Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Another vs Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and Others

M.M. Kumar, J.—This judgment shall dispose of a bunch of petitions, which are directed against similar orders passed by the Chandigarh

Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity, ''the Tribunal''). The facts, however, are being taken from the order dated 26.5.2009,

passed in TA No. 47/PB/09 (CWP No. 13898 of 2007). Before the Tribunal, the claim made by the original applicant-respondent was that they

have been members of the Telegraph Engineering Service Class II before enforcement of Telegraph Engineering Service (Class II) Recruitment

Rules, 1966 (for brevity, ''the 1966 Rules''). There used to be a cadre known as ''Engineering Supervisor Telecom'', which was later on re-

designated as ''Junior Engineer'' and promotion from the aforesaid cadre used to be made to the post of ''Assistant Engineer'' in accordance with

Paragraph 206 of the P&T Manual Volume-VI. In the absence of statutory rules, the executive instructions used to govern promotion and other

exigencies of service concerning Assistant Engineers. Those who had passed the qualifying examination earlier were to rank senior as a group to

those who passed the examination on subsequent occasions. Their inter se seniority, however, used to be determined according to their seniority in

the cadre of Engineering Supervisor @ Junior Engineer.

The whole controversy was set in motion when a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court rendered a judgment in the case of Parmanand Lal

and Brij Mohan v. Union of India (WP Nos. 2739 and 3652 of 1981, decided by the Lucknow Bench on 20.2.1985). The claim made by

Parmanand and his associates in the aforesaid petition was that he had been wrongly placed in the eligibility list below the last person who passed

the qualifying examination in the year 1975, whereas he had qualified the examination held in the year 1974. The writ petition was allowed by the

Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court holding that those who qualified the departmental examination earlier were entitled to be promoted

prior to those who qualified it later irrespective of their inter se seniority in the cadre of Engineering Supervisor @ Junior Engineer. The Division

Bench further held that there was no conflict between Paragraph 206 of the P&T Manual either with the 1966 Rules or any other rules. Against the

aforesaid Division Bench judgment, SLP Nos. 2284-86 of 1986 (Union of India and others v. Parmanand Lal and others) was dismissed by

Hon''ble the Supreme Court on 8.4.1986 and accordingly the view of the Allahabad High Court attained finality.

The Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal allowed O.A. No. 1416/PB/1991, titled as Nand Lal Jaswal v. Union of India, which was filed by the

original applicant-respondents in terms of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court. Those directions have attained finality. Accordingly, they

were informed vide order dated 22.3.1993 that their seniority was being revised as per Paragraph 206 of the P&T Manual to implement the

judgment of the Allahabad High Court and various Tribunals.

It is pertinent to mention here that a contrary view was taken by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Madras Tele

S.C. and S.T. Social Welfare Association, , [for brevity, ''2000 Madras case (supra)'']. However, in para 17 of the judgment, Hon''ble the

Supreme Court clarified that although the view taken in Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan (supra) by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court

was not sustainable in the eyes of law but the persons who have already got benefit like Parmanand and Brij Mohan by virtue of judgments in their

favour were not to suffer and their promotion already made was to remain un-affected by the later judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court

rendered in 2000 Madras case (supra).

It is a conceded fact that the respondents had already been promoted in the year 1993. After a long period they were informed vide order

dated 19.3.2007 by the petitioner-BSNL that the benefit of the judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in 2002000 Madras case (supra) was to

be given only to those persons who were applicants in the Interlocutory Application No. 16 in the aforesaid appeals before the Supreme Court

and not to others. Thus, the petitioner-BSNL did not protect their promotion and seniority, which was revised while implementing the judgment of

Allahabad High Court as protected by Hon''ble the Supreme Court.

