J U D G M E N T
C.K. THAKKER, J.
1. The present appeal is filed by the
Union of India & Ors. against the judgment and
order passed by the High Court of Delhi on
January 30, 2002 in Civil Writ Petition No.
6281 of 1999. By the said judgment, the High
Court confirmed the judgment and order dated
April 30, 1999 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Delhi (‘CAT’ for
short) in Original Application No. 2146 of
1998.
2. To appreciate the issue raised in the
present appeal, few relevant facts may be
noted.
3. The respondents herein (applicants
before CAT) filed Original Application against
the action of the Central Excise and Customs
Department of not considering their cases for
promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk
(‘UDC’ for short) from the post of Lower
Division Clerk (‘LDC’ for short). According to
the applicants, they joined service in the
Office of Central Board of Excise and Customs,
Department of Revenue as LDCs. Applicant No.1
Deo Narain joined as LDC on June 11, 1962 (sic
1982). Applicant No. 2 Bijender Singh joined on
September 9, 1986. Applicant No. 3-Nandan Singh
joined on May 5, 1988 whereas applicant No.4-
Ram Kishan joined on March 17, 1987. In
accordance with the policy of InterCollectorate Transfers, they got themselves
2
transferred to Meerut Collectorate. Consequent
upon their transfer, they lost their seniority
which they were having in the parent Department
i.e. the Department where they were serving.
They were placed at the bottom of the seniority
list in the new Department at Meerut under the
relevant rules and policy decisions. In view of
their relatively lower position in the combined
seniority list of LDCs, the applicants and
other similarly placed LDCs in the seniority
list, did not come within the zone of
consideration for promotion to the post of
Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in the year 1997-98.
Hence, when the Departmental Promotion
Committee (DPC) met for consideration of cases
for promotion of LDCs as UDCs, in the light of
position of the applicants in the combined
seniority list, they were not included in the
zone of consideration. Their cases, therefore,
were not considered.
4. The applicants, hence, approached the
CAT by filing Original Application challenging
3
the action of their non-consideration and nonpromotion from the post of LDC to the post of
UDC on the ground of their placement in the
seniority list. They contended that they had
completed requisite service as LDC and their
cases, therefore, ought to have been considered
by DPC. Non consideration of their service on
the basis of their position in combined
seniority list was illegal, arbitrary and
irrational. A relief was, therefore, sought to
direct the authorities to consider the cases of
the applicants for promotion to the post of UDC
from the post of LDC.
5. The CAT, vide its order dated April
13, 1999 allowed the application, directed the
authorities to convene DPC for the year 1997
and consider the cases of the applicants as
eligible LDCs for promotion to the post of UDC
in accordance with law by taking into account
their past regular service rendered as LDCs
before their transfer to Commissionerate,
Meerut. It also directed to take such action
4
within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of the copy of the order.
6. The appellants herein, being aggrieved
by the said order, approached the High Court by
filing a writ petition which as stated above,
came to be dismissed by the High Court holding
that there was no ‘merit’ in the petition and
the order passed and direction issued by the
CAT could not be said to be illegal or contrary
to law.
7. The above orders are challenged by the
authorities in the present appeal.
8. On May 6, 2003, the Special Leave
Petition was placed for admission hearing.
Notice was issued. On September 22, 2003, delay
was condoned and leave was granted. By an order
passed by a Bench headed by the Hon’ble the
Chief Justice of India, the appeal was ordered
to be placed for final hearing in summer
vacation and that is how the matter has been
placed before us.
5
9. We have heard learned counsel for the
parties.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants
strenuously contended that the CAT as also the
High Court committed an error of law in
allowing the claim of the applicants and in
directing the authorities to consider their
cases for promotion to the post of UDC from the
post of LDC. According to the counsel, when the
applicants were transferred to another
Collectorate, they had foregone their
seniority. It was in accordance with the
Instructions issued by the Government of India.
It was expressly stated that in the new
Collectorate, where they were transferred, they
would be placed at the bottom of the seniority
list below all LDCs who were working at that
time. With open eyes, the applicants accepted
the said condition and joined the new
Collectorate at Meerut. It was thereafter not
open to the applicants to challenge the said
action. Again, there was gross delay and laches
6
on the part of applicants in challenging such
action. They were transferred in 1992. The
Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC)
considered the cases of LDCs for promotion as
UDCs in 1997. Till then, applicants did not
take any action. They filed Original
Application in September, 1998. Therefore, even
on the ground of delay, the CAT ought not to
have entertained the application and ought to
have dismissed it.
