M. S. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) IN this group of petitions filed by the ONGC Employees Association and ONGC Employees Union and some individual employees in different cadres, the controversy centers around the settlement dated 2-2-2000 under section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, arrived at between the management of the ONGC Ltd. and its workmen represented by Rigmen and Topmen Association, Western Region Business Centre, regarding appointment to the posts of Rigman during the period between 1987 and 1990. ( 2 ) IN Special Civil Application No. 6299 of 2001 filed by the ONGC Employees Association and ONGC Employees Union as well as in Special Civil Application No. 11523 of 2001, the challenge is to the settlement itself whereas in other petitions, the reliefs sought for are against the discrimination arising from implementation of the settlement in the matters of seniority and promotion of the other employees who are not given the benefit of the said settlement dated 2-2-2000. ( 3 ) THE different petitions raise different shades of controversy but since the challenge to the settlement and reliefs prayed for in the other petitions involve common questions of fact and law, all these petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 4 ) THE facts leading to filing of this group of petitions, briefly stated, are as under:-4. 1 the present respondent No. 1 - Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. which is stated to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, is the successor of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission which was a statutory Corporation set up under the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 enacted by the Parliament. The Commission had framed the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as `the Regulations or the 1980 Regulations) prescribing the staff set up and the Rules for recruitment and promotion to various posts under the Commission. The staff set-up is divided into three broad categories called (i) Engineering (ii) Geo-Sciences and (iii) other services. The controversy in the present group of petitions pertains to the staff set-up in the Engineering Branch. The Engineering branch itself is divided into ten different disciplines. The controversy centers around certain benefits given to some of the employees in the Drilling discipline and the Production discipline within the Engineering Branch. 4. The controversy in the present group of petitions pertains to the staff set-up in the Engineering Branch. The Engineering branch itself is divided into ten different disciplines. The controversy centers around certain benefits given to some of the employees in the Drilling discipline and the Production discipline within the Engineering Branch. 4. 2 the hierarchy in the said two disciplines set out along with the payscales of the relevant posts at the relevant time and the present payscales is set out in a Chart annexed to this judgment. 4. 3 since the controversy is about the post of Rigman in the Drilling discipline and in the Production discipline, the relevant extracts of 1980 Regulations dealing with the said posts are set out verbatim : - Category scale of Mode of Qualifications and pay Appointment Experience for -- (Rupees) Direct Promotion Direct Promotion Recruit- Recruit- ment ment - Rigman 440-12- 100% - Post will be (Drilling) 488-15- filled in by 578-20- recruitment 758 from within the ONGC. Employees who are Matric and possessing Trade Certificate in Fitting/mechanic Trades and have put in atleast 3 years service in the pay scale of Rs. 370-10- 460-12-520-15-580- 20-640 will be eligible for consi- deration for appointment to this post. Age limit 30 years and not relaxable. Rigman 440-12- 100% - Post will be (Production)488-15- filled in by 578-20- recruitment 758 from within the ONGC. Employees who are Matric and possessing Trade Certificate in Fitting/mechanic Trades and have put in atleast 3 years service in the pay scale of Rs. 370-10- 460-12-520-15-580- 20-640 will be eligible for consi- deration for appointment to this post. Age limit 30 years and not relaxable. -4. 4 the ONGC had recruited the contesting respondents in these petitions on the posts of Assistant Technicians (Rig, Operation and Maintenance) (hereinafter referred to as AT (ROM) for brevity) and Drilling Assistant Gr. III (Production) (hereinafter referred to as DA Gr. III (P) during the period between 1987 and 1990. The stand of the ONGC is that while the ATs (ROM) were appointed throughout the aforesaid period, DAs Gr. III (P) were appointed only in the year 1990. The 1980 Regulations which were in force at the relevant time did not provide for the aforesaid posts and the incumbents on the post were paid salary in the scale of Rs. The stand of the ONGC is that while the ATs (ROM) were appointed throughout the aforesaid period, DAs Gr. III (P) were appointed only in the year 1990. The 1980 Regulations which were in force at the relevant time did not provide for the aforesaid posts and the incumbents on the post were paid salary in the scale of Rs. 370-640 which was the pay scale for the lower post in the other disciplines including the post of Assistant Technician (Production) within the Production discipline itself. The other disciplines also had equivalent posts in the payscale of Rs. 370-640. 4. 5 the 1980 Regulations provided for 100% direct recruitment to the post of Rigman in the Drilling discipline and also in the Production discipline. Such direct recruitment was to be made from amongst employees within the ONGC - (i) possessing the educational qualifications of matric and trade certificate in Fitting/mechanic trades, (ii) having put in at least three years service in the payscale of Rs. 370-640 and (iii) within the age limit of 30 years. In view of the aforesaid statutory Regulations, the ONGC made appointment to the post of Rigman in Drilling discipline as well as in the Production discipline from amongst the employees within the ONGC including persons who were appointed as ATs (ROM) and DAs Gr. III (P) during the aforesaid period between 1987 and 1990 and also other employees within the ONGC who had rendered at least 3 years service in other posts like Assistant Technician (Production), Assistant Technician (Fitter) in the payscale of Rs. 370-640. 4. 