Feeling aggrieved, they firstly approached this Court and when notification was issued conferring jurisdiction on the Tribunal in respect of

matters relating to the petitioner-BSNL then the writ petition was transferred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the grievance of the

applicant-respondents and noted that they had earlier filed O.A. No. 1416/PB/1991 before the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal, which was

decided on 9.9.1998 and the Tribunal had held that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Telecommunication Engineering Service

Association (Regd.) versus Union of India 1994 Supp (2) SCC 222, took the view that the judgment in Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan (supra)

had attained finality. It would be pertinent to notice para 6 of the judgment, which reads as under:

So far as the first point is concerned, it appears that the interventionists filed parallel proceedings through Junior Telecom Officer''s Forum v.

Union of India and this Court (J.S. Verma and Anand, JJ) in an elaborate judgment took the same view as that of the Allahabad High Court

noticed by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in the aforesaid case of Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan which has become final and has been upheld

by this Court on merits. It is thus not necessary to dwell on the first question decided by the Principal Bench any further.

Accordingly, the Tribunal disposed of the controversy and opined that the department had complied with the decision of the Supreme Court

holding that the issue was no longer res Integra. The decision of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Telecommunication Engineering Service

Association''s case (supra) was implemented and acted upon, as a consequence, the Tribunal dismissed the original application as infructuous. The

Tribunal observed that Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the 2000 Madras case (supra) had protected those promotions which had already been

made before the date of that judgment. The Tribunal appears to have followed the directions issued by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in para 17 of

the judgment, which reads as under:-

......In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 4339 of 1995 has rightly

been decided in interpreting the relevant provisions of the Recruitment Rules read with the procedure prescribed under the memorandum dated

28.6.1966. We, however, make it clear that the persons who have already got the benefit like Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan by virtue of the

judgments in their favour, will not suffer and their promotion already made will not be affected by this judgment of ours.

As the applicant-respondents were promoted in the year 1993, the petitioner-BSNL was not permitted to take shelter of a newly invented

devise, namely, unless you are a party to Interlocutory Application No. 16, the applicant-respondents were not protected. The Tribunal rejected

the aforesaid stand and concluded in para 9 as under:-

A large number of Junior Telecom Officers similarly placed had filed similar applications and the Supreme Court by an order dated 14.5.1993

stayed all the proceedings in the courts till their decision. The decision of the Supreme Court was handed down on 13.5.1994 in SLP No. 16698

of 1992 reported as Telecommunication Engineering Service Association (India) and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, and since

then the Department has complied with the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter.

The issue in this case is no longer at large and it has been decided upon and implemented. In these circumstances, the present Original Application

is dismissed as infructuous.

Mr. Anil Rathee, learned counsel for the petitioner-BSNL has sought to re-open the issue on the basis of primacy of Rules over Paragraph-206

of the P&T Manual. In that regard he has drawn our attention to the order passed by Hon''ble the Supreme Court while dismissing the Special

Leave Petition, which was directed against the judgment in Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan (Parmanand supra). Learned counsel has emphasised

that the SLP was dismissed in the facts and circumstances of that case and no general principle of law was laid down. The aforesaid order dated

8.4.1996 dismissing the SLP of the petitioner-BSNL against the Division Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in Parmanand Lal and Brij

Mohan (Parmanand supra) is available on record (R-4). Learned counsel then pointed out that the judgment in Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan

(supra), in any case has been overruled in the 2000 Madras case (supra) and, therefore, no benefit could be derived from the judgment in

Parmanand Lal''s case (supra) and the applicant-respondents were erroneously promoted in the year 1993. He has also relied upon various

observations made in the judgment in 2000 Madras case (supra) to reiterate their stand and argued that this judgment put the proposition of law

beyond any reasonable doubt that the seniority of telegraph Engineering Service Class II has to be determined not on the basis of the date of

passing the examination as was provided in Paragraph-206 of the P&T Manual but in accordance with the 1966 Rules.

It has been further pointed out that the benefits granted under the judgment rendered in Telecommunication Engineering Service Association''s

case (supra) were freezed upto 13.2.1997 after the 2000 Madras case (supra), which has been clarified by the later judgments. Learned counsel

argued that the beneficiary of the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan could only be taken by those

who were parties to the litigation because the aforesaid judgment of Allahabad High Court had attained finality on account of dismissal of SLP on

8.4.1986.

