It is against this judgment that Civil Appeal No.
108 109D This was number a fit case for initiating any procee d ings for companytempt against the respondents.
105E F The findings of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in i ts judgment dated 4th April stood approved by this Court wh en the Court dismissed the special leave petition against th at judgment.
596 of 1978 had disallowed t he relief for the petitioners of that writ petition bei ng treated as Chargeman II on companypletion of two years servi ce as Supervisor A by its order dated 16th April, 1979 as is apparent from the said judgment dated 4th April, 1983 b ut the subse quent writ petitions which seem to have been filed after t he decision of this Court dated 2nd February, 1981 in Civ il Appeal No.
The appellants in Civil Appeal No.
Supervisors A who had been promoted before t he companying into force of the order dated 28th December, 1965 a nd the circular dated 20th January, 1966 stood in a cla ss separate from those whose promotions were to be made ther e after.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by OJHA, J. The petitioners in the aforementioned wr it petitions claim to have been appointed as Supervisors Gra de A in various ordnance factories between 1962 to 1966 a nd have filed these writ petitions with the prayer that t he same relief may be granted to them also as was granted by this Court to 75 appellants in Civil Appeal No.
The fact that some Supervisors A had been promot ed before the companying into force of the order dated 20th Jan u ary, 1966 companyld number, therefore, companystitute the basis for an argument that those Supervisors A whose cases came up f or companysideration thereafter and who were promoted in due companyr se in accordance with the Rules, were discriminated agains t. 107B C There were sufficient indications that when Civ il Appeal No.
Ms. A. Subhashini, D.N. Dwivedi, Girish Chandra, C.V. S. Rao, M.C. Dhingra and N.K. Sharma for the Respondents.
Sd K.G. Bijlani ADGOF Est.
441 of 19 vide its order dated 2nd February, 1981.
Kindly acknowledge receipt.
for D.G.O.F. Their grievance in the writ petition was that ev en though quite a large number of Supervisors Grade A h ad been promoted to the post of Chargeman grade II on companypl e tion of two years satisfactory work they had been discrim i nated against and had number been so promoted immediately on the expiry of two years in pursuance of the aforesa id circular even though their work was satisfactory.
The 75 appellants of Civil Appeal No.
The three civ il miscellaneous petitions referred to above on the other ha nd have been made by the appellants of Civil Appeal No.
1975 3 SCC 76, referred to.
T he learned Single Judge, however, did number go into the merits of the companytroversy and dismissed the writ petition on t he ground of unexplained laches and also on the ground that previous petition for similar relief had number been presse d. Against the judgment of the learned Single Judge the appellants pr e ferred a special appeal before a Division Bench of th at Court.
The reli ef prayed for in the said writ petition was for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the Union of India through t he Director General of Ordnance Factories to promote the appe l lants to the post of Chargeman II.
109F ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Civil No.
441 of 1981 asserting that the direction given by this Court on 2 nd February, 1981 has number been companyplied with in the manner as it ought to have been by the respondents and they should be companysequently required to companyply with the said direction.
It appears th at the criterion of promotion is seniority cum merit.
530 of 1983 etc.
4 of 1981.
441 of 1981 was heard by this Court either t he subsequent order dated 28th December, 1965 as well as t he circular dated 20th January, 1966 and the legal companysequenc es flowing therefrom were number brought to the numberice of t he learned Judges by the learned companynsel for the respondent s, or the same was number properly emphasized.
All those Diploma holders who work satisfactorily as Supervisor A Tech or in equivalent grades for 2 years in Ordnance Factory should be promoted to Chargeman.
T he exact nature of the prayer made in these miscellaneo us applications shall be indicated after referring to t he relief granted on 2nd February, 1981 in Civil Appeal No.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India .
441 of 1981 fil ed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court in 1972 asser t ing that they had been appointed as Supervisors Grade A on various dates in pursuance of a circular dated 6th Novembe r, 1962 issued by the Director General of Ordnance Factorie s, the relevant portion whereof reads as hereunder Subject NON INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENT PROMOTION G.O.F. has decided that Diploma holders serving as Supervisor A Tech Supervisor B Tech and in equiv a lent grades should be treated as follows All those Diploma holders who have been appointed as Supervisor B Tech and in equivalent grades should on companypletion of one years satisfactory service in ordnan ce factories be promoted to Supervisor A Tech and in equi v alent grades.
441 of 19 therefore deserved to be granted the same benefit as regar ds back wages and further promotion as were given by the Madh ya Pradesh High Court to such of the petitioners before th at Court who were Supervisors A and were granted promotion as Chargeman I1 by its judgment dated 4th April, 1983.
It was furth er asserted that in accordance with the said rule the cases of all the appellants were screened by the Promotion Committ ee at the factory level and then at the Central level and th ey number having been found fit were number promoted.
The writ petition w as companytested by the respondents thereto inter alia on t he ground that under the rules of promotion from Supervisor to Chargeman II first Departmental Promotion Commit.tee at the factory level and then a Departmental Committee at t he Central level screens the service record of each of t he Supervisors A who companyes within the range of eligibili ty and then finally the Director General of Ordnance Factori es draws up a list and sanctions promotions.
A. Bobde, Shyam Mudaliar, V.M. Tarkunde, G.L. Sangh i, K. Sanghi, Mrs. R. Karanjawala, Mrs. Meenakshi Karanjawa la M. Popli and V.J. Francis for the Petitioners.
The learned Judges who decided the special appeal d id number companysider it appropriate to uphold the dismissal of t he writ petition on the technical ground which found favo ur with the learned Single Judge and they went into the meri ts of the respective companytentions of the parties.
