Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

allowed

Attorney(S)
  • Ms Shyamla Pappu, Senior Advocate (Pramod Kr. Sharma, M.R Krishnamurthi, Ashok Kr. Mahajan, Advocates, with her) for the Appellants;
  • P.P Malhotra, Senior Advocate (Ashok Kr. Srivastava, L.K Gupta, B.V Balaram Das and S.N Terdal, Advocates, with him) for the Respondents.
Judges
  • Justice S.B. Majmudar
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

allowed

Attorney(S)
  • Ms Shyamla Pappu, Senior Advocate (Pramod Kr. Sharma, M.R Krishnamurthi, Ashok Kr. Mahajan, Advocates, with her) for the Appellants;
  • P.P Malhotra, Senior Advocate (Ashok Kr. Srivastava, L.K Gupta, B.V Balaram Das and S.N Terdal, Advocates, with him) for the Respondents.
Judges
  • Justice S.B. Majmudar
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The present matter stems from Original Application No. 625 of 1990 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay. The applicants—Data Processing Assistants in the Census Organisation—challenged Government of India order dated 2-7-1990 which: (i) redesignated them as “Data Entry Operators (Grade-B)” and (ii) placed them in the lower pay-scale of Rs 1350-2200 instead of the claimed revised scale of Rs 1600-2660.

Two groups of the original applicants pursued separate Special Leave Petitions (“SLPs”) before the Supreme Court:

  • SLP (C) No. 16646 of 1995 – Chandraprakash Madhavrao Dadwa & Others.
  • SLP (C) No. 19257 of 1995 – Kamlakar & Others (the present appellants).

SLP 16646/1995 was initially dismissed but was later restored through Review Petition No. 2096/1995 and finally allowed on 25-9-1998 (Chandraprakash Madhavrao Dadwa v. Union of India, (1998) 8 SCC 154), granting the appellants full relief.

SLP 19257/1995 was dismissed on 8-9-1995. Review Petition No. 2094/1995 against that dismissal was itself dismissed on 22-1-1997 without advertence to the subsequent allowance of Civil Appeal No. 16741/1995 (arising out of SLP 18948/1995) on 9-12-1996. The present Interlocutory Application No. 1 sought recall of the 22-1-1997 order. After RP 2096/1995 in the companion matter was allowed, the Court listed IA No. 1, recalled the earlier dismissal, restored SLP 19257/1995, granted leave, and proceeded to decide the appeal on merits.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the appellants in SLP (C) No. 19257 of 1995 are entitled to the same relief already granted in Chandraprakash Madhavrao Dadwa v. Union of India (1998) 8 SCC 154, i.e., restoration of their designation as Data Processing Assistants and the higher pay-scale of Rs 1600-2660.
  2. Whether any lawful distinction can be drawn between direct-recruit and promotee Data Processing Assistants for the purpose of extending identical service benefits within the same cadre.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants’ Arguments (Kamlakar & Others)

  • All petitioners in OA 625/1990 belong to a single cadre and performed identical duties; therefore, the relief granted in the Dadwa appeal must automatically extend to them.
  • The dismissal of their earlier review petition was based on a procedural oversight; equity and consistency require recall of that order.

Respondent’s Arguments (Union of India)

  • Some appellants in the present appeal are promotees, unlike the entirely direct-recruit appellants in the Dadwa matter; this distinction warrants denial of relief to promotees.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Chandraprakash Madhavrao Dadwa v. Union of India, (1998) 8 SCC 154 Employees originally designated as Data Processing Assistants are entitled to retain that designation and the higher corresponding pay-scale; Government order dated 2-7-1990 was unsustainable. The Court treated the Dadwa ruling as controlling and held that the same benefits must be extended to the present appellants to avoid arbitrary differentiation within the same cadre.
Civil Appeal No. 16741 of 1995 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 18948 of 1995) decided on 9-12-1996 Set the precedent that led to restoration and allowance of RP 2096/1995 in the Dadwa matter. Its existence demonstrated that the earlier dismissal of RP 2094/1995 (22-1-1997) was rendered erroneous, justifying recall and restoration of SLP 19257/1995.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Justice M. Jagannadha Rao, writing for the Bench, adopted the following line of reasoning:

