- (1.) In these two connected writ petitions (Writ Petitions Nos. 288 of 1971 and 522 of 1971) a common question of law and more or less similar facts are involved. In these circumstances both these petitions are being decided by one common judgment.
(2.) The grievance of the petitioners is that they have been discriminated in the matter of redeployment as a result of the scheme framed by the Government of India and their juniors who were not permanent were appointed as Income Tax Inspectors, but they were appointed only as Head Clerks in the same department with the result that their juniors may get higher promotion and they may not get the post of Income Tax Inspector as the first promotion post of Head Clerk is Supervisor and then Inspector and the temporary financial equality is of no consequence as ultimately financially they will be losers notwithstanding the grade on which they were posted in their parent department viz. the office of the Deputy Custodian, Ministry of Relief and Rehabilitation. Government of India, has been given to them on the post of Head Clerk. It is not disputed that the petitioners in both these cases were seniors to opposite parties 5, 6 and 7, S. C. Saxena, H. L. Monga and R. P.Agarwal, as the petitioners were holding the posts of Senior Accountans in substantive capacity, whereas the opposite parties were junior Accountants and merely officiating as senior Accountants.
(3.) In the year 1966 the Government of India framed a scheme for the disposal of personnel resulting in surplus due to improvements suggested by Department of Administrative Reforms or reduction in posts suggested by Staff Inspection Unit, Ministry of Finance and a copy of the said Scheme is annexed as Annexure No. 1 to Writ Petition No. 288 of 1971. The said Scheme visualised the transfer of all personnel identified as surplus, whether in Ministries or in field offices to a central pool to be operated by a special cell in the Ministry of Home Affairs. The special cell was charged with the responsibility for arranging the placement of such staff elsewhere against fresh needs, and has also been assigned to arrange for programmes of retaining the surplus staff in various scales. It was provided that the junior most staff shall surrender against a reduction in their cadre strength except only to the extent that senior persons opted to go over to the Cell's rolls in order to avail of the scheme of voluntary retirement or otherwise. While it was optional for senior persons to go over to the cell's rolls, there was no such option to junior persons and it were they who had to be surrendered first. Certain ban on various recruitments through normal channel was also placed for fulfilling the object of the scheme. 3A. Sub-para (iii) of para II, the reference to which has been made earlier, runs as follows: "(iii) The junior most temporary persons should be surrendered against reduced cadre strength followed if necessary by junior most quasi-permanent and then permanent staff. The rule of "junior most" should be insisted upon and the central cell in the Home Ministry would have authority to see to the strict and prompt observance of the . rule. There shall, however, be no bar to other persons higher in the seniority ladder volunteering for the purpose, particularly if they wish to avail of the voluntary retirement benefits which would be available in the central pool." As a result of this Scheme the said opposite parties 5. 6 and 7, S. C. Saxena H. L. Monga and R. P. Agarwal respectively, who were placed in the central cell were offered equivalent post one after another and given several opportunities to select their post on their own choice, but they did not accept the other post which was offered to them and accepted the offer of the post of Income Tax Inspector in the scale of Rs. 210-485. The petitioner's grievance in Writ Petition No. 288 of 1971 is that such offer was given to him, while the grievance of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 522 of 1971, is that no such offer whatsoever was given to him.;