Union of India and Others vs A. Mohan Rao

Bhawani Singh, J.

A. Mohan Rao (respondent) filed T.A. No. 322/86 claiming promotion as Supervisor "A" from the date of his appointment and to promote him to the post of Chargeman Grade I, after two years service therein with consequential benefits of seniority and pay, because he was Science Graduate. This application has been allowed by order dated 30-6-1987 (Annexure P/2). Thereafter, M.A. No. 24/1989 was filed by S.B. Chakraborty and others, seeking review of the order passed in TA No. 322/86. The review petition has been partly allowed and it is ordered that no arrears would be paid to A. Mohan Rao and similarly placed persons. It is further directed that the applicants in TA No. 322/86 would be entitled to be considered for further promotions. SLP No. 10477/87 against this order has been dismissed on 16-11-1988. The appellants implemented the judgement, result of which was that he was granted notional promotion from 23-3-1983 to the post of Foreman and salary fixed accordingly.

2-3. Thereafter, in implementation of the Apex Court decision in K.K.M. Nair and others vs. Union of India and others, 1993 Suppl. (2) SCC 506, the respondent (A. Mohan Rao) was reverted by order dated 21-1-1994 to the post of Assistant Foreman. Therefore, excess amount paid to him as Foreman was recovered from his gratuity, since he had superannuated by this time.

Consequently, the respondent (A. Mohan Rao) filed OA No. 95/96 challenging the order dated August 4, 1995, whereby his pay was refixed at Rs. 3275/- on reversion, against his pay Rs. 3500/- per month. He has also challenged the reversion by amending the original application. After considering the matter, the Tribunal holds that the case of the respondent (applicant in OA No. 95/96) is covered by the Full Bench decision of the CAT in H.S. Ramamoorthy and another vs. Union of India and others, 1995 (30) Administrative Tribunals Cases 341 holding that the dispute of the applicants, having been decided in a specific case, had become final between parties inter se, could not have been reopened and set at naught by a later judgment. Therefore, to implement the direction of the CAT in T.A. No. 322/86 read with direction in M.A. No. 24/89, which means, the amount deducted from the respondent is to be returned back.

Shri. S.C. Sharma, appearing for the appellants, has objection with regard to refund of amount recovered from the respondent and re-fixation of seniority on the basis of the Apex Court decision in K.K.M. Nair''s case (supra). Giving consideration to the whole matter, we are of the opinion that the direction of the CAT in T.A. No. 322/86 read with direction in M.A. No. 24/89 do not call for interference so far as the same allows the respondent future promotion to which he may be found entitled to. Further, no recovery shall be made from him, since he was promoted on the basis of judgment, which is final and worked against the post of Foreman. However, the seniority list framed on the basis of K.K.M. Nair''s case (supra) should not be changed, since it was framed after long long litigation, spreading over 20 years, involving 20,000 employees. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of in following terms:

(a) No recovery be made from the salary/retiral benefits of the respondent. The amount, if any recovered from his salary/retiral dues, be refunded to him within a month.

(b) Seniority list framed on the basis of K.K.M. Nair''s case (supra) be not disturbed/changed.

(c) Since the respondent has retired from service, the appellants will decide the reliefs available to him and release them within two months on the basis of last pay drawn as Foreman.