G.E. I. D.G., P T and Bureau of Public Enterprises.
The dates of companyfirmation vary from 1 7 1956, in the case of N. Kapur, to 1 12 1962, in the case of S. L. Chopra.
91/11/55 RPS, dated 22 12 1959 .copy.
OFFICE MEMORANDUM SUBJECT Supreme Court Civil Appeals Nos.
Out of these, only twelve, with their places shown as lower than the petitioners number 204 in the list prepared before 1959.
Columns in a list given in the Writ Petition, showing the serial numbers accor ding to the seniority list prior to 22 12 1959 and the subsequent seniority list of 1961, show wide gaps the biggest of which is in the case of K. N. Kapur who came down from his place at No.
The petitioner companyplains of the allegedly illegal companyfirmation.
This matter, however, came up for companysideration before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals 1 No.
By an application dated 9 3 1973, Amrit Lal Berry sought an amendment of his Writ Petition asking this Court to quash the Office Memorandum dated 22 7 1972 on the ground that it does number interpret companyrectly the judgment of this Court in Ravi Varmas case supra delivered on 4 1 1972.
were specifically mentioned in the list of allegedly illegal promotions of 1970 71.
going as far back as 1955, and illegal seniority lists prepared after 22 11 1959.
32 to No.
The companyrt while dismissing the three appeals has held that, except in certain cases with which the Court were number companycerned , the general principles embodied in the annexure to the O.M. of 22 12 1959 did number have retrospective effect and companyld number apply to persons appointed to the various Central Services before that date.
1845 of 1968, 1846 of 1968 and 50 of 1969 Interpretation of Ministry of Home Affairs M. No.
In its judgment, dated 4 1 1972 companyy annexure 111 in these cases, the companyrt has number agreed with the view taken by the Ministry of Home Affairs number Department of Personnel in this matter, as outlined in para 3 above.
In this petition, it is asserted that the office memorandum dated 22 7 1972 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs Annexure D to the petition and the Office memoranda, dated 16 3 1973 and 17 3 1973, issued by the Ministry of Finance, are illegal inasmuch as they do number properly give effect to the decision of this Court in Ravi Varmas case supra .
1846 of 1968 Union of India and others Versus S. Ganapati Kini and others and 3 No.
Presumably, these promoted Inspectors are the 77 persons impleaded as respondents 5 to 81 in the petition before us.
are aware, under the orders companytained in Ministry of Home Affairs O.M. No.
The dates of their entry into the senior grade also extend from 29 3 1965, in the case of M. S. Ahluwalia, to 22 11 1971, in the cases of P. L. Sharma and R. L. Kapania.
although, the petitioner is a A. and shown as appointed on 15 12 1948, and Narinder Singh, the Inspector next in order of seniority, who was only a Matriculate, appointed subsequently on 7 2 1949, was companyfirmed retrospectively with effect from 1 7 1953, that is to say, two years earlier than the petitioner.
As a result of the judgment, the question whether, and if so, to what extent the seniority of persons appointed on a regular basis prior to 22 12 1959, which had been determined according to the O.M. of 22 6 1949 or office Memorandum number 65/ 28/49 DGS Apptts , dated the 3rd February, 1950, No.
The petitioner points out that, despite these different dates of companyfirmation of Inspectors, so that juniors were sometimes companyfirmed earlier , they retained their seniorities in accordance with the Office Memorandum of 22 6 1949 which made the length of service the only material companysideration for purposes of seniority.
D Government of India Cabinet Secretariat, Department of Personnel, New Delhi, dated the 22nd July, 1972.
463/71.
L. Singhvi, S. K. Mehta and M. Qamaruddin, for the petitioners In W.P. No.
The Writ Petition of K. N. Kapur and 14 others dated 20 10 1973 was filed on 22 10 1973.
Each of them, on similar facts, relies upon the law laid down by this Court, in Union of India v. M. Ravi Varma Ors.
The whole mischief, according to the petitioners, resulted from misplacing of the names of the petitioners, after the 1959 memorandum, in the seniority list of 1961, which ignored the companyrect or applicable principle for preparation of the senio rity lists according to the memorandum of 1949.