6 in the year 1991, an Industrial Dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal at Ahmedabad being Reference (ITC) No. 84 of 1991 which was in respect of the following two demands:- (i) That after completion of four years of service as Rigmen should be considered for promotion as Topmen especially when these Rigmen are carrying out the work of Topmen and working as such and when all the Rigmen from 1982 to 1984 batches have been promoted. (ii) The Assistant Technicians (ROM) working as Rigmen since their date of joining should also be appointed as Rigmen and the post of AT (ROM) or Drilling Asst. Gr. III below the post of Rigmen should be abolished are justified and legal? (ii) The Assistant Technicians (ROM) working as Rigmen since their date of joining should also be appointed as Rigmen and the post of AT (ROM) or Drilling Asst. Gr. III below the post of Rigmen should be abolished are justified and legal? If so, to what relief the workmen are entitled for what directions are necessary in the matter?" in this group of petitions, we are not concerned with the first demand which was granted by the Tribunal. The second demand was, however, rejected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that as per the provisions of 1980 Regulations, there was no post of AT (ROM) or DA Gr. III (P) below the post of Rigman in Drilling discipline or in the Production discipline. The Tribunal further held that the appointment to the post of Rigman was required to be made by 100% direct recruitment for which one of the eligibility criteria was that the employee must have put in at least 3 years service in the payscale of Rs. 370-640. The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the matters covered by the Regulations and to make an award directing the employer to regulate the conditions of service of its workmen otherwise than in accordance with the statutory provisions of law. Hence the Tribunal held that the demand of the Association that the ATs (ROM) working as Rigmen since the date of joining of their service should be appointed as Rigmen cannot be justified as it is not legal, appropriate, reasonable and just and that the demand was in violation of Regulations which provided for minimum number of three years experience. That award was rendered by the Tribunal on 11-3-1993 and a copy of the same is produced at Annexure `b to the petition. 4. 7 it appears that in the meantime on account of a similar situation in the southern region of the ONGC, the Drilling Assistants Gr. III and Assistant Technicians (Fitteer)/ (Production)/ (Drilling) were appointed against the vacancies of Rigman at various sites during the years 1988 to 1990. On the ground that those employees were recruited against the vacancies of Rigmen and they were performing the duties of Rigmen, the management of ONGC (southern region) decided to designate as Rigman all such employees recruited in the years 1988 to 1990 as Drilling Assistant Gr. III and Assistant Technician (F)/ (P)/ (D ). On the ground that those employees were recruited against the vacancies of Rigmen and they were performing the duties of Rigmen, the management of ONGC (southern region) decided to designate as Rigman all such employees recruited in the years 1988 to 1990 as Drilling Assistant Gr. III and Assistant Technician (F)/ (P)/ (D ). That appears to have been done in the year 1990. However, the headquarters of the ONGC at Dehradun objected to the said designation on the ground that the statutory Regulations of 1980 prescribed for 3 years experience for appointment to the post of Rigman. Hence 97 employees recruited during the years 1988 to 1990 as Drilling Assistants Gr. III or as Assistant Technicians (F)/ (P)/ (D) were required to be reverted to the post on which they were appointed. Such reversion orders issued on 8-2-1991 were challenged before the Madras High Court in the same year. The Madras High Court granted interim stay of operation of those reversion orders and directed the ONGC to allow those workmen to continue to perform duties of Rigman and to pay them pay and allowances payable to the Rigman. Ultimately, pursuant to the negotiations, the dispute pending before the Madras High Court came to be settled by settlement dated 30. 7. 1998 (Annexure "c") under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 mainly in the following terms:- (i) The 97 employees appointed in ONGC, Southern Region in the year 1988, 1989 and 1990 as Drilling Asst. Gr. III/ Asst. Technician (Fitting)/ (Production)/ (Drilling) as per the enclosed list to be considered for appointment as Rigman on completion of one year service in ONGC from the date of their joining service in the organisation. (ii) The candidature of all these 97 employees will be scrutinized by Departmental Promotion Committee that may be constituted at K. G. Project, Rajahmundry and Cauvery Project, Karaikal. 4. 8 after the aforesaid settlement in the Southern Region, the Rigmen and Topmen Association, Western Region, Gujarat served a notice of strike on the ONGC Management and the matter was referred for conciliation. 4. 8 after the aforesaid settlement in the Southern Region, the Rigmen and Topmen Association, Western Region, Gujarat served a notice of strike on the ONGC Management and the matter was referred for conciliation. On receipt of the strike notice and in pursuance of the deliberations/discussions between the representatives of the Rigmen and Topmen Association and the Management, the impugned settlement came to be arrived at on 2-2-2000 and the principal terms of the said settlement are as under:- (i) The 463 employees appointed in ONGC WRBC in the year 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990 as AT (ROM) and Drill Asst. Gd. III (P) as per the enclosed list to be considered for appointment as Rigman on completion of one year service in ONGC from the date of their joining service in the Organisation. (ii) The candidature of all those 463 employees will be scrutinised by DPC that may be constituted at Ro, Baroda. (iii) The appointment orders of the workmen will be issued within one month after receipt of approval of Competent Authority of the settlement so arrived. (iv) The union has agreed that workmen benefitted through the settlement will not be paid any arrears for preponement on the post of Rigman. (v) It is also agreed that union will not cite this agreement in the future for the settlement of any other cases in this category. (vi) The terms and conditions of the agreement shall be applicable only in respect of 463 employees whose names are listed out in the list enclosed. xxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx4. 9 pursuant to the above settlement, the ONGC issued orders dated 17-2-2000 preponing the appointment of 364 ATs (ROM) as Rigmen in the Drilling discipline upon completion of one years experience as AT (ROM ). The ONGC issued orders on the same day appointing 90 DAs Gr. III (P) and 7 ATs (ROM) as Rigmen upon completion of one year experience as AT (Rom) or DAP Gr. III in the Production discipline. On the basis of the aforesaid preponement of their appointment as Rigmen upon completion of one years experience as ATs (ROM) / DAs Gr. III (P), they were also given further consequential promotion in the higher cadre of Topman. III in the Production discipline. On the basis of the aforesaid preponement of their appointment as Rigmen upon completion of one years experience as ATs (ROM) / DAs Gr. III (P), they were also given further consequential promotion in the higher cadre of Topman. As per the Regulations, the ONGC has provided for time bound promotion scheme under which upon completion of 6 years service as Rigman, an employee is entitled to get promotion as Topman. In view of the preponement of their appointment in the post of Rigman in the Drilling discipline or in the Production discipline, the above employees also got proponement of their promotion in the post of Topman. Similarly, on account of their preponement of the date of promotion in the post of Topman, those employees have also become eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Drilling) or Assistant Engineer (Production) for which also the Regulations provide for 6 years experience in the post of Topman. 