11. According to the counsel, even on
merits, the applicants had no case. According
to the counsel, what weighed with the CAT as
also the High Court was that in accordance with
law, past services of applicants could not be
ignored. The counsel submitted that, to that
extent, the applicants were right and the CAT
and the High Court had not committed any
mistake in treating applicants as eligible and
qualified for consideration to the post of UDC
from the post of LDC. According to the counsel,
however, the CAT and the High Court went wrong
7
in equating eligibility with seniority. Two
things, namely, (i) eligibility, and (ii)
seniority are quite different and distinct.
Even if an employee is eligible and qualified,
it does not necessarily mean that his case must
be considered irrespective of his position in
the seniority list. Fixation or retention of
seniority depends upon the provisions of the
Act, Rules or Administrative Instructions in
force. In the case on hand, it was provided
that on transfer from one Collectorate to
another Collectorate, such transferee employees
would retain their requisite service as
experience for the purpose of consideration of
eligibility and qualification. But it was
specifically stated that in the new
Directorate, they will be placed at the bottom
and below all existing LDCs. The counsel stated
that for considering cases of eligible LDCs as
UDCs, there is a zone of consideration and
keeping in view lower position of applicants
who were transferees, they did not come within
8
the said zone and hence their cases could not
be considered. The said action was, according
to the counsel, perfectly legal and wholly
justified and the CAT and the High Court were
wrong in granting relief to the applicants. The
order passed by the CAT and confirmed by the
High Court, therefore, deserves to be set
aside.
12. The learned counsel for the contesting
respondents, on the other hand, supported the
order passed by the CAT and confirmed by the
High Court. It was submitted that once it is
said that the transferee LDCs would not lose
their past service, necessary corollary would
be that they would be treated as appointed as
LDCs the date they joined service and
thereafter it was not open to the authorities
to ignore their claim on the ground that their
placement was at the bottom of the seniority
list of the Collectorate where they were
transferred and placed below other LDCs since
they had foregone their seniority. Such an
9
action, according to the counsel, is arbitrary,
irrational, discriminatory and violative under
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is
also unreasonable and infringing Article 19 of
the Constitution. The counsel also submitted
that when the applicants were otherwise
eligible and qualified, no power of relaxation
of eligibility could have been exercised by the
Government in favour of ineligible LDCs. The
CAT and the High Court were, therefore,
justified in granting the relief and no
interference is called for in exercise of
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of
the Constitution. A prayer is, therefore, made
to dismiss the appeal.
13. Having given our anxious consideration
to the rival contentions of the parties, in our
opinion, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
14. In exercise of powers conferred under
the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution,
the President of India framed rules regulating
the method of recruitment to Group C posts in
1
the Central Excise and Land Customs Department
known as “the Central Excise and Land Customs
Department Group C Posts Recruitment Rules,
1979”. Procedure of recruitment, age limit,
qualifications, relaxation, etc. have also been
laid down in the Rules. Appointment as Upper
Division Clerk (UDC) is to be made, inter
alia, on promotion from the post of Lower
Division Clerk (LDC) with seven years
experience.
15. ‘Note’ to the Rules reads as under:
“If a junior person is considered
for promotion on the basis of his
completing the prescribed qualifying
period of service in that grade, all
persons senior to him in the grade
shall also be considered for promotion
notwithstanding that they may not have
rendered the prescribed qualifying
period of service in that grade but
have completed successfully the
prescribed period of probation”.
16. The Rules also provide for
Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and
consideration of cases of eligible candidates.
1
17. By a communication dated May 20, 1980,
the Government of India, Central Board of
Excise and Customs informed all Collectors of
Central Excise for consideration of cases of
transferee employees. It was stated that
transfer of all Group ‘C’ officers from one
Collectorate to another Collectorate having
separate cadres were allowed on compassionate
ground with the approval of the Commissioner
subject to certain conditions. It was then
stated that requests received for interCollectorate transfers from Group ‘C’ officers
on genuine compassionate grounds can be
considered on merits. It was also expressly
provided that such transfers wherever
considered necessary, should be effected on the
conditions laid down in the said letter.
18. Condition (ii) which is relevant for
the purpose of present controversy, reads as
under:
(ii) The transferee will not be
entitled to count the service
1
rendered by him in the former
Collectorate for the purpose of
seniority in the new charge. In
other words, he will be treated
as a new entrant in the
Collectorate to which he is
transferred and will be placed
at the bottom of the list of the
temporary employees of the
concerned cadre in the new
charge. (emphasis supplied)
19. In para 3 it was stated;
“A written undertaking to abide by
the requisite terms and conditions may
be obtained from the employees seeking
transfers before the transfers are
actually effected”.
20. It is thus clear that as early as in
1980, a policy decision was taken by the
appellants that in certain circumstances, LDCs
could be transferred from one Collectorate to
another Collectorate purely on compassionate
grounds. But, it was also provided that such
transferee would not be entitled to count the
service rendered by him/her in the former
Collectorate for the purpose of seniority in
the new Collectorate. In other words, such
1
transferee would be treated as new entrant in
the Collectorate in which he/she is transferred
and will be placed at the bottom of the list of
temporary employees of the cadre in the new
charge.
21. From the above policy decision, it is
abundantly clear and there is no doubt
whatsoever that when any LDC working in one
Collectorate seeks transfer to another
Collectorate on compassionate ground, the said
action can only be taken on the terms and
conditions of the decision of the Government of
India, dated May 20, 1980. In that case, he/she
will not be entitled to get his/her service
rendered in the former Collectorate to be
counted for the purpose of seniority and will
be placed at the bottom of the list of
employees in the transferred Collectorate.
22. It is an admitted fact that in 1992,
the applicants got themselves transferred to
Meerut and they had, in consonance with the
1
policy decision of May 20, 1980, foregone their
seniority in the Collectorate where they were
working and were placed at the bottom of the
seniority list of the Meerut Collectorate where
they were transferred. In view of the above
fact and legal position, in our opinion, the
contention of the appellants that placement of
the respondents at the bottom of the seniority
list in the transferee Collectorate was legal
and valid is well founded and in consonance
with the decision of the Central Government.
There was no infirmity in the said order and it
ought not to have been disturbed.
23. The CAT, however, allowed the Original
Application relying upon a decision of this
Court in Union of India & Ors. v. C.N.
Ponnappan, (1996) 1 SCC 524. In Ponnappan, the
question before this Court was whether an
employee who was transferred from one Unit to
another Unit on compassionate ground and as a
result thereof has been placed at the bottom of
the seniority list, could have his service in
1
the earlier Unit from where he had been
transferred, counted as experience for the
purpose of promotion in the Unit where he was
transferred.
24. This Court noted that there was
cleavage of opinion amongst Benches of Central
Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on the question.
Whereas, the Madras Bench in C.N. Ponnappan v.
Union of India, (1987) 5 ATC 766 (Mad) had
taken the view that though on transfer on
compassionate grounds, the employee would lose
his seniority and would be placed at the bottom
of the seniority list at the transferred place,
for the purpose of promotion, his earlier
service in the Unit from where he was
transferred, would not be wiped out and the
said service would be treated as ‘experience’
for eligibility for promotion and if he is
found eligible, then his case for promotion has
to be considered on the basis of seniority ‘at
the transferred place’. [See also K.A.
1
Balasubramaniam v. Union of India, (1987) 4 ATC
805 (Mad) (FB)].
25. The Bangalore Bench of the CAT, on the
other hand, in S. Abdul Khayum v. Union of
India, (1987) 1 SLJ (CAT) 131 (Bang) did not
agree with the above view of Madras Bench and
held that an employee who was transferred on
compassionate ground and was placed at the
bottom of the seniority list at the place where
he was transferred, could not have his earlier
service at the place from where he was
transferred, counted as ‘experience’ for the
purpose of eligibility for promotion.
26. This Court considered conflicting
views and held that the service rendered by an
employee at one place could not be ignored or
not counted for the purpose of promotion to
another Unit even if such transfer is made on
compassionate ground. He can be placed at the
bottom of the seniority at the transferred
place, but the experience obtained by him of
rendering service in the first Department could
1
not be ignored and must be considered as
experience for promotion in the new Unit also.
27. In para 4, the Court stated;
“4. The service rendered by an
employee at the place from where he
was transferred on compassionate
grounds is regular service. It is no
different from the service rendered
at the place where he is
transferred. Both the periods are
taken into account for the purpose
of leave and retiral benefits. The
fact that as a result of transfer he
is placed at the bottom of the
seniority list at the place of
transfer does not wipe out his
service at the place from where he
was transferred. The said service,
being regular service in the grade,
has to taken into account as part of
his experience for the purpose of
eligibility for promotion and it
cannot be ignored only on the ground
that it was not rendered at the
place where he has been transferred.
In our opinion, the Tribunal has
rightly held that the service held
at the place from where the employee
has been transferred has to be
counted as experience for the
purpose of eligibility for promotion
at the place where he has been
transferred”. (emphasis supplied)
28. We are unable to understand how the
CAT read this judgment as giving benefit of
1
seniority to the transferred employee in the
transferee Department over the employees who
were very much there. In our considered
opinion, the direction in the judgment is
abundantly clear which draws distinction
between ‘experience’ on the one hand and
‘seniority’ on the other hand. What was held in
Ponnappan by this Court was that if an employee
is transferred from one Department to another
Department on compassionate ground, he would be
placed at the bottom of the seniority in the
transferee Department. Hence, at the time of
his transfer in the transferee Department, all
employees in the same cadre who were very much
serving at that time would be shown above such
transferee employee and in such combined
seniority list, the transferred employee would
be shown as junior most. The only thing which
this Court said and with respect, rightly is
that such employee who had already worked in a
particular cadre and gained experience, will
1
not lose past service and experience for the
purpose of considering eligibility when his
case comes up for consideration for further
promotion.
29. In our judgment, the ratio laid down
by this Court in Ponnappan clearly lays down
the principle formulated in the Government of
India’s letter dated May 20, 1980 as also in a
subsequent communication, dated May 23, 1997
issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department
of Revenue. Even otherwise, in our considered
opinion, the two concepts, viz. (i)
‘eligibility’ and (ii) ‘seniority’ are quite
distinct, different and independent of each
other. A person may be eligible, fit or
qualified to be considered for promotion. It
does not, however, necessarily mean that he
must be treated as having requisite ‘seniority’
for entry in the zone of consideration. Even if
he fulfils the first requirement, but does not
come within the zone of consideration in the
2
light of his position and placement in
‘seniority’ and the second conditions is not
fulfilled, he cannot claim consideration merely
on the basis of his eligibility or
qualification. It is only at the time when
‘seniority’ cases of other employees similarly
placed are considered that his case must also
be considered. The CAT, in our view, therefore,
was not right in applying Ponnappan and in
granting relief to the applicants. There is no
doubt in our mind that it says to the contrary.
30. Our attention was also invited to Renu
Mullick (Smt) v. Union of India & Anr., (1994)
1 SCC 373. In Renu Mullick, the appellant was
appointed as LDC in Central Excise and Customs,
New Delhi on December 17, 1974. She was
promoted as UDC on May 10, 1985. Then, on her
own request, she was transferred to the Central
Excise Collectorate, Allahabad where she joined
on August 4, 1987. She gave an undertaking that
on unilateral transfer, her seniority may be
“fixed below the last temporary UDC in the
2
Allahabad Collectorate” i.e. she might be
“treated as a fresh entrant in the cadre of
UDC”, at Allahabad.
31. In 1991, she was initially promoted as
Inspector but later on reverted on the ground
that she did not fulfill the eligibility
conditions laid down in Rule 4 for the
recruitment which required experience of a
particular period. According to the Department,
since she was considered as fresh entrant, she
had not completed the requisite service and
having necessary experience and was, therefore,
not eligible for promotion to the post of
Inspector.
32. This Court held that the Department
was not right. According to the Court, even if
the employee sought unilateral transfer by
agreeing to be placed at the bottom of
seniority list in the transferee Department, it
would not wipe out the services rendered by
such employee. In other words, according to
this Court, an employee who is otherwise
2
eligible, would not become ineligible, merely
on the ground of voluntary or unilateral
transfer.
33. The Court stated;
“10. We are of the view that the
Tribunal fell into patent error in
dismissing the application of the
appellant. A bare reading of para 2
(ii) of the executive instructions
dated May 20, 1980 shows that the
transferee is not entitled to count
the service rendered by him/her in the
former collectorate for the purpose of
seniority in the new charge. The later
part of that para cannot be read
differently. The transferee is to be
treated as a new entrant in the
collectorate to which he is
transferred for the purpose of
seniority. It means that the appellant
would come up for consideration for
promotion as per her turn in the
seniority list in the transferee unit
and only if she has put in two years’
service in the category of UDC. But
when she is so considered, her past
service in the previous collectorate
cannot be ignored for the purposes of
determining her eligibility as per
Rule 4 aforesaid. Her seniority in the
previous collectorate is taken away
for the purpose of counting her
seniority in the new charge but that
has no relevance for judging her
eligibility for promotion under Rule 4
which is a statutory rule. The
eligibility for promotion has to be,
determined with reference to Rule 4
alone, which prescribes the criteria
2
for eligibility. There is no other way
of reading the instructions
aforementioned. If the instructions
are read the way the Tribunal has
done, it may be open to challenge on
the ground of arbitrariness.
11. The provisions of the rules
reproduced above lay down that a UDC
with five years service or UDC with
thirteen years of total service as UDC
and LDC taken together subject to the
condition that he should have put in a
minimum of two years of service in the
grade of UDC, is eligible to be
considered for promotion to the post
of Inspector. The rule nowhere lays
down than five years or thirteen years
have to be spent in one collectorate.
There is no indication, whatsoever, in
the rule that the service period of
five years and thirteen years is not
applicable to an officer who has been
transferred from one collectorate to
another on his own request. On the
plain language of the rule the
appellant, having served the
department for more than five years as
UDC and also having completed thirteen
years composite service as UDC and LDC
including two years minimum service as
UDC, was eligible to be considered for
promotion to the post of Inspector.
The Tribunal failed to appreciate the
elementary rules of interpretation and
fell into patent error in non-suiting
the appellant”.
34. In our opinion, Renu Mullick also
supports the view which we are inclined to
2
take, namely, that an employee who is
transferred to other Collectorate does not lose
his/her past service for the purpose of
considering his/her eligibility. But, if such
transfer is voluntary or unilateral on
condition that he/she will be placed at the
bottom of the seniority list in the transferee
Department, the said condition would bind
him/her and he/she cannot claim seniority over
the employees in the transferee Department.
35. Finally, in Scientific Advisor to
Raksha Mantri & Anr. v. V.M. Joseph, (1998) 5
SCC 305, again, a similar view has been taken
by this Court. It was held that if the
eligibility condition requires certain length
of service, service rendered in another
organization before unilateral transfer at own
request cannot be counted for the purpose of
seniority. But it must be counted for
determining eligibility for promotion.
36. Referring to and relying on Ponnappan,
this Court stated;
2
“From the facts set out above, it
will be seen that promotion was denied
to the respondent on the post of
Senior Store Keeper on the ground that
he had completed three years of
regular service as Store keeper on 7th
June, 1980 and therefore, he could not
be promoted earlier than 1980. In
coming to this conclusion, the
appellants excluded the period of
service rendered by the respondent in
the Central Ordnance Depot, Pune, as a
Store Keeper for the period from 27th
April, 1971 to 6th June, 1977. The
appellants contended that, since the
respondent had been transferred on
compassionate ground, on his own
request to the post of Store Keeper at
Cochin and was placed at the bottom of
the Seniority list, the period of
three years of regular service can be
treated to commence only from the date
on which he was transferred to Cochin.
This is obviously fallacious inasmuch
as the respondent had already acquired
the status of a permanent employee at
Pune where he had rendered more than
three years of service as a Store
Keeper. Even if an employee is
transferred at his own request, from
one place to another, on the same
post, the period of service rendered
by him at the earlier place where he
held a permanent post and had acquired
permanent status, cannot be excluded
from consideration for determining his
eligibility for promotion, though he
may have been placed at the bottom of
the seniority list at the transferred
place. Eligibility for promotion
cannot be confused with seniority as
2
they are two different and distinct
factors”. (emphasis supplied)
37. The CAT in para 4 of the judgment,
observed as under;
“4. The respondents in their reply
have submitted that the applicants
have been transferred from other
departments to the Central Excise,
Commissionerate, Meerut on Inter
Department transfer basis in 1992.