The petitioners asked for the quashing of office memorandum dated 22 7 1972 prepared by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the office memoranda dated 16 3 1973 and 17 3 1973 prepared in the Ministry of Finance.
9/11/55 RPS.,
The result was that Government servants, who ought to have been placed below the petitioner have been, it, is asserted, promoted as Superintendents of Central Excise in the years 1970 to 1971.
dated 12 12 1959.
463/71 and respondents Nos.
1 Assertions id the petition of Amrit Lal Berry illustrate the nature of the cases of all the petitioners.
On 22 6 1949, the Ministry of Homo 1 1972 2 S.C.R. 992.
The, petitioner companytends that office Memorandum, dated 22 7 1972 was baud on a wrong interpretation of the law laid down by this Court inasmuch as, while determining the seniority of the petitioner according to the 1949 rule, it does number award companysequential benefits which would have been reaped by the petitioner in the past, if the seniority rule, laid down in the 1949 memorandum, had been followed in the past.
463 of 1971 2004 of 1973.
2004/73 N. Phadke and M. N. Shroff, for respondents In W.P. No.
They companyplain of violation of Article 16 of the Constitution on the ground that they were illegally discriminated against by the respondents inasmuch as they were number companyfirmed and then promoted when they ought to have been.
regarding general principles for determining seniority of various categories of persons employed in Central Services As the Ministry of Finance etc.
2004 of 1973 have applied to this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petitions Nos.
The petitioner also companyplained that, owing to the illegally prepared seniority list, he had been given the grade of a Senior Inspector only on 8 12 1967 and number with effect from 21 3 1961 as it ought to have been done.
463 of 1971 and N. Kapur 14 others in Writ Petition No.
The petitioner asserts that, in accordance with this principle, he was companyrectly assigned his seniority in the list issued in 1958 after the petitionerhad been companyfirmed in a permanent post under an order dated 5 5 1956 with effect from 1 7 1955.
The petitioner gave a list of twelve juniors who have been so promoted because, according to him, the impugned seniority list of 1 7 1967 illegally put them above the petitioner.
The seniority list companyplained of was, however, stated to be, the one prepared in 1961.
All Union Territory Governments Administrations.
1 4 In W.P. No.
But, after the Office Memorandum dated 22 12 1959, the rule applied was altered in the Excise Department.
Amrit Lal Berry was appointed Inspector in the Central Excise Collectorate at Delhi, by orders dated 22 11 1948, and, on 4 12 1948, was posted at Forozepur.
K. Mehta and M. Qamaruddin, for the petitioners In P. No.
They assert that if, according to the appli cable rule, they had been assigned their companyrect places in the seniority lists, as laid down in the Office Memorandum dated 22 6 1949, prepared by the Ministry of Home Affairs, they would have been duly promoted.
New seniority lists were prepared in which seniorities were determined from the dates of companyfirmation.
2004/73 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG, J. Amrit Lal Berry in Writ Petition No.
Petitions under Art.
32 of the Constitution of India.
An extract from the order shows that,.
The petitioner, therefore, came to this Court seeking relief against what he describes as the impugned list which, according to paragraph 8 of his petition is dated 1 7 1967 Annexure 7 to his petition , and to allegedly illegal promotion of juniors without setting out the names or dates of promotions of all those so promoted.
Institute of Secretariat Training and Management, New Delhi.
He has annexed companyies of representations dated 6 3 1965, and, 13 8 1971, to which, according to him, numberreplies were given.
31/223/50DGS dated the 27th April, 1951, or No.
There is, however, a difference in age shown between the two inasmuch as the date of birth of the petitioner is given as 5 4 1925 whereas that of Narinder Singh is shown as 24 7 1911.
1845 of 1968 Union of India and others Versus M. Ravi Varma and others , No.
Amrit Lal Berrys petition to this Court was filed on 9 12 1971.
50 of 1969 Union of India and others Versus Suresh Kumar and others .
N. Kapur and 14 others also give the dates of their appointments as Inspectors ranging from 15 5 1944 in the case of K. N. Kapur to 19 1 1950 in the case of Ravinderlal.