4. 10 it is at this stage that the present group of petitions were filed, the first of them (SCA No. 10417 of 2000) having been filed in September, 2000. In Special Civil Application No. 6299 of 2001 filed by the ONGC Employees Association and ONGC Employees Union as well as in Special Civil Application No. 11523 of 2001, the challenge is to the settlement itself whereas in other petitions, the reliefs sought for are against the discrimination arising from implementation of the settlement in the matters of seniority and promotion of the other employees who are not given the benefit of the said settlement dated 2-2-2000. ( 5 ) DR Mukul Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 6299 of 2001 has challenged the settlement dated 2-2-2000 on the following grounds:-5. 1 the original appointment of contesting respondents as ATs (ROM) and DAs. Gr. III (P) in the scale of Rs. 370-640 was ad-hoc as there were no such posts in the sanctioned staff set up of the ONGC between 1987 and 1990. Instead of regularizing them in those posts, the settlement purports to regularise such appointees to the higher post to which such appointees were not entitled to. In the first place, they did not possess the minimum stipulated experience of 3 years in the scale of Rs. 370-640. Instead of regularizing them in those posts, the settlement purports to regularise such appointees to the higher post to which such appointees were not entitled to. In the first place, they did not possess the minimum stipulated experience of 3 years in the scale of Rs. 370-640. Still as per the settlement they are sought to be regularised after completion of just one years service in the organization. 5. 2 no settlement or award can be made against the express provisions of a statutory rule. The power to grant exemption as contained in Regulation 4 cannot be exercised in the year 2000 when the appointments were made in the years between 1987 and 1990. Relaxation cannot be given retrospectively after 10 years. 5. 3 if the other employees had been informed that after one years service as AT (ROM) or DA Gr. III (P), they would be appointed as Rigman, others would have applied for the posts of AT (ROM) and DA Gr. III (P) at the relevant time between 1987 and 1990. 5. 4 in any view of the matter, the demand of the Rigmen and Topmen was rejected by the Industrial Tribunal in the year 1993, the said award was not challenged before any higher forum and, therefore, attained finality. No proceedings were thereafter taken to terminate that award. 5. 5 the settlement introduces sub-classification within a group of similarly situated persons and, therefore, there is violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 5a dr. Sinha appearing as learned counsel for the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 11523 of 2001 raised a further additional contention that since the said petitioners are also in the Production discipline and they are also eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Production) and further higher post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Production) permitting the contesting respondents to get preponement in their appointment to the post of Rigman by 2 years would have cascading effect on their subsequent promotions to the posts of Topman, Assistant Engineer (Production) and Assistant Executive Engineer (Production) and the consequences would be so disastrous that other persons in the Production discipline who are presently occupying the post of Chargemen will be made to lag behind the contesting respondents in the same discipline for no fault of theirs. Hence, the settlement dated 2. 2. 2000 is illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Hence, the settlement dated 2. 2. 2000 is illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside. ( 6 ) MR GK Pillai, Mr RR Vakil and Mr HH Raval, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Special civil Application Nos. 10417 of 2000, 1389 of 2001 and 11489 of 2001 have made the following submissions:-6. 1 the petitioners of the said petitions were selected as Rigmen pursuant to the regular selection under the statutory regulations and the contesting respondents were selected at the same selection or on subsequent selection and the contesting respondents were also either appointed as Rigmen subsequently after the petitioners or even if they were recruited on the same occasion, the contesting respondents were shown below the petitioners in the merit list and, therefore, the contesting respondents were shown as junior to the petitioners in the seniority list of Rigman (Production) which was published in October 1995 objections against which were also invited and thereafter the said seniority list was treated as final. 6. 2 since the petitioners have been treated as senior to the contesting respondents in the cadre of Rigman for all these 10 years and also consequently in the higher cadre of Topmen, it is discriminatory and illegal on the part of the ONGC to leave the petitioners out of consideration for promotion to the higher post of Assistant Engineer (Production) when the contesting respondents (shown as junior to the petitioners all these years) are going to be promoted to the said higher cadre of Assistant Engineer (Production ). Strong reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Apex Court and on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Sunil kumar vs. ONGC, 1996 (2) GLR 781 . ( 7 ) ON the other hand, Mr RH Mehta learned counsel for the ONGC has submitted as under:-7. 1 there is delay of about one to two years in challenging the settlement dated 2-2-2000. After settlement dated 2-2-2000, there are also orders dated 17-2-2000 giving preponement to the members of Rigmen and Topmen Association in the cadre of Rigman and consequential preponement in the higher cadre of Topman. Hence there is delay in filing the petitions. 7. 1 there is delay of about one to two years in challenging the settlement dated 2-2-2000. After settlement dated 2-2-2000, there are also orders dated 17-2-2000 giving preponement to the members of Rigmen and Topmen Association in the cadre of Rigman and consequential preponement in the higher cadre of Topman. Hence there is delay in filing the petitions. 7. 