Reliance has also been placed on the observations made in paras 14 and 18 of the judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court rendered in Union

of India (UOI) Vs. Madras Telephone SC and ST Social Welfare Association, [for brevity, ''2006 Madras case (supra)'']. According to learned

counsel, in order to secure benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of Junior Telecom Officers Forum versus Union of India 1993 Supp (4)

SCC 693, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, that there should be an order either by the Tribunal or High Court or by Hon''ble the Supreme

Court and that the aforesaid order should have been implemented by giving promotion and seniority to such officer. It is only in the aforesaid

circumstances that the benefit given before 13.2.1997 could remain intact. In that regard reliance has been made on the observations made by

Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the contempt proceedings in the case of Promotee Telecom Engineers Forum and Others Vs. D.S. Mathur,

Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, However, learned counsel has conceded on facts that the benefit of a Division Bench judgment of

Allahabad High Court was given by the petitioner-BSNL to a large number of persons, who may also be included in the list of respondents from

15 to 482. It is also not disputed that some of the private respondents had filed OA No. 1416/PB/1991 before the Chandigarh Bench of the

Tribunal. On account of the pendency of some matter before Hon''ble the Supreme Court the proceedings had been stayed and eventually on

9.9.1998 (R-2), an order was passed by the Tribunal observing as under:-

A large number of Junior Telecom Officers similarly placed had filed similar applications and the Supreme Court by an order dated 14.05.1993

stayed all the proceedings in the Courts till their decision. The decision of the Supreme Court was handed down on 13.5.1994 in SLP No. 16698

of 1992 reported as Telecommunication Engineering Service Association (India) and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, and since

then the Department has complied with the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter.

The issue in this case is no longer at large and it has been decided upon and implemented. In these circumstances, the present Original

Application is dismissed as infructuous.

The aforesaid order having been passed on 9.9.1998, according to the learned counsel, would not enure to the benefit of the private

respondents because all the benefits should have been conferred on or before 13.2.1997.

The other argument raised by Mr. Rathee, learned counsel for the petitioner-BSNL, is that necessary parties have not been impleaded and the

original application was filed beyond the period of limitation of one year as contemplated by Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.

Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the added respondents, has supported the arguments of Mr. Anil Rathee to the extent that only 6

persons are entitled to the benefits of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, who had succeeded in litigation before the Tribunal, High Court

or Hon''ble the Supreme Court and those order stand implemented. According to learned counsel, the added respondents constitute an exclusive

class comprising of about 45 persons. They had succeeded by virtue of the Division Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court rendered in the case

of Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan Parmanand Lal (supra). Learned counsel has maintained that when the judgment in the contempt matter titled as

Promotee Telecom Engineers Forum''s case (Promotee supra) was delivered, the issue of seniority was reopened asserting that seniority cannot be

fixed in accordance with Paragraph-206 of the P&T Manual but it has to be determined in accordance with the Recruitment Rules, which were

framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Accordingly, their names in the provisional seniority list were proposed to be placed

below their juniors, namely, Bilani, Biradar and Kulkarni. In order to avoid any finalisation of seniority by pushing them down to the aforesaid

persons, CP No. 210 of 2001 was filed before Hon''ble the Supreme Court, which was withdrawn with liberty to file appropriate proceedings.

Thereafter, OA No. 1914 of 2001 was filed before the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal and the same was dismissed in 2002. The order passed by the

Delhi Bench of the Tribunal was challenged before the Delhi High Court in WP (C) No. 7399 of 2002, which was dismissed with the observation

that they have to move Hon''ble the Supreme Court. Accordingly, SLP No. 9189 of 2002 was filed, which again stood withdrawn by them with

permission to file interlocutory application. As a result they eventually filed I.A. No. 16 in Civil Appeal No. 4339 of 1995, which resulted in the

judgment rendered in the 2006 Madras case (supra). Placing reliance on paragraphs 14, 15, 17 and 19, learned counsel has argued that the

benefit of the order passed in Junior Telecom Officers Forum''s case (supra) and the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Parmanand Lal

and Brij Mohan''s case (supra), could only be granted to added respondents, which constitute an exclusive separate class. Mr. Bhardwaj has also

submitted that despite filing of interlocutory application and clear directions, the benefit of the same was not granted, which resulted in filing CP