  1. Anomalous Treatment Identified: Because all applicants before the Tribunal formed one cadre and challenged the same government order, the Court found it anomalous that only the Dadwa group received relief while the Kamlakar group did not, due solely to procedural happenstance.
  2. Recall of Dismissal Order: The Court allowed Interlocutory Application No. 1, set aside the 22-1-1997 dismissal in Review Petition 2094/1995, and restored SLP 19257/1995 to rectify the anomaly.
  3. No Valid Distinction Between Promotees and Direct Recruits: Rejecting the Union’s contention, the Court held that once employees are integrated into a single cadre, “birth-marks” such as mode of entry lose relevance for pay and designation issues. Equal treatment within the cadre is mandated.
  4. Application of the Dadwa Precedent: After examining the records of both appeals, the Court found no lawful difference in factual or legal footing and concluded that the appellants deserved identical relief.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appeal is ALLOWED. The appellants are entitled to all benefits awarded in Chandraprakash Madhavrao Dadwa v. Union of India, including restoration of designation as Data Processing Assistants and placement in the higher pay-scale of Rs 1600-2660, with compliance directed within three months. No order as to costs.

Implications: The decision eliminates inconsistent treatment among members of the same cadre by extending the Dadwa relief to all similarly situated employees. It reinforces the principle that once integrated into a cadre, distinctions based on mode of recruitment cannot justify differential service benefits. The judgment does not announce a new legal rule but ensures uniform application of an existing precedent.

Show full summary ...

    Kamlakar And Others v. Union Of India And Others

    M. Jagannadha Rao, J.— This interlocutory application is filed for recalling the order dated 22-1-1997 passed in Review Petition No. 2094 of 1995 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19257 of 1995, in view of orders dated 3-3-1997 passed in Review Petition (Civil) No. 2096 of 1995 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16646 of 1995.

    2. This Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19257 of 1995 (by Kamlakar & Others) and Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16646 of 1995 (by Chandraprakash Madhavrao Dadwa & Others) were filed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay in OA No. 625 of 1990 dated 7-3-1995. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16646 of 1995 was dismissed on 1-9-1995 but later Review Petition No. 2096 of 1995 was filed therein. Notice was issued on 3-3-1997 and the review petition was allowed and the said case in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16646 of 1995 was, after leave being granted, also allowed on 25-9-1998 (Chandraprakash Madhavrao Dadwa v. Union of India (1998) 8 SCC 154). That review petition was allowed because of another Special Leave Petition No. 18948 of 1995 (later Civil Appeal No. 16741 of 1995 being allowed on 9-12-1996).

    3. But so far as the present Special Leave Petition No. 19257 of 1995 is concerned, it was dismissed on 8-9-1995 and Review Petition No. 2094 of 1995 was directed to be put up after disposal of Special Leave Petition No. 18948 of 1995. But unfortunately Review Petition No. 2094 of 1995 was dismissed on 22-1-1997 without noticing that Special Petition No. 18948 of 1995 (Civil Appeal No. 16741 of 1995) was allowed on 9-12-1996. Hence the present Interlocutory Application No. 1 was filed to recall the order dated 22-1-1997 in Review Petition No. 2094 of 1995. When Interlocutory Application No. 1 came up before the Court on 9-2-1998, it was directed to be tagged with RP (C) No. 2096 of 1995 in SLP (C) No. 16646 of 1995.

    4. We heard Review Petition No. 2096 of 1995 in SLP (Civil) No. 16646 of 1995 and allowed the review petition and the SLP after granting leave on 25-9-1998 as aforesaid and directed that IA No. 1 in SLP (C) No. 19257 of 1995 be listed before the appropriate Bench. It has finally been listed before us.

    5. Now that RP No. 2096 of 1995 has been allowed, the said SLP (C) No. 16646 of 1995 has been reopened and allowed on 25-9-1998 after leave being granted as Chandraprakash Madhavrao Dadwa case (1998) 8 SCC 154 the question of a decision in IA No. 1 in SLP (C) No. 19257 of 1995 has arisen.

    6. Now Chandraprakash Dadwa & Others, the petitioners in SLP No. 16646 of 1995 and Kamlakar & Others in this Special Leave Petition No. 19257 of 1995 before us filed the respective SLPs against the same order dated 7-3-1995 in OA No. 625 of 1990 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay. In fact, all of them were petitioners in the same OA and claimed relief in regard to the same impugned orders of the Union Government dated 2-7-1990 by which the Government changed the designation of the petitioners from Data Processing Assistants to Data Entry Operators (and gave them a particular scale) which according to them was reversion to an entry grade below that of Data Processing Assistants, namely, as Data Entry Operators Grade B. They also claimed that a lower scale of pay Rs 1350-2200 was given to them than what was to be given. They were in the scale of Rs 1200-2040 when OA No. 625 of 1990 was filed and they claimed that the revised scale of Rs 1600-2660 meant for Data Processing Assistants was to be given and not Rs 1350-2200. The grievance of all the petitioners in the OA was same. Now unfortunately while those who filed SLP No. 16646 of 1995 have got relief, the present petitioners who filed SLP No. 19257 of 1995 did not get relief so far.

    7. In this Interlocutory Application No. 1 and simultaneously in the SLP we have heard the counsel on both sides.

    8. In view of the anomalous situation that some petitioners in OA No. 625 of 1990 got relief while some others have been denied by this Court — even though all have been petitioners in the same OA before the Central Administrative Tribunal and belong to the same cadre of employees, we deem it fit to allow Interlocutory Application No. 1 and set aside the orders in Review Petition No. 2094 of 1995 and restore Special Leave Petition No. 19257 of 1995. We have also heard the arguments in the special leave petition on both sides.

    9. Leave granted.

    10. It is, at the outset, obvious that the appellants in the appeal, Kamlakar & Others are on the same footing as the appellants, Chandraprakash Dadwa & Others in Special Leave Petition No. 16646 of 1995 and that the same result must follow. That is what Ms Shyamla Pappu, counsel for the appellants contended for.

    11. Shri P.P Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel for the Union of India, however, contended that among the appellants some are direct recruits, (like those in Special Leave Petition No. 16646 of 1995) but some others in this appeal are promotees and that that is a point of some distinction. Therefore, the direct recruits may be given relief but not the promotees.

    12. We have considered the limited issue. We are of the view that all these appellants should get the same relief as the appellants in the civil appeal which arose out of Special Leave Petition No. 16646 of 1995. Once they were all in one cadre, the distinction between direct recruits and promotees disappears at any rate so far as equal treatment in the same cadre for payment of the pay scale given is concerned. The birthmarks have no relevance in this connection. If any distinction is made on the question of their right to the post of Data Processing Assistants they were holding and to its scale — which were matters common to all of them before the impugned order of the Government of India was passed on 2-7-1990, — then any distinction between Data Processing Assistants who were direct recruits and those who were promotees, is not permissible. We, therefore, reject the respondents' contention. We have examined the record and the common points arising in this case and those in civil appeal which arose out of Special Leave Petition No. 16646 of 1995 and we are unable to find any lawful distinction between the appellants and those in the other appeal which has been allowed.

    13. We accordingly declare that the appellants are entitled to all the benefits which we had granted to the appellants in the civil appeal which arose out of Special Leave Petition No. 16646 of 1995 as per our judgment dated 25-9-1998 reported in Chandraprakash Madhavrao Dadwa v. Union of India (1998) 8 SCC 154. We grant the same directions in this case also and direct compliance within 3 months from today. Appeal allowed. No order as to costs.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Kamlakar And Others v. Union Of India And Others
    (May 14, 1999)