UNION OF INDIA Vs. SARAT CHANDRA RATHO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ-petition has been filed on behalf of the Union of India and some of the authorities of the Central Board of Excise and Customs assailing the judgment and order dated 2nd May, 2008 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in O.A. No. 360 of 2002 and M. A. No. 427 of 2007.

(2.) The respondent nos. 1 to 6 herein filed the aforesaid application being O.A. No. 360 of 2002 before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench challenging the order dated 20th September, 2001 passed by the petitioner no. 5 herein. The respondents/applicants were all working as Preventive Officers in the Customs Department. The next promotional post of the Preventive Officers is either Superintendent or Appraiser. The respondents/applicants herein were promoted as Appraisers on ad-hoc basis during the year 1985-1987. The services of the respondents/applications were governed by the recruitment Rules of 1961 which were replaced by the subsequent 1988 Rules wherein a revised method of recruitment was prescribed for the post of appraiser. The avenue of promotion from the post of Preventive Officers in terms of 1961 of recruitment Rules was to the post of Superintendent of Customs or to the post of appraiser. However in terms of 1988 Rules, method of recruitment to the post of appraiser was revised. In terms of the said 1988 Rules 50% quota was fixed for the direct recruits and balance 50% for the promotees. On the basis of the 1988 Rules applicants/respondents were asked to submit option for promotion as Appraisers which the respondents/applicants refused on the ground that they were already holding the post of appraiser in accordance with 1961 Rules. The respondents/applicants also submitted before the authorities concerned that in terms of 1961 Rules they should be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner in normal course. The authorities concerned however, did not prepare any gradation list of seniority for the Appraisers. On the question of seniority and regularisation of services several Customs Officers who were promoted to the post of Appraisers like the respondents/applicants herein on adhoc basis also filed several applications before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench. The applicants/respondents also moved an application before the Calcutta Bench of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal.

(3.) The Calcutta Bench of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal disposed of the application on 7th November, 1991 by directing the authorities concerned to hold a review DPC in order to regularise the respondents/applicants in the cadre of appraiser. The authorities concerned namely, the petitioners herein filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon ble Supreme Court and the Hon ble Supreme Court dismissed the said Special Leave Petition. The Bombay Bench of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal also decided the similar applications filed on behalf of the ad-hoc Appraisers like the respondents/applicants herein and finally disposed of the applications being O.A. 360 of 1990 and other similar cases by the judgment and order dated 18th July, 1991 whereby the Customs Authorities were directed to regularise the services of the ad-hoc Appraisers from the date of their continuous working in the post of appraiser after selection by DPC. The aforesaid order was challenged before the Hon ble Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition and the said Special Leave Petition was thereafter dismissed by the Supreme Court on merits by the judgment and order dated 10th February, 1992. The authorities concerned thereafter filed a review application before the Supreme Court which was dismissed on 11th August, 1992.