No. 248 of 2007, reported as Promotee Telecom Engineers Forum''s case (supra). In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on

paras 15, 17, 18 and 19, proving that added respondents are not to be shown junior to Sarvshri Bilani, Birader and Kulkarni. According to the

learned counsel, no one else could be put over and above added respondents. They are, in fact, under the protected umbrella of the order of

Hon''ble the Supreme Court. Learned counsel has maintained that in 16 cases, no O.A. has been preferred by the private respondents and O.A.

No. 1416/PB/1991 was filed only by six persons and, therefore, they are not entitled to claim the benefit of the judgment rendered by a Division

Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan (supra) or any other subsequent judgments because there was no

order passed in those 16 cases by the Court i.e. Tribunal, High Court or Hon''ble the Supreme Court. In support of his submissions, learned

counsel has placed reliance on an unreported judgment of Madras High Court rendered by a learned Single Judge in WP Nos. 6420 to 34430 of

2007, which have taken the view that only those who have successfully filed litigation upto 13.2.1997 were entitled to the benefit. Learned counsel

has maintained that the private respondents were neither successful litigant before any Court of law nor they were beneficiary of order dated

22.3.1993 (Annexure P-1 with CWP No. 13898 of 2007). Learned counsel has submitted that they must be governed by the Recruitment Rules

framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution as has been held by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in 2006 Madras case (supra).

Mr. Rajshekhar Rao and Mr. Animesh Sharma appearing for respondent Nos. 36 to 512 (in CWP No. 14817 of 2009) raised various

submissions. The first argument raised by them is that the question concerning seniority of the Telegraph Engineering Service is no longer res integra

and the writ petition filed by the petitioner-BSNL is wholly misconceived. According to the learned counsel the pivotal issue emerges for

consideration is whether the respondents could secure the benefit of seniority, which has been fixed in 1993 in accordance with the judgment

rendered by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Parmanand Lal an Parmanand and Brij Mohan (supra), although they may

not have any judgment or direction in their favour by any Court or Tribunal. They have argued that the issue has been settled by the observations

made by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in 2000 Madras case (supra). In that regard reliance has been placed on paras 17, 18 and 19. In support of

their submission learned counsel have also argued that the issue has been clarified even in subsequent judgment rendered in the 2006 Madras case

(supra) while disposing of I.A. No. 16 in C.A. No. 4339 of 1995. The aforesaid application was filed by the so called ''Exclusive Club of 45

Telegraph Engineers'', who in the present proceedings are represented by Mr. Bhardwaj. In that regard reliance has been placed on paras 18 to

22 of that judgment. The aforesaid principles have also been reiterated and the contention of the petitioner-BSNL has been negated subsequently

in Promotee Telecom Engineers Forum''s case (supra). The contention of the petitioner-BSNL has been rejected when it was argued that the

benefit of the judgment in Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan (supra) was restricted only to those who were parties to particular petitions. In that

regard specific reliance has been made on the observations made in paras 15 and 16.

Another submission advanced by the learned counsel for the promotee respondents is that the seniority and promotion ordered in their favour

in the year 1993, in pursuance to the Division Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan (supra),

cannot be snatched and adversely affected by the later decision rendered by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in 2000 Madras case (supra) and 2006

Madras case (supra). Therefore, their inter se seniority vis-a-vis the Exclusive Club of 45 Telegraph Engineers must be fixed after giving them the

benefit of the Division Bench judgment rendered in the case of Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan (supra). The benefit has enured to them in the year

1993 in pursuance of order dated 28.2.1992 passed by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal. According to them the aforesaid facts are clearly

reflected in the various seniority lists. As a corollary of the aforesaid argument, a reference to the undertaking dated 27.2.1992 filed by the

