OA No. 22/2010. Case: 1. J. T. Sulaxan Rao S/o Late J. Thimothy, 2. Subhash Chandra Mishra S/o Late Ram Mishra Vs 1. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, 2. Member Secretary, Law Commission of India, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi, 3. Secretary, Ministry of Personnel and Training, Public Grievances and Pensions, North Block, New Delhi, 4. M. K. Sharma, Additional Legal Adviser, Department of Legal Affairs, New Delhi, 5. Ashok Kumar, Additional Legal Adviser, Department of Legal Affairs, 6. D. Bhardwaj, Additional Legal Adviser, Department of Legal Affairs, 7. J. B. Singh, Additional Legal Adviser, Department of Legal Affairs, 8. Suresh Chandra, Additional Legal Adviser, Department of Legal Affairs, 9. R. S. Shukla, Additional Legal Adviser, Department of Legal Affairs. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | OA No. 22/2010 |
| Judges | V. K. Bali (Chairman) & Dr. R. C. Panda (Accountant Member) |
| Issue | Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 |
| Judgement Date | July 15, 2011 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Judgment:
V. K. Bali (Chairman), (Principal Bench New Delhi)
1. There were three cadres in Ministry of Law of the Government of India being cadres of Legal Adviser Service, Law Officer Service and Government Advocate Service. These were merged vide orders dated 21.03.2003 and appropriate rules were framed in that regard. On merger of cadres, the seniority was to be determined according to the instructions issued by the Department of Personnel & Training.
2. The applicants, it appears, were aggrieved by the rules by which the seniority of the three merged cadres was to be determined. A provisional consolidated seniority list was issued on 02.05.2003 which placed the incumbents of Law Commission en-block below the ILS Officers. When the representation for casting seniority as per the stand of applicants brought no tangible results, they filed OA No. 450/2006 in this Tribunal. One Mr. S.N. Terdal filed a separate Original Application bearing OA No. 1609/2006. Both these OAs came to be disposed of vide a common order dated 17.04.2007 by issuing some directions, which we would mention hereinafter.
3. Pursuant to directions issued by the Tribunal, the respondents have passed orders dated 27.09.2007, vide which the entire issue has been reconsidered and the three cadres as mentioned above have been de-merged by which status quo ante as prevalent before the order of merger has been maintained. The same very applicants, who had filed OA No.450/2006, have filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking to quash the said order and consequential notification that came into being on 10.05.2008. What can be gathered from the pleadings made in the OA and the reliefs asked for by the applicants is that they seek a direction to be issued to the respondents to continue with merger of three cadres but they would want their seniority to be worked out as they prayed for in the OAs referred to above.
4. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, respondents have entered appearance and contested the cause of the applicants.
5. The applicants have made voluminous pleadings but what can be culled out from the same, as mentioned above, is that they want merger of three cadres but would want the seniority of the officers of the three cadres to be worked out in a way as they desired in earlier OAs. The Tribunal while disposing of earlier two OAs recorded a lengthy order taking into account various aspects of the case. We may reproduce paragraph nos. 109 and 110 of the Tribunal's order, which read as follows:-
109. We are not to suggest ways and means to the Government but as we have been made aware that ILS cadre has requested for de-merger, it is at the wisdom of the Government on reconsideration of the entire issue to take steps, which are in consonance with law and not averse to the rights and interests of their employees, irrespective of the cadre. We are also aware that subsequent to merger without reckoning the past service of merged category, certain promotions have been ordered, which are impugned along with seniority list but as we are sending back these matters to the Government for reconsideration in the light of observations made by us, we would not like to disturb these accrued benefits to the employees, which may be subject to the final decision taken by the Government. Our paramount consideration is to impress upon the Government to resolve this dispute, genesis of which is the creation of the Government.
110. In the result, both these OAs are disposed of with a direction to the official respondents to re-examine the entire matter in right perspective and in the context of the grievance raised by the erstwhile incumbents of Law Commission, Government Advocates of Central Agency and ILS cadre and thereupon, keeping in view our observations, take a conscious decision to redress the grievances of applicants and private respondents as well. The aforesaid exercise shall culminate into a final decision taken through a well-reasoned speaking order to be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
6. Against the orders passed by the Tribunal, S.N. Terdal filed writ petitions bearing WP(C) Nos. 4598/2007 & 4241/2008. The Government, in the meanwhile, passed the order dated 27.09.2007, which is impugned in the present OA. While disposing of the writ petitions aforesaid, High Court observed that the Tribunal while disposing of the OA had directed the official respondents to re-examine the entire matter in the right perspective and in the context of the grievance raised by the erstwhile incumbents of the Law Commission, Government Advocates of the Central Agency as well as the Legal Advisors of the Indian Legal Service keeping in view the observations made by the Tribunal, and it would appear that one of the reasons that weighed with the Tribunal in giving this direction was that during the pendency of the OA a representation was made by the Legal Advisors of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial