- (1.) Applications for interventions are allowed.
(2.) Contempt Petition (C) No. 121 of 1999 is filed contending that the directions given in Union of India v. Madras Telephones SC and ST Social Welfare Assn. dated 13-2-1997 have not been implemented by the Government of India.
(3.) It is, however, the contention of another group of officers that the abovesaid judgment whose implementation is being sought in the contempt case was rendered by a two-Judge Bench of this Court without noticing the four other judgments of this Court, which accepted the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 20-2-1985 and which took a view contrary to the judgment of this Court dated 13-2-1997. These are (1) Union of India v. P. N. Lal dated 8-4-1996 rendered by a two-Judge Bench accepting as correct "on merits" ajudgment of the Allahabad High Court in P. N. Lal v. Union of India in WPs (C) Nos. 2739 of 1992 and 3652 of 1981 dated 20-2-1985; (2) judgment in Union of India v. Daljit Kumar , dated 6-1-1992, rendered by a Bench consisting of two Hon'ble Judges in an appeal against a judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi, which followed the judgment of the Allahabad High Court; (3) judgment dated 18-9-1992 in Junior Telecom Officers Forum v. Union of India and (4) judgment dated 13-5-1994 in Telecommunication Engg. Service Assn. (India) v. Union of India. In all these four judgments dated 8-4-1996, 6-1-1992, 18-9-1992 and 13-5-1994 mentioned above, four different Benches consisting of two learned Judges each, accepted the view of the Allahabad High Court above-mentioned. Thus there are two contradictory views of this Court.;