Department of Telecommunication (DoT) before the Principal Bench of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has highlighted that the anomaly in the seniority

of the Telecommunication Engineering Service Group B has arisen on account of implementation of the decision in respect of limited number of

Telecommunication Engineering Service Group B officers who have gone to the Tribunal in respect of implementation of the entire order instead of

its implementation to the entire cadre of Telecommunication Engineering Service. It has been further submitted that the Supreme Court had upheld

the decision passed by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal. The DoT in its undertaking had stated before the Tribunal that the proposal to revise

the seniority of entire cadre of Telecommunication Engineering Service Group B officers in accordance with Paragraph- 206 of the P&T Manual

was under consideration of the department and it was likely to take some time as the total cadre exceeded 10000. It was on account of the

aforesaid undertaking that a number of respondents did not initiate any proceeding either in the Tribunal or the High Court or before the Supreme

Court, especially when their seniority was fixed as per the principles laid down in the Division Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court rendered

in the case of Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan (supra) on the basis of the undertaking given by the petitioner-BSNL. Accordingly, it is claimed that

the respondents fulfilled all the conditions laid down in various judgments, namely, that there is order dated 28.2.1992 passed by the Principal

Bench of the Tribunal on the basis of undertaking dated 27.2.1992 and the observations made by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in that regard in the

case of Telecommunication Engineering Service Association (Regd.) [supra]. The Hon''ble Supreme Court had directed circulation of a copy to

the Principal Bench as well as other Courts dealing with this matter on original side with a purpose. Even the second condition stands fulfilled as

promotion and seniority was given to them in the year 1993, which cannot now be claimed to be erroneously given.

The last submission made by the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 36 to 512 is that SLP filed by the Union of India against the

order passed by Kerala High Court granting benefit of seniority as per the judgment rendered in the case of Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan

(supra), based on the observations made in 2000 Madras case (supra) and 2006 Madras case (supra 2006 supra), was dismissed. The

submission made is that the contention raised by the Exclusive Club of 45 Telegraph Engineers along with the petitioner-BSNL was rejected by the

Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the cases of T.N. Peethambaran v. Union of India [W.P. (C) No. 3807 of 2005, decided on

7.11.2008] and Union of India v. P.J. Sangry [W.P. (C) No. 31992 of 2009, decided on 28.6.2010]. Against the Division Bench judgment of

Kerala High Court rendered in the case of T.N. Peethambaran (supra), SLP (Civil) CC Nos. 1467-1468 of 2010, filed by the Union of India,

was dismissed on 4.10.2010. Even against the later Division Bench judgment rendered in the case of P.J. Sangry (supra), SLP (Civil) CC No.

8779 of 2011, filed by the Union of India, was dismissed on 7.7.2011 by Hon''ble the Supreme Court.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and perusing the various paper books with their able assistance we are of

the view that these petitions do not merit admission and are, thus, liable to be dismissed. Mr. Rathee, learned counsel for the petitioner-BSNL and

Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, who is representing the Exclusive Club of 45 Telegraph Engineers, have conceded that the respondents were given

promotions way back in the year 1993. The question which survive for consideration would be whether promotions already given way back in

1993 could be reopened on the basis of a subsequent judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court rendered 17 years later in 2000. The answer

appears to be ''No''. The aforesaid issue in any case is no longer res integra as the conflict between the observations made in the judgment dated

18.9.1992 rendered in the case of Junior Telecom Officers Forum''s case (supra), as affirmed later in Telecommunication Engineering Service

Association (Regd.) [supra Telecommunication supra] and Union of India versus Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

Social Welfare Association, (1997) 10 SCC 226 , has been duly resolved by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in 2000

Madras case (supra). In paras 17, 18 and 19 it has been observed as follows:-

......In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment of this Court in Civil appeal No. 4339 of 1995 has rightly

been decided in interpreting the relevant provisions of the Recruitment Rules read with the procedure prescribed under the memorandum dated

28.06.1966. We however make it clear that the persons who have already got the benefit like Paramanand Lal and Brij Mohan by virtue of the

judgments in their favour, will not suffer and their promotion already made will not be affected by this judgment of ours.