2 many of the petitioners and the contesting respondents were appointed as Rigmen on the same date and were also promoted as Topmen on the same date, they are to be given time bound promotion upon completion of 6 years in the concerned cadre. Hence they are not competing against each other inter-se but those who were actually working as Rigmen even though they were appointed as ATs (ROM) or DAs Gr. III (P) are given the benefit of preponement, the others who had not discharged duties as Rigmen before their appointment as Rigmen cannot be given the said benefit as the two classes are differentiable and the object of giving the benefit of preponement to ATs (ROM) and DAs Gr. III (P) is to give them the benefit which was not given to them earlier. They could not be earlier appointed as Rigmen and there were no posts of ATs (ROM) and DAs Gr. III (P) in the sanctioned set up but the Corporation has power to relax the eligibility criteria under Regulation 4 and the same has been exercised for valid considerations. 7. 3 since the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 6299 of 2001 represent the employees in various disciplines other than Drilling and Production, they have no locus-standi to challenge the settlement dated 2-2-2000 which is arrived at between the ONGC and the Rigmen and Topmen Association. Whatever may be the date of appointment of Rigman in Drilling department or Production department or whatever may be the date of their promotion as Topman in the said two disciplines, it will not have any impact on the disciplines other than Drilling and Production because these disciplines are water-tight compartments. An employee in one discipline cannot claim promotion to a post in another discipline. The only method to switch over from one discipline to another is in respect of a post for which the Regulations provide for direct recruitment. An employee in one discipline cannot claim promotion to a post in another discipline. The only method to switch over from one discipline to another is in respect of a post for which the Regulations provide for direct recruitment. Since the posts of Topman, Assistant Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer are posts which are to be filed in by 100% promotion, there is no scope for employees in other disciplines to claim any appointment or promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers and Assistant Executive Engineers in Drilling discipline or in Production discipline. 7. 4 the settlement was in the course of conciliation proceedings and is binding on all the employees of the ONGC including all the members of the Rigman and Topman Association. ( 8 ) MR AK Clerk and Mr PR Nanavaty learned counsel for the contesting respondents have made the following submissions:-8. 1 the settlement was arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under section 12 (3) of the ID Act and under section 18 (3) of the Act. Such settlement is binding on all workmen. 8. 2 the validity of settlement cannot be challenged in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution because it would require adjudication of disputed questions of fact. 8. 3 the 1980 Regulations lay down the rules for recruitment and promotion in different disciplines which are water-tight compartments. Even in the Production discipline, there are three separate branches and the employees in one branch of Production Engineering has no right to claim promotion to a higher post in another branch in Production discipline and such switching over from one branch to another is not permissible unless the rules provide for direct recruitment to a particular post which is to be filled in by 100% direct recruitment. An employee in one branch cannot claim promotion to the post in another branch upto E7 level. 8. 4 even before the settlement, a person who joined as Assistant Technician (Production) had to put in 18 years service to get promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Production) whereas a person who joined as Rigman in the scale of Rs. 440-758 in the Drilling discipline or in the Production discipline required only 12 years to be promoted as Assistant Engineer. Even for direct appointment to the post of Rigman, the requisite experience prescribed in the lower scale of Rs. 440-758 in the Drilling discipline or in the Production discipline required only 12 years to be promoted as Assistant Engineer. Even for direct appointment to the post of Rigman, the requisite experience prescribed in the lower scale of Rs. 370-640 was 3 years unlike the longer experience of 6 years prescribed for appointment from the post of Assistant Technician (pay scale of Rs. 370-640) to the post of Junior Technician (Production) (pay scale Rs. 440-758. Thus, those who wanted accelerated promotion were required to be selected and appointed as Rigman rather than become Junior Technician (Production ). 8. 5 the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 6299 of 2001 or of 11523 of 2001 did not apply for direct recruitment when posts of Rigmen were advertised and filled in. 8. 6 the petitioners in Special Civil Application 10417 of 2001, 1389 and 11489 of 2001 had not worked as Rigmen before their appointment as Rigmen. Rigmen are those who are not merely employed to work on rigs. There are designated posts of Rigmen who are entrusted with the most arduous duties and hazardous work because they have to work on equipments at a great height and expose themselves to heavy risk on high seas. CATEGORY 1 special Civil Application No. 6299 of 2001 is filed by two union of employees and four individual employees who are either occupying the posts in the pay-scales corresponding to the pre-revised pay-scales of Rs. 530-1060 in other disciplines which posts are equivalent to the post of Topman (Drilling) and Topman (Production) or who are espousing the cause of employees holding the equivalent posts. CATEGORY 2 special Civil Application No. 11523 of 2001 is filed by chargemen in the production discipline who are challenging the settlement dated 2. 2. 2000 as contrary to the statutory regulations of 1980 and, therefore, illegal and void and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and also challenging the promotions made by the ONGC on the basis of the said settlement in the Western Region. 2. 2000 as contrary to the statutory regulations of 1980 and, therefore, illegal and void and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and also challenging the promotions made by the ONGC on the basis of the said settlement in the Western Region. CATEGORY 3 special Civil Application No. 1389 and 11489 of 2001 and 10417 of 2000 are filed by Topmen in the Production discipline who are challenging the decision of the ONGC to give the benefit of preponement of appointment on the post of Rigmen (Production) by two years only to those who were initially appointed as ATs (ROM) or as DAP Gr. III (P) on the ground that no discrimination can be made amongst employes who were appointed as Rigmen (Production) on the basis of the statutory regulations of 1980. Their challenge is also based on the ground that since 1990 they have been shown senior to the contesting respondents and other similarly situated persons in the cadre of Rigman (Production) and also in the higher cadre of Topman (Production ). They have also placed reliance on the seniority list of Rigman (Production) which was published in the year 1995 and which according to them has been treated as final seniority list for all purposes. DISCUSSION DRILLING DISCIPLINE in all 463 employees have got the benefit of the impugned settlement dated 2. 