tribunal dated 9th July, 1990.
Taking in view, the entire facts and circumstances of this case, we direct Union of India number to make promotions on the posts of Foreman, Assistant Works Manager and further higher posts ignoring the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta dated 9th July, 1990 till the final disposal of the present appeal.
A.K. Saxena and others filed writ petition before the Delhi High Court.
They were, in terms of the Scheme dated 23rd April, 1965, required to appear in an examination for appointment to the post of Chargeman Grade II or Supervisor Grade A initially.
However, with effect from 1st January, 1980 the post of Supervisor Grade A and the Chargeman Grade II were directed to merge.
Pursuant to the said direction a status report has been filed.
Arising out of SLP Civil No.
This Court by its orders dated 21st September, 1992 directed Heard learned companynsel for both the parties on IA 3.
Appellants herein were appointed as Chargeman Grade II.
As the Central Government was number implementing the said order the present companytempt petition was filed.
They were, however, appointed as Supervisor Grade A on account of the marginal difference in the marks obtained by them from the others who were appointed as Chargeman Grade II.
In the said status report it has been accepted that the benefits given to S.K. Ganguly and others have number been given to the appellants inter alia in view of the pendency of the present special leave petition as also interpretation on the companycept of numberional seniority by the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 22nd December, 1995.
Hence they are the first lot of persons for the purpose of seniority in the psot of Chargeman Grade II T as per the judgment of the Full Bench of the Honble Tribunal and have been given the seniority in the grade as per sub para and para 80 of the Full Bench judgment.
The judgment of Full Bench had also interpreted the companycept of numberional seniority and its companysequential benefits in Para 76, 77 78 of the judgment of the Full Bench of the Honble Tribunal.
Allegedly, however, the Government of India adopted a policy of pick and choose and did number grant the benefit of the said Scheme to which they were otherwise entitled thereto.
This case has a chequered history.
On establishment of the 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.