Since Departmental Authorities had not implemented the decision of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 4339 of 1995 for which a Contempt

Petition had been filed, having regard to the circumstances under which the Departmental Authorities entertained bona fide difficulties, it would not

be proper to proceed against the authorities under the contempt and the contempt proceedings accordingly are dropped. We would, however

direct the Departmental Authorities to proceed in accordance with law and in accordance with the observations made by us in this Judgment and

promotions may be made within a period of six months from the datmay date of this judgment....

......We have also indicated that the promotions already effected pursuant to the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which was upheld by

this Court by dismissing the SLP filed by the Union of India will not be altered in any manner......

(emphasis added)

A perusal of the aforesaid paras would, thus, make it clear that the persons who have already got the benefit like Parmanand Lal and Brij

Mohan, by virtue of the judgment in their favour, were not to suffer and their promotion already made was to remain un-affected. In para 19 it has

been categorically observed that promotion already effected pursuance to the judgment of the Allahabad High Court as upheld by Hon''ble the

Supreme Court was not to be altered in any manner. It is worthwhile to notice that while disposing of I.A. No. 16 in Civil Appeal No. 4339 of

1995 in 2006 Madras case (supra), it has been clarified by Hon''ble the Supreme Court and the same principle has been reiterated in paras 18,

19, 20, 21 and 22, which reads as under:-

The question then arises as to whether the applicants can claim the protection of their seniority and consequent promotion on the basis of

observations and the clarification contained in the judgment of this Court reported in Union of India Vs. Madras Tele S.C. and S.T. Social Welfare

Association, Having considered all aspects of the matter we are satisfied that those whose cases stand on the same footing as that of Parmanand

Lal cannot now be adversely affected by re-determination of their seniority to their disadvantage determination disadvantage relying on the later

judgment of this Court in Union of India versus Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Social Welfare Association, (1997)

10 SCC 226 as affirmed by this Court in its judgment reported in Union of India Vs. Madras Tele S.C. and S.T. Social Welfare Association,

We, therefore, direct that such of the applicants whose seniority had been determined by the competent authority, and who had been given

benefit of seniority and promotion pursuant to the orders passed by Courts or Tribunals following the principles laid down by the Allahabad High

Court and approved by this Court, which orders have since attained finality, cannot be reverted with retrospective effect. The determination of

their seniority and the consequent promotion having attained finality, the principles laid down in later judgments will not adversely affect their cases.

This Court has clearly clarified the position in its aforesaid judgment. The observations made by this Court while disposing of the appeal of

Parmanand Lal are also pertinent. This Court clearly laid down the principle that the seniority fixed on the basis of the directions of this Court

which had attained finality is not liable to be altered by virtue of a different interpretation being given for fixation of seniority by different benches of

Tribunal. Consequently, the promotions already effected on the basis of seniority determined in accordance with the principles laid down in the

judgment of the Allahabad High Court cannot be altered.

Having regard to the above observations and clarification we have no doubt that such of the applicants whose claim to seniority and

consequent promotion on the basis of the principles laid down in the Allahabad High Court''s judgment in Parmanand Lal case have been upheld or

recognized by Court or Tribunal by judgment and order which have attained finality will not be adversely affected by the contrary view now taken

in the judgment Madras Telephones Union of India versus Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Social Welfare

Association, (1997) 10 SCC 226 Since the rights of such applicants were determined in a duly constituted proceeding, which determination has

attained finality, a subsequent judgment of a Court or Tribunal taking a contrary view will not adversely affect the applicants in whose cases the

orders have attained finality. We order accordingly.

Before parting with this judgment we may observe that we have not laid down any principle or law having universal application. We have only

clarified and given effect to an earlier judgment of this Court rendered in an extraordinary situation.

