- (1.) Special leave granted.
(2.) Heard counsel on both sides.
(3.) The appellant moved an application before the Principal bench of the central Administrative tribunal complaining that the tribunal's judgment in oa No. 1095 of 1987 dated 6/9/1991 has not been complied with. The tribunal in the aforesaid matter had given the following direction : "He shall also be considered for promotion as Assistant Sub-Inspector and Sub-Inspector from the date, his next junior was promoted. "thus, according to the aforesaid direction if the appellant was found fit for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector and Sub-Inspector he had to be promoted from the date his next junior was promoted. If so promoted, he would also be entitled to arrears of pay and allowances as well as pensionary benefits. Therefore, if the appellant was confirmed as head constable, the authorities had to consider whether or not he was fit for promotion to the next higher post and if yes, he was to be promoted from the date his junior was promoted. Now according to the Union of India while it considered the case of the appellant for promotion it did not give him the deemed date on the ground that if that was done the appellant would fly over his senior, Chandra Bhan. If that was going to be the effect of the implementation of the tribunal's judgment in OA No. 1095 of 1987 the proper course for the Union of India was to seek a modification of the judgment rather than refuse promotion from the date his junior was promoted as directed by the tribunal. It is another thing that in a given situation the tribunal may not deem it necessary to punish the authority concerned in contempt for non-compliance but if the tribunal's order has to be implemented in letter and spirit it would not be permissible for the respondent to place its own interpretation and say that it has not given a deemed date promotion because it will result in the appellant flying over the head of his senior. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the tribunal's judgment in contempt proceedings virtuallymodifies the judgment in OA No. 1095 of 1987 which was not permissible. The proper course for the Union of India was to move the tribunal in review pointing out its difficulty and seek modification of the order.;