They have relied on their Ministry’s
instructions dated 20.5.1980 and have
submitted that the applicants have
lost their seniority in the parent
department in the grade of their inter
departmental transfer from other
Commissionerates to the Central
Excise, Commissionerate, Meerut and
have been placed at the bottom of the
seniority list of the LDCs of Combined
Central Excise Commissionerate,
Kanpur/Allahabad/Meerut. They have
stated that the applicants have worked
as LDCs between four to eight years
prior to joining in Meerut
Commissionerate. As they are placed at
bottom in the Seniority list of LDCs
they have submitted that the
applicants have no claim over and
above the officials senior to them and
they will be duly considered as and
when their turn comes for promotion as
per their seniority in the combined
cadre of Allahabad/Kanpur/Meerut
Commissionerate”.
38. The CAT then concluded;
2
“In the result, this application
is allowed with the directions to the
respondents to convene review DPC for
the year 1997, and consider the
eligible LDCs for promotion to the
post of UDCs in accordance with the
principles laid down by the Supreme
Court by taking into consideration the
period of their past regular service
rendered as LDCs before their transfer
to another Commissionerate. In the
circumstances, any relaxation of the
Rules to consider the senior persons
who do not have the eligibility
conditions of seven years as laid down
in the relevant recruitment Rules
cannot be resorted to by the
respondents when there are sufficient
number of other persons who may be
junior but, however, fulfill the
eligibility conditions prescribed in
the Rules. This action shall be taken
within three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. No
order as to costs”.
39. As already discussed hereinabove, in
our opinion, the CAT was not right in allowing
the application and issuing directions to the
Department.
40. When the appellants herein approached
the High Court, the High Court observed;
“The fact of the matter is not in
dispute. In the year 1992, the
respondents joined the offices of the
petitioners as lower division clerks
2
on different dates in 1992 on interdepartmental transfers. Admittedly, in
terms of the existent rules,
consequent upon their transfer, they
had foregone their respective
seniority in their departments and
they were placed at the bottom of the
seniority list. On or about 23rd May
1997, the Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue issued
instructions to all Commissionrates
under the Central Board of Excise and
Customs that an officer on transfer
form one Commissionerate to another
would be entitled to get the benefit
of his past service for the purpose of
promotion although his seniority shall
be retained at the bottom of the
transferred Commissionerate”.
(emphasis supplied)
41. Referring to Renu Mullick, the High
Court observed that “it is not in dispute that
the persons on voluntary transfer, would lose
their seniority but the same by itself would
not mean that their entire past service is
wiped off. For the purpose of consideration of
their cases for promotion, their past service
is required to be taken into consideration”.
42. We are in agreement with the High
Court. Renu Mullick and other cases referred to
2
by us, clearly lay down the above proposition
of law that even if the transfer is voluntary
and unilateral, services rendered by an
employee would not be wiped off for considering
eligibility for promotion to the higher cadre.
43. The High Court then proceeded to
observe that there was no bar in considering
the cases of the applicants for promotion. The
Court observed that though there were LDCs who
were senior to the applicants but they were not
eligible to be appointed as UDCs and hence, the
applicants were entitled to be considered for
promotional post of UDCs.
44. In our considered opinion, there the
High Court was not right. The statutory rules
referred to above, empower the Central
Government to relax the provisions of the
Rules. In exercise of the said power under Rule
7 of the Rules, the Central Government relaxed
eligibility condition. Such action, therefore,
cannot be held illegal or unlawful and could
not have been interfered with by the CAT or by
3
the High Court. Moreover, the applicants opted
for voluntary and unilateral transfer foregoing
their seniority and joined Meerut Collectorate
with open eyes and were placed below all LDCs
who were serving in the said Collectorate. It
was, therefore, not open to them to make
grievance if LDCs shown above them in the
seniority list are considered for promotion to
the cadre of LDC. Thus, neither law nor equity
supports the so-called claim of the applicants.
45. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal
is allowed. The order passed by the CAT on
April 13, 1999 in O.A. No. 2146 of 1998 titled
Deo Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. and
confirmed by the High Court on January 30, 2002
in C.W.P. No. 6281 of 1999 titled Union of
India v. Deo Narain & Ors. is set aside and the
original application filed by the applicantsrespondents herein is ordered to be dismissed.
46. On the facts and in the circumstances
of the case, however, there shall be no order
as to costs.
3
47. Ordered accordingly.
……………………………………………………………J.
(C.K. THAKKER)
NEW DELHI, ……………………………………………………………J.
SEPTEMBER 15, 2008. (LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA)
3