2. 2000 by getting proponement of deemed appointment as Rigmen upon completion of one year service in the scale of Rs. 370-640, out of which 364 employees are in the drilling discipline and 97 are in the Production discipline. ( 9 ) BEFORE dealing with any of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the employees in the drilling discipline , the Court would like to take note of the fact that the drilling discipline is a watertight compartment and, therefore, once a person is appointed as a Rigman (Drilling), all further promotions to the higher posts in the drilling discipline are made from amongst the employees in the feeder cadres within the drilling discipline. The assertion in this behalf made by the learned counsel for the ONGC as well as the learned counsel for the contesting respondents in the drilling discipline is not controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The assertion in this behalf made by the learned counsel for the ONGC as well as the learned counsel for the contesting respondents in the drilling discipline is not controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Hence, the benefit of proponement in the post of Rigman (Drilling) given by the impugned settlement to AT (Roms) recruited in the years between 1987 and 1990 and DA Gr. III (P) recruited by the ONGC in the year 1980, does not adversely affect the employees in the other disciplines. The Court, therefore, holds that the employees in the other disciplines or the Unions/association of the employees espousing the cause of the employees in the other disciplines have no locus standi to challenge the impugned settlement dated 2. 2. 2000. Such a challenge, if at all maintainable, could only be entertained in a public interest litigation and not in traditional litigation like the present one. This was the reason why, while passing interlocutory orders on 28. 11. 2001, this Court vacated the ad-interim stay against promotions in the drilling discipline. ( 10 ) DR Mukul Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 6299 of 2001 has, however, submitted that the persons who are presently employed in other disciplines were eligible for being appointed as Rigmen (Drilling) at the relevant time and that had they been informed at the relevant time that persons appointed as AT (Roms) and DA Gr. III (P) in the scale of Rs. 370-640 would be appointed as Rigmen upon completion of one year service of AT (Rom)/da Gr. III (P), the employees in the other disciplines would also have applied for the posts of AT (Rom) and DA Gr. III (P) between 1987 and 1990 when the concerned beneficiaries were appointed as AT (Roms) and DA Gr. III (P ). The said beneficiaries were actually appointed as Rigmen upon completion of three years service as required by the statutory Regulations of 1980 but on account of the impugned settlement, they are given benefit of proponement in appointment as Rigmen upon completion of only one year service on the post of AT (Rom) and DA Gr. III (P ). Dr Sinha has, therefore, vehemently submitted that the employees in other disciplines too have a locus standi to challenge the impugned settlement dated 2. 2. 2000. III (P ). Dr Sinha has, therefore, vehemently submitted that the employees in other disciplines too have a locus standi to challenge the impugned settlement dated 2. 2. 2000. ( 11 ) THE aforesaid grievance made by the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 6299 of 2001 is too stale to be entertained, when we consider the statutory regulations of 1980 under which the employees in the scale of Rs. 370-640 with three years service under the ONGC (which was also the scale for AT (ROM)s and DA Gr. III (P)s) were already eligible for appointment as Rigmen. It is not the case of the petitioners that when the ONGC was making such appointments of Rigmen, the petitioners had applied and their case was not considered. It is important to note that in other disciplines persons in the scale of Rs. 370-640 were required to put in six years service to get promotion to the next higher grade post in the scale of Rs. 650-1200. The very fact that the petitioners did not make any grievance against their non-appointment as Rigmen (D) between 1990 and 1993 (when the beneficiaries of the settlement were appointed as Rigmen) is sufficient to show that the grievance made by the employees in the other disciplines against their non-appointment as Rigmen between 1990 and 1993 is very stale. The impugned settlement dated 2. 2. 2000 cannot wipe out this gross delay and latches. ( 12 ) ON the contrary, it is the case of the ONGC that because the ONGC was not in a position to make appointment to the posts which were to be filled in by in-house recruitment from amongst the employees with three years experience in the scale of Rs. 370-640 (not by promotion), the ONGC had to make recruitment of Assistant Technician (Rig Operation and Maintenance) [364 + 7 AT (Roms) and 90 DA Gr. III (P)], in the scale of Rs. 370-640 between 1987 and 1990. Because even though such posts did not exist in the then sanctioned staff set up, the ONGC was considering the idea of creating such posts in the scale of Rs. 370-640. In view of the fact that for appointment to the post of Rigman (D), three years experience in the technical posts in the scale of Rs. Because even though such posts did not exist in the then sanctioned staff set up, the ONGC was considering the idea of creating such posts in the scale of Rs. 370-640. In view of the fact that for appointment to the post of Rigman (D), three years experience in the technical posts in the scale of Rs. 370-640 in the other disciplines was considered by the statutory regulations of 1980, to be adequate for in-house recruitment while in other equivalent posts in the scale of Rs. 650-1200 in the other disciplines, appointment was to be made by promotion from amongst the employees with six years service in the feeder cadre in the same discipline in the scale of Rs. 370-640, it is clear that the drilling discipline was a class by itself. ( 13 ) THE petitioners not having made any grievance for the last 10 years regarding their non-appointment as Rigmen (D) in the scale of Rs. 440-758 is sufficient to disentitle them from claiming any relief which will have the effect of adversely affecting the rights of the employees in the drilling discipline, whether under the impugned settlement dated 2. 2. 2000 or otherwise. Hence, the challenge to the settlement dated 2. 2. 2000 in so far as the benefit under the settlement is given to 364 employees who were appointed as AT (Roms) between 1987 and 1990 and who have been given the benefit of proponement of appointment as Rigmen (D) upon completion of one year service as AT (Roms) is not entertained. In all 463 employees have got the benefit of the impugned settlement dated 2. 2. 2000 by getting proponement of deemed appointment as Rigmen upon completion of one year service in the scale of Rs. 370-640, out of which 364 employees are in the drilling discipline and 97 are in the Production discipline. ( 14 ) PRODUCTION DISCIPLINE In view of the aforesaid finding that the employees in the other disciplines have no locus standi to challenge the benefits given to the employees in the drilling discipline, that leaves only 97 employees who are in the production discipline but have got the benefit of the impugned settlement dated 2. 