Y. K. Sabharwal, J. ( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the impugned order dated 19/02/1998, passed by a learned Single Judge on application of with petitioners seekinginterim directions, pending the decision of their writ petition (C. W. 2047/97), thewrit petitioners are in appeal before us. ( 2 ) THE appellants are employees of respondent No. 1-Food Corporation ofindia (FCI ). The Writ Petition No. 2047/1997 was filed by them in May, 1997 seekingquashing of Zonal Seniority List dated 14/05/1996 for the post of Assistantmanager (General) [for short AM (G)] and also praying that the Zonal Seniority Listdated 12/03/1993 shall be continued and future promotions for the post ofdeputy Manager (General) made on the basis of Seniority List dated 12/03/1993. The main grievance, as set out in the writ petition, is that the FCI has by-passedand given a go-by to the service rules and regulations governing the serviceconditions of the Assistant Managers as also to the judgment dated 18/03/1983 passed by this Court in C. W. P. No. 1080/78, Deep Chand Gupta and Others v. FCI and Ors. The impugned seniority list is claimed to have the effect of nullifying thedecision of this Court in Deep Chand s case. The appellants claimed to have joinedfci as Steno Grade-II/ag-II by direct recruitment in the year 1969/70. They saythat 37 persons who had joined as AG-III/typist in 1967/68 in a grade lower thanthat of the petitioners were promoted as AC-II M in 1976/70 on ad hoc basis withoutfollowing the basic criteria for promotion i. e. three years service in Grade-III andthey were further promoted to next higher post of AG-I in 1971-72 again withoutfollowing the basic eligibility of three years service in Grade-11 and thus they notonly became equal to the petitioners but also got one further promotion in 1971-72. It is claimed that the said 37 persons were again promoted as AM (G) in 1976-77 i. e. one grade higher than that of petitioners. "these promotions led to persons similarlysituated as the writ petitioners filing in this Court Writ Petition No. 1080/78 withthe grievance that the persons juniors to the said writ petitioners became seniorsand promoted as AM (G) in the year 1976-77, while they remained in the post onegrade lower i. e. AG (1 ). The said writ petition was decided by this Court on 1 8/03/1983. The said writ petition was decided by this Court on 1 8/03/1983. According to the petitioners the decision restored to them their inter se seniority and the said petitioners were granted promotions as Assistant Manager (G) from 1976-77 because their juniors i. e. said 37 persons had been so promotedearlier by applying next below rule. It is claimed that under these circumstancesfrom 1976-77 the writ petitioners in C. W. P. No. 1080/78 and the present petitionersbecome senior to the said 37 persons. According to the appellants the impugned seniority list again makes their juniors, senior to them by violating the mandate of the decision in Deep Chand s case and deprives them seniority and service of about12 years as AM (G ). These in brief are the circumstances under which the appellants have sought quashing of the impugned seniority list dated 14/05/1996 and continuation of the seniority list dated 12/03/1993 for the post of AM (G ). ( 3 ) BY an ex-parte order dated 30/05/1997, a learned Single Judge issuedrule in the writ petition and on application (C. M. 489/97) seeking interimprotection, it was directed that the seniority list shall not be finalised without theleave of the Court. This application has now been disposed of by the impugnedorder dated 19/02/1998 and the ex-parte order dated 30/05/1997 hasbeen modified and the FCI has been granted liberty to make appointment andpromotion on the basis of the impugned seniority list. The impugned order alsorecords the statement of learned Counsel for the FCI that without prejudice to therights and contentions of the parties, the FCI was willing to keep three posts, inthe cadre of Deputy Manager, in reserve and in the event of petitioners succeedingthey would be appointed on those posts and the promotions made by FCI on thebasis of the impugned seniority list would be subject to the writ petition. Theimpugned order also notices that the claim of the writ petitioners for the posts evenhigher than that of Deputy Managers shall be considered at the time of decision ofthe writ petition and appropriate directions issued to FCI to fit the petitioners inthe proper posts. The writ petition was ordered to be posted for 17/08/1998. Theimpugned order also notices that the claim of the writ petitioners for the posts evenhigher than that of Deputy Managers shall be considered at the time of decision ofthe writ petition and appropriate directions issued to FCI to fit the petitioners inthe proper posts. The writ petition was ordered to be posted for 17/08/1998. ( 4 ) IN support of the contention that the impugned seniority list has the effectof depriving the appellants 12 years service and seniority as AM (G), learnedcounsel