(emphasis by us)

It is further pertinent to notice the observations made by Hon''ble the Supreme Court when a contempt petition was filed and the contention of

the petitioner-BSNL was rejected that the benefit of the aforesaid decision was restricted only to those who were parties to the litigation before the

Courts. The aforesaid observations have been made in paras 15 and 16 of the judgment rendered in the case of Promotee Telecom Engineers

Forum (supra) and reads as under:-

......From this counter it is clear that in spite from of the fact that the petitioners'' seniority was finally decided in Parmanand Lal case and the

petitioners'' claims were also accented by the various courts which verdicts had become final, yet the respondent has moved on the basis of later

judgment of this Court dated 26.4.2000 Union of India Vs. Madras Tele S.C. and S.T. Social Welfare Association, interpreting it in its own

manner. The interpretation which has been put forward by the Government is that the advantage of the judgment was available only to those

employees who were parties to that particular petition.

It is obvious that a completely wrong view has been taken by the Government. It was specifically held by this Court in its order dated

28.9.2006 Union of India (UOI) Vs. Madras Telephone SC and ST Social Welfare Association, that such of the employees, whose claims for the

seniority on the basis of the qualifying year had become final because of the orders of the courts, should not be disturbed on account of its

subsequent judgment dated 26.4.2000 Union of India Vs. Madras Tele S.C. and S.T. Social Welfare Association,

(emphasis supplied)

The question whether respondent Nos. 36 to 512 (in CWP No. 14817 of 2009) could be regarded to have filed any petition either before the

Tribunal, High Court or before Hon''ble the Supreme Court needs to examined in a different perspective. It is true that many of them did not initiate

any independent proceedings but such a necessity was obviated because on 28.2.1992 the Principal Bench of the Tribunal took note of the

undertaking dated 27.2.1992 filed by the DoT stating, inter alia, that ""The anomaly in seniority of TES Group B has arisen of (as?) a consequence

of implementation of the decision of CAT Principal Bench, New Delhi dated 07.06.1991... in respect of the petitions in the said OAs which in

other words is implementation of the sai implementation said decision in respect of limited No. of TES, Group B Officers who have gone to

Hon''ble Tribunal instead of its implementation to the entire order of TES Group B."" and that therefore, in view of the ""Supreme Court decision

upholding the decision of Principal Bench, the proposal to revise the seniority of entire TES Group B officers as per para 206 of P&T Manual Vol.

IV is under consideration of the Deptt. since the cadre of TES, Group B exceeds 10000, the entire exercise of collecting/compiling/organisation

the information is likely to take at least six months time. The exercise has already been initiated. The names of petitioners would be accordingly

placed, in TES, Group B seniority list and thereafter would be considered for further promotion according to revised list in accordance with rules,

availability of vacancies and on the basis of recommendations of DPC."" In view of the said undertaking of the DoT, the Principal Bench of the

Tribunal in its order dated 28.2.1992. While approving the aforesaid observations Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of Telecommunication

Engineering Service Association (Regd.) [supra], has concluded as under :-

It is clear from what we have extracted above that the respondents have taken a firm decision to give effect to the principle laid down by the

decision of the Tribunal which decision stands affirmed by the Supreme Court, by reviewing the promotions of everyone who is similarly situated

and not confining it only to those who approached the court for relief. They have conceded that they made a mistake in limiting their attention in the

matter of giving deemed dates of promotion only to those who obtained orders from the Tribunal and ignoring the cases of others similarly situated

only because they had not secured similar orders from the Tribunal. Now they have realized that once the principle has been laid down by the

Tribunal which is of general application, it is their duty to make a comprehensive review in respect of every one who is similarly situated whether all

of them have obtained orders from the Tribunal or not. The attitude now taken which is reflected in what we have extracted above is correct. That

is the only way of satisfactorily give effect to the principle laid down by the Tribunal in various cases, including those enforcement of which has

been sought in these contempt of court petitions. The respondents have stated that though steps have been initiated having regard to the fact that

they have to review the cases of nearly ten thousand persons, the exercise is likely to take about six months'' time. They have further stated that

after the revised seniority list is prepared, according of further promotion on the basis of the revised seniority list and following the relevant rules

would be made on the basis of the recommendations of the DPC.

As right steps have not been taken, there should not be any need for other similarly situated to rush to the Tribunal for grant of relief as they

would all get relief by application of the same principle, whether or not they approached the Tribunal and secured orders in the approached their

favour...

... A copy of this order be also circulated to other courts in the principal bench dealing with other matters in which similar relief is claimed on the

original side.

(emphasis added)

It was in view of the aforesaid undertaking given to the Principal Bench of the Tribunal and as affirmed by Hon''ble the Supreme Court that no

room was left for the original-applicant or other respondents to file any individual petition. Moreover, their seniority stood determined in the year

1993 as is conceded by Mr. Rathee and Mr. Bhardwaj which in fact was in accordance with the undertaking given by the competent authority in

terms of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan (supra).

Accordingly, we are of the view that once original applicants and respondent Nos. 36 to 512 have been granted the benefit of seniority in

terms of the Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan (supra) in the year 1993 then

their case is squarely covered by the law laid down by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in both judgments of 2000 Madras case (supra) and 2006

Madras case (supra), holding that the respondents whose seniority had been determined by the competent authority pursuant to the orders passed

by the Courts or Tribunal, which have attained finality, was to remain unaffected by the aforesaid judgments. Therefore, it is no longer open to the

petitioner-BSNL or the Exclusive Club of 45 Telegraph Engineers to argue that the benefit must be confined to those who have moved individual

applications either before the Tribunal or have initiated proceedings in the High Court or before Hon''ble the Supreme Court. In fact, undertaking

has been given by the DoT to the Principal Bench of the Tribunal that those who have not filed the application before the Tribunal would be

deemed to be covered by the orders of the Court, which has been duly affirmed upto Hon''ble the Supreme Court, as already noticed above.

In any case, the principles laid down in both the judgments rendered in 2000 Madras case (supra 2000 supra) and 2006 Madras case (supra),

which have been further clarified in the case of Promotee Telecom Engineers Forum (supra), would necessarily enure to the benefit of Assistant

Engineers in accordance with the principle laid down in para 19 of the judgment in K.I. Shephard and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and

Others, . It is pertinent to notice that their Lordships'' of Hon''ble the Supreme Court has observed that merely because some of the employees did

not come to the Court would not provide any justification to penalise them for not having litigated and they were also held entitled to the same

benefit as persons who have already succeeded. The aforesaid principles have also been followed and applied by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in

the case of B.S.N.L. versus Ghanshyam Das (2011) 4 SCC 374.

We are also persuaded by the argument raised by the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 36 to 512 that the Division Bench of Kerala High

Court in the case of T.N. Peethambaran (supra) and P.J. Sangry (supra) had granted the benefit of seniority in accordance with the Division Bench

judgment of Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan (supra). Against the Division Bench judgments passed

in the case of Peethambaran (Peethambaran supra) and P.J. Sangry (supra), special leave petitions preferred by the Union of India have been

dismissed on 7.11.2008 and 28.6.2010 respectively. It is pertinent to notice that in the SLP filed in the case of T.N. Peethambaran (supra), vide

order dated 19.2.2010 their Lordships'' of Hon''ble the Supreme Court recorded that the Union of India had already implemented the judgment

dated 7.11.2008 passed by the Kerala High Court in T.N. Peethambaran''s case (supra). Copies of the orders dated 7.11.2008 passed by the

Kerala High Court in T.N. Peethambaran''s case (supra) and the order dated 19.2.2010 passed in SLP (C) CC Nos. 1467-1468 of 2010, are

taken on record as Mark ''X'' (Colly).

In view of the aforesaid discussion we have no hesitation in upholding the view taken by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petitions are

dismissed. The contentions which have been raised by the Exclusive Club of 45 Telegraph Engineers are also rejected. A photocopy of this

judgment be placed on the files of each of the connected cases.