2. 2000. The facts pertaining to these employees are required to be stated separately because the production discipline, though a watertight compartment from other disciplines, itself has three branches. 2. 2000. The facts pertaining to these employees are required to be stated separately because the production discipline, though a watertight compartment from other disciplines, itself has three branches. There is a serious controversy about the promotion avenues within the production discipline. ( 15 ) BEFORE proceeding further, it would be necessary again to reiterate that as far as the challenge made by the Union/association on behalf of ONGC employees outside the production discipline is concerned, the said challenge is also not maintainable because the employees in the disciplines other than production have nothing to do with the employees in the Production discipline in the matters of seniority and promotion. The employees in other disciplines have no competing claims with the employees in the production discipline. Hence, the challenge made by the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 6299 of 2001 to the impugned settlement dated 2. 2. 2000, in so far as the settlement gives benefits to 97 employees of the production discipline is not entertained. That is, however, not the end of the matter because the production discipline itself has three branches within itself which are set out in a chart annexed to this judgment. The present controversy has nothing to do with the boiler branch. Production: Special Civil Application No. 11523 of 2001. ( 16 ) THE petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 11523 of 2001 are the employees who had joined as Assistant Technicians (Production) or equivalent posts and were subsequently promoted as Junior Officer (Production) and thereafter to the higher post of Chargeman (Production) in the scale of Rs. 530-1060 which is equivalent to the post of Topman (Production) in the same pay-scale. While the promotion from the post of Chargeman (P) lies to the next higher post of Assistant Engineer (P), promotion from the post of Topman (P) under the regulations of 1980 lies to the post of Assistant Driller (P ). As stated in the above chart, both the Assistant Engineers (P) and Assistant Drillers (P) are in the same pay-scale. According to ONGC, Assistant Drillers (P) are now redesignated as Assistant Engineers (P) or Assistant Engineers (Production and Drilling ). That may, however, appear to be only a question of designation or redesignation. The controversy starts here. According to the petitioners as well as according to ONGC, the next higher post of Assistant Executive Engineer (P) in the scale of Rs. That may, however, appear to be only a question of designation or redesignation. The controversy starts here. According to the petitioners as well as according to ONGC, the next higher post of Assistant Executive Engineer (P) in the scale of Rs. 700-1500 is a promotional post for Assistant Engineer (P) coming from the channel of Chargemen and also for the Assistant Engineers (P) coming from the channel of Topmen. On the other hand, according to the contesting respondents in the production discipline, Assistant Executive Engineers (P) from the channel of Chargemen are separate posts from the posts of Assistant Executive Engineer (P) from the channel of Topmen and Assistant Engineer (P) and that there is no merger of promotional channels at any point of time for the next six higher posts going upto the post of Director (P ). So far no difficulty appears to have arisen because promotions in the ONGC are given as time bound promotions upon completion of a particular number of years, mostly six years, for promotion from one post to the next higher post, unless the employee is found to be positively unfit. In view of this promotional set up, the promotions do not require any vacancies as such and, therefore, every employee gets promotion to the next higher post upon completion of the requisite number of years barring cases of positive unfitness. ( 17 ) IN view of the above scenerio, Dr Mukul Sinha for the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 11523 of 2001 who are Chargemen (P) contends that by giving accelerated appointment to the 90 Drilling Assistants Gr. III (P) who were recruited in 1990 and 7 AT (Roms) who were also recruited around the same period and all of whom (i. e. 97 persons) were appointed as Rigmen (P) in the year 1993/94 are now given deemed appointment as Rigmen upon completion of one year service as DA Gr. III (P) who were recruited in 1990 and 7 AT (Roms) who were also recruited around the same period and all of whom (i. e. 97 persons) were appointed as Rigmen (P) in the year 1993/94 are now given deemed appointment as Rigmen upon completion of one year service as DA Gr. III (P)/at (Roms) i. e. in the year 1991 itself and consequently they are given deemed date of promotion as Topmen (P) in the year 1997 with the result that the employees who become Chargemen (P) in the year 1996 and 1997 and who are also due for promotion as Assistant Engineers (P) in the year 2002 and 2003 will lag behind the Assistant Engineer (P)/assistant Driller (P) who will all be further promoted as Assistant Executive Engineers (P) before the petitioners. The grievance, therefore, is that though the Assistant Engineer (P) and Assistant /assistant Driller (P) redesignated as Assistant Engineer (P) may be separate channels till that stage, they merge in the next higher post of Assistant Executive Engineer (P ). By giving proponement in the post of Rigmen (P) under the impugned settlement dated 2. 2. 2000 by two years, the ONGC has given the beneficiaries of the settlement accelerated promotions by two years in all the higher posts and they will be stealing a march over the petitioners of Special Civil Application NO. 11523 of 2001 in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer (P) by two years. ( 18 ) DR Mukul Sinha has further submitted that this being the frame work and scheme of Randp Regulations, the ONGC was expected to strictly abide by such regulations but for the reason best known to ONGC, a new post of DAP (III) was created in the year 1990 which was not existing in the Randp at all. The said post was given the scale as that of ATP, which was at the relevant time Rs. 370-640. The recruitment was by way of a common advertisement without the persons having any choice to choose between ATP or DAP (III ). The said post was given the scale as that of ATP, which was at the relevant time Rs. 370-640. The recruitment was by way of a common advertisement without the persons having any choice to choose between ATP or DAP (III ). It is submitted that the distinction was made by the ONGC that those who had passed their matriculation with science and considered better qualified were posted in the post of ATP whereas those who did not pass the matriculation with science and did not have trade certificate in fitting or mechanical trades were posted as DAP (III ). In fact the persons who had requested the ONGC for being posted as DAP (III) though eligible for being appointed ATP were refused and were told that ATP post being of superior in nature, no grievance can be made regarding their posting to the DAP (III ). THE above statements and contentions are controverted by the ONGC through the affidavit dated 18. 