for the appellants has taken us through various documents and senioritylists prepared by FCI from time to time. It has been vehemently urged that in theimpugned seniority list, the appellants have been shown as AM (G) as panelist of1988 whereas they are AM (G) from 1976 and thus its effect is loss of 12 yearsseniority to the appellants. The appellants submit that on the basis of impugnedseniority list their juniors would be promoted to higher posts and the appellantswould stagnate as AM (G ). It is not in dispute that in the impugned seniority list ofam (G) the appellants have been shown as panelist of 1988. ( 5 ) RELIANCE has been placed by the appellants on the order dated 12th May,1995 issued by FCI, which inter alia, states that in pursuance of Judgment dated 12/02/1991 delivered in C. M. 2050/87 filed by Mr. K. B. Sobti (one of theappellants) and also in view of Civil Contempt Petition No. 325/94, it has beendecided in consultation with Zonal Legal Finance Division and with the approvalof Zonal Manager (North) to pay arrears to appellants 1 and 2 beside another fromthe date of their empanelment as. AM (G ). The date of empanelment of theseappellants as AM (G) in this office order is 27/10/1996. The order dated 1 2/02/1991 was passed by this Court since it was pleaded by the appellants thattheir case was similar to those who had been granted relief on account of Deepchand s decision in respect whereof contempt petition has also been filed. The orderdated 12/02/1991, directed that if it is found by FCI that the case of theappellants is similar to the case of the petitioners in Deep Chand s case, the samebenefit shall be granted to them as well as ordered in the contempt petition Reliancehas also been placed by the appellants to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of FCIby Mr. The orderdated 12/02/1991, directed that if it is found by FCI that the case of theappellants is similar to the case of the petitioners in Deep Chand s case, the samebenefit shall be granted to them as well as ordered in the contempt petition Reliancehas also been placed by the appellants to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of FCIby Mr. P. Ram, Zonal Manager (North ). In this affidavit it has been, inter aha, statedthat the order dated 12/02/1991 has been implemented by FCI both in letterand spirit and arrears of pay and allowances, etc. of the petitioners, from the dateof their empanelment for promotion to the posts of Assistant Manager have beenreleased and their acknowledgment in token of having received the same obtained. Learned Counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that thus theappellants having been granted every relief as AM (G) with effect from 1976 cannotnow be denied and deprived 12 years seniority by down grading them in theseniority list treating them as AM (G) panelists of the year 1988. C. C. P. 325/94 wasdisposed of on 10/01/1996. In the said order FCI was, however, told thatorders of this Court ought to have been complied with expeditiously and in futurethey shall keep it in their mind. Admittedly, the appellants have also been shownas seniors in the seniority list of AC-II dated 28/03/1984 and in the zonalseniority list of AM (G) dated 12/03/1993 and All India integrated senioritylist dated 21/08/1995 of the post of AM (G ). ( 6 ) THE claim of the appellants has been seriously refuted by FCI as also by theaffected employees. Dr. Singhvi appearing for FCI submits that the seniority listsdated 28/03/1984,12th March, 1993 and 21st 21/08/1995 were provisional. The seniority list dated 28/03/1994 does not appear to be provisional. Aperusal of this list priina facie shows that it was prepared in compliance with thedecision of Deep Chand s case. Dr. Singhvi has placed reliance on provisionalseniority list of AG-II dated 20th/ 23/03/1989, final seniority list of the saidposts dated 10/10/1990 and final seniority list of AG-I dated 30/04/1993wherein the appellants have been shown as junior. In reply to the seniority lists onwhich Dr. Singhvi has relied, the appellants have relied upon the three seniority listsreferred to above as also to the office order dated 12/05/1995 and the stand takenin the affidavit of Mr. In reply to the seniority lists onwhich Dr. Singhvi has relied, the appellants have relied upon the three seniority listsreferred to above as also to the office order dated 12/05/1995 and the stand takenin the affidavit of Mr. P. Ram dated 1/09/1995 and the order dated 10thjanuary, 1996 disposing of the C. C. P. According to all these documents theappellants are senior. The appellants have also placed reliance on the order dated 23/09/1997 passed in the writ petition which records submission of Dr. Singhvi that FCI will prepare the seniority list as per the judgment of this Court inthe case of Deep Chand Gupta. It is contended for the appellants that what was doneafter this order was only to add further names including that of the appellants tothe impugned seniority list dated 14/05/1996. The seniority list