Service Law – Seniority – As and when the question of fixing the seniority is examined by the State Government the persons who are likely to be affected be heard.
Citations : 2003 (1) JKJ 391 : (2009) 4 SCC 544
ICL 2003 (2) SC 427
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Shivaraj V. Patil & Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
C.A. No. 6138 of 2001; 26 February, 2003
Mansoor Ahmed And Ors. v. State of J&K And Ors.
For Appellant (s) In C.A.: Dr. Krishan Singh Chauhan, Adv. In Cont.Pet.: Dr. Rajiv Dhavan, Sr.Adv. Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh, Adv. Mr. Chandra Prakash, Adv. Mr. Ravi Prakash, Adv. For Respondent (s) Dr. Rajiv Dhavan, Sr.Adv. Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh, Adv. Mr. Chandra Prakash, Adv. Mr. Ravi Prakash, Adv. Mr. Anis Suhrawardy, Adv.
J U D G M E N T
1. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and after perusal of the impugned judgment keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any good reason or valid ground to disturb the impugned judgment. In the impugned judgment following two directions are given while answering the questions referred to in the context of the facts and contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties before the High Court. Those directions read.
“(i) The direct recruits i.e. the petitioners are entitled to claim notional seniority with affect from the date the other direct recruits came to be appointed. This question is answered in favour of the direct recruits.
(ii) That in view of the position of law noticed above the seniority of the petitioners is to be fixed, while fixing so, the persons who are likely to be affected even though not party to this petition can be heard by the State Government. The State Government after taking note of the points of view which they would like to put across will re-fix the seniority. No direction is given at this stage to fix the seniority over and above such and such persons. As and when the question of fixing the seniority is examined by the State Government the persons who are likely to be affected be heard. This question is again answered in favour of the direct recruits.”
2. We are informed that the directions given in the impugned judgment have not yet been complied with by the State Government, although a time frame was set in the impugned judgment. We think, it is appropriate to direct the State Government to comply with the directions given in the impugned, Judgment, within three months from today. We direct accordingly. In complying with these directions the State Government shall hear the concerned parties as indicated in direction No.2, their points of view supported by the decisions of this Court, if any. We are also told that contempt proceedings are initiated by the aggrieved parties. In the light of the directions we have given above, the contempt proceedings need not be pursued. Hence, the contempt proceedings are dropped. We are also told that there have been some promotions during this period and some of the officers have also retired from service. We do not say anything on this aspect. It is for the state Government to examine all the aspects while considering direction No. 2 given in the impunged judgement.
3. We also make it clear that till the directions contained in the impunged judgment are complied with, no regular promotions shall be made.
4. The appeals are accordingly disposed of in the above terms.