dated 2 4/10/1997 prepared after giving statement recorded in the order dated 2 3/09/1997, it is not in dispute, proceeds on the same basis as the seniority listdated 14/05/1996. Thus insofar as the position of the appellants in this senioritylist is concerned on principle, there is no difference between the two lists dated 1 4/05/1996 and 24/10/1997. Admittedly, in these lists the appellants have beenshown as AM (G) as panelists of 1988. It can thus the seen that the FCI relies stronglyon certain lists in which the appellants have been shown as juniors, and theappellants on the other hand rely upon certain other lists wherein they have beenshown as seniors besides placing reliance on Deep Chand decision and other orderspassed on applications and documents and affidavits of FCI referred hereinabove. Prima fade, reliance by FCI on the order dated 22/11/1996 passed bya learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court is of no avail since the saidorder did not decide any conflicting claim and further against that order L. P. A. isalso pending in Punjab and Haryana High Court. ( 7 ) HAVING noticed the respective claims as aforesaid, we refrain fromexpressing any opinion lest it may prejudice the rights of the parties sinceadmittedly these aspects are likely to come up for consideration in the writ petition. However, having regard to the nature of controversy, long standing disputesbetween the two factions of FCI; conflicting seniority lists and other factors noticed. However, having regard to the nature of controversy, long standing disputesbetween the two factions of FCI; conflicting seniority lists and other factors noticed. above, including decision in the case of Deep Chand s case, we feel that themodification of the order dated 30/05/1997 and permitting FCI as interimmeasure to make appointments on the basis of impugned seniority list to the cadreof the Deputy Manager and further higher posts, is likely to create morecomplications and problems rather than to solve them. On the peculiar facts of thiscase reserving three posts in the cadre of Deputy Manager would not serve thepurpose. It is not only a question of only three appellants but others employeessimilarly situated as the appellants. We may also note the contention urged for theappellants that reserving three posts of the cadre of Deputy Managers is otherwisemeaningless because in any case at any given point of time many posts of Deputymanagers remain vacant. We may notice that one of the main contention of theappellants is that the result of loss of 12 years seniority is that those who are theirjuniors by many steps would be writing their annual confidential reports in casepromotions are made on the basis of the impugned seniority list. ( 8 ) COUNSEL for the FCI also submitted that after the impugned order of learnedsingle Judge certain promotions on the basis of impugned seniority list have alreadybeen made. On the other hand it was contended by Counsel for the appellants thatfci should not be allowed to take advantage of making promotions on the basisof impugned seniority list since FCI knew that the present appeal was pending. ( 9 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances noticed above, we do not thinkit expedient at this stage to disturb the promotions that have already been made,which of course would be subject to the result of the decision in the writ petitionas also so stated in the impugned order. At the same time, we are of the consideredopinion that it is a fit case where FCI shall be restrained from making any furtherpromotion/appointments on the basis of the impugned seniority list dated 1 4/05/1996 and 24/10/1997. We order accordingly. At the same time, we are of the consideredopinion that it is a fit case where FCI shall be restrained from making any furtherpromotion/appointments on the basis of the impugned seniority list dated 1 4/05/1996 and 24/10/1997. We order accordingly. ( 10 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants while submitting that impugned orderbe set aside and learned Counsel for FCI while supporting the impugned order hadboth suggested that the writ petition may be directed to be disposed of at an earlydate, which has been directed to be posted for hearing for 17/08/1998. Wedo not know the position of the Board of learned Single Judge and, therefore, donot think it appropriate to issue any directions for hearing and disposal of the writpetition on an earlier particular date. Considering the impact on large number ofemployees of FCI which may result in heart burning between two factions ofemployees and may also resultin the working of the Corporation, we have no doubtthat in case an application is made by Counsel for the parties for expeditiousdisposal of the writ petition, learned Single Judge would consider it on its ownmerits. ( 11 ) CONSEQUENTLY the order of learned Single Judge dated 19/02/1988. is modified to the extent indicated above and appeal disposed of accordinglyleaving the parties to bear their own costs.