12. 2001 by Mrs Ambika Somarajan, Panda Officer in the Personnel Department in ONGC Ltd. Western Region, Vadodara and it is submitted that the allegations are stale afterthoughts. ON closer scrutiny the Court finds that the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 11523 of 2001 have not suffered any detriment to their legal rights. ( 19 ) THE justification given by the respondents for the settlement in question is that Rigmen (P) and Topmen (P) are performing very arduous duties and hazardous jobs on the rigs at the high seas while the other employees like Assistant Technicians, Junior Technicians, Chargemen in the production discipline are also working on the rigs, they are not discharging the duties of the Rigmen and the Topmen, because Rigmen and Topmen have to discharge their duties from a height of 25 ft. to 150 ft. above the sea waters whereas the other employees like Junior Technicians and Chargemen do not have to perform such arduous duties or hazardous jobs. The persons who were recruited as AT (Roms) between the year 1987 and 1990 and DA Gr. III (P) in the year 1990 were actually discharging the duties of the Rigmen, but they were appointed as AT (Roms) and DA Gr. III (P) because under the regulations Rigmen were required to have three years experience within the ONGC (in the scale of Rs. 370-640 ). III (P) in the year 1990 were actually discharging the duties of the Rigmen, but they were appointed as AT (Roms) and DA Gr. III (P) because under the regulations Rigmen were required to have three years experience within the ONGC (in the scale of Rs. 370-640 ). Since the qualified persons within the ONGC were not available or were not willing to go for such arduous duties and hazardous jobs of Rigmen, the ONGC had to recruit employees and give them designations of AT (ROMs) and DA Gr. III (P) although such posts did not exit within the sanctioned set up then. They were, therefore, paid salaries in the scale of Rs. 370-640 although they were discharging duties of Rigmen which posts were in the scale of Rs. 470-750. It was for this reason that they were all along demanding that they should be treated as Rigmen from the date of their original appointment though the designation given to them earlier was AT (Roms)/da Gr. III (P ). The employees who were appointed in 1988 - 90 against vacancies in the post of Rigmen (D) and Rigmen (P) and who were only discharging duties as Rigmen in the said disciplines but who were given designation in the scale of Rs. 670-740 by the Southern Region of the ONGC were also making similar demands and their demands were granted by the ONGC by the settlement dated 30. 8. 1998 at Annexure "c". ( 20 ) IN view of the aforesaid assertion made on behalf of the respondent in Special Civil Application No. 11523 of 2001 not having been effectively controverted on behalf of the petitioners, and considering the fact that in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution this Court would not entertain disputed questions of fact, the Court proceeds on the basis that the employees who were initially recruited by the ONGC as AT (Roms) and DA Gr. III (P) and who were subsequently appointed as Rigmen (P) totalling 97 in all, are in a separate class from the employees in the other branch of the production discipline, who have never worked on the post of Rigmen and who are in a separate promotional channel upto the cadre of Assistant Engineers (P ). III (P) and who were subsequently appointed as Rigmen (P) totalling 97 in all, are in a separate class from the employees in the other branch of the production discipline, who have never worked on the post of Rigmen and who are in a separate promotional channel upto the cadre of Assistant Engineers (P ). It may be that the next higher post may be that of Assistant Executive Engineer (P) which is the next promotional avenue from two different feeder channels but in view of the fact that the promotions in the ONGC are time bound promotions and they do not depend on the requirement of any such vacancies for such promotions to be granted, it cannot be said that the persons who are presently Chargemen (P) are deprived of their right to be considered for promotion to the higher post of Assistant Engineer (P) or to the next higher post of Assistant Executive Engineer (P ). As per the settled legal position, chances of promotion are never treated as conditions of service (RS Deodhar vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1974 SC 259 , Syed Khalid Rizvi, 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 575/602 ). Hence, any apprehended adverse impact on their chances of promotion vis-a-vis chances of promotion of persons who are presently in the case of Topmen (P) and Assistant Engineer (P) to the next higher post of Assistant Executive Engineer (P) cannot vitiate the settlement dated 2. 2. 2000. 20a. AS regards the contention of Dr Mukul Sinha for the petitioners that the settlement is contrary to the statutory regulations of 1980, it may prima facie appear that the settlement is not in accordance with the statutory regulations of 1980 because the said regulations specifically provided that appointment to the post of Rigman could be made only by way of recruitment from ONGC employees who possess requisite educational qualification and have much training and had put in at least three years service in the scale of Rs. 370-640 and were within the age limit of 30 years. The beneficiaries of the settlement did not fullfil the criteria regarding three years service at the time of their appointment as AT (ROM) and DA Gr. III (P ). However, Regulation No. 4 of the Statutory Regulations confer power of relaxation from time to time. 370-640 and were within the age limit of 30 years. The beneficiaries of the settlement did not fullfil the criteria regarding three years service at the time of their appointment as AT (ROM) and DA Gr. III (P ). However, Regulation No. 4 of the Statutory Regulations confer power of relaxation from time to time. Dr Sinhas submission that such relaxation could be given only by the Commission and that too at the time of original appointment and not subsequently, though attractive at the first blush, does not deserve to be accepted because there is nothing on record to indicate that the settlement was arrived at without any due authority of the Commission. In absence of any pleading to that effect, the contention cannot be entertained. As regards the submission that such relaxation could have been made only at the time of appointment and not subsequently, it appears from the record that the recruitment was made to the posts of AT (Rom) and DA Gr. III (P) because the ONGC was not getting adequate number of Rigmen because eligible and willing employees from within the ONGC were not available for the post of Rigman (P ). Hence, the ONGC went for recruitment of employees in the scale of Rs. 370-640 in drilling and production disciplines and gave them designations of AT (Rom) and DA Gr. III (P) with an idea that the posts with such designation would be formally created. However, on account of the opposition from the Union, such formal decision could not be taken and, therefore, when the Southern Region of the ONGC had given designation of Rigman to such AT (Rom) and DA Gr. III (P) in 1990 and when the headquarters of the ONGC objected to such designation and consequential reversion orders were passed in the year 1991, such reversion orders were challenged before the Madras High Court and the petition was pending before the Madras High Court for seven years. During pendency of the said petition, the settlement was arrived at between the employees and the ONGC under which similar benefits were given to those who were working against the vacancies in the posts of Rigmen but were given designation of the lower posts; they were to be treated as having been appointed as Rigmen upon completion of one years service. It is thus clear that the settlement was arrived at under the instructions from the Commission. Hence, there was nothing wrong with the similar settlement having been arrived at between the management of the ONGC and their workmen represented by Rigmen and Topmen Association on 2. 2. 2000. 20b. AS regards the contention of Dr Sinha that the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad had already given the award dated 11. 3. 1993 against the employees who were demanding appointment as Rigmen with effect from the date of their appointments as AT (Rom) and DA Gr. III (P), it is true that the Industrial Tribunal had rejected that particular demand, but it appears from the said judgment that the Tribunal rejected it only on the ground that the demand was contrary to the statutory regulations. However, statutory regulation No. 4 contained the power of relaxation and at the time when the Tribunal decided the matter, the ONGC had not decided to exercise the power of relaxation and, therefore, at that point of time, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the demand, but as stated above, the controversy was pending before the Madras High Court regarding the dispute between the employees of the Southern Region and the ONGC and once that dispute was resolved by the settlement dated 30. 7. 1998, the issue was revived by the employees in the Western Region and the settlement was arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings on 2. 2. 2000. Hence, it cannot be said that the settlement was illegal because it was contrary to the award dated 11. 3. 1993. 20c. AS regards the contention that the employees recruited as AT (Rom) and DA Gr. III (P) were adhoc employees and that at the most their regularization could have been in those posts and not in the higher posts of Rigmen, it is required to be noted that the appointment of the workmen was that the concerned employees were actually discharging the duties of Rigmen and that they were appointed against vacancies on the post of Rigmen because eligible and qualified employees within the ONGC were not available for appointment as Rigmen and that it was because they were given the scale of Rs. 370-640 that they were required to be appointed as AT (Rom) and DA Gr. III (P ). 370-640 that they were required to be appointed as AT (Rom) and DA Gr. III (P ). Hence, they were really giving up their claim for salary in the post of Rigmen and they were also giving up the demand for appointment as Rigmen with effect from the date of entry in ONGC service by one year as against the ONGC giving up their stand by two years. Hence, the challenge raised in Special Civil Application No. 11523 of 2001 must fail. Special Civil Application No. 10417 of 2000 and Cognate Petitions by RIGMAN (P ). . ( 21 ) THAT takes us to Special Civil Application Nos. 10417 of 2000, 1389 and 11489 of 2001 whose petitioners stand on different footing than the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 11523 of 2001. These petitioners i. e. the petitioners of Special Civil application Nos. 10471/2000 and cognate petitions were appointed as Rigmen (P) before or alongwith the beneficiaries of the settlement dated 2. 2. 2000 in the year 1991 or thereafter. All along they were treated as senior to the beneficiaries of the settlement dated 2. 2. 2000 and these petitioners were also shown higher up in the seniority list of Rigmen (P) which was published by the ONGC in October, 1995 which was treated as final after the period for lodging objections expired. The position of the said petitioners and the contesting respondents in these petitions is set out in a chart annexed to this judgment. IN view of the said seniority, these petitioners also came to be promoted as Topmen (P) earlier than the contesting respondents. Hence, in view of the above, they are also entitled to be promoted as Assistant Engineer (P) before the contesting respondents. However, the impugned settlement dated 2. 2. 2000 gives the contesting respondents benefit of two years preponement in the cadre of Rigmen (P) and consequential deemed date of promotion in the case of Topmen (P ). ( 22 ) THE ONGC has sought to justify the benefit given to the contesting respondents vis-a-vis the petitioners on the ground that the contesting respondents were recruited as AT (Roms) or DA Gr. III (P) but were discharging duties of Rigman before they were actually appointed as Rigmen whereas the petitioners though appointed as Rigmen did not discharge duties of Rigman before their appointment as Rigmen (P ). III (P) but were discharging duties of Rigman before they were actually appointed as Rigmen whereas the petitioners though appointed as Rigmen did not discharge duties of Rigman before their appointment as Rigmen (P ). It is stated that the petitioners were working as Assistant Technicians (P) or on other posts in the scale of Rs. 370-640 before they were appointed as Rigmen (P ). The ONGC, therefore, had made micro classification of the employees who entered the cadre of Rigmen (P) and that too after a period of 7 to 10 years after they joined the cadre of Rigman (P), having treated them as belonging to the same class for all these years and having published the common seniority list for all of them. By implementing the impugned settlement, the ONGC has made the contesting respondents, who were all these years treated as junior to the petitioners, senior to the petitioners by giving them deemed date in the post of Rigman (D) by two years or more and consequentially deemed date of promotion in the post of Topman (P ). The learned counsel for the petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos. 10417 of 2000 and cognate petitions have, therefore, rightly relied on the following decisions of the Apex Court and of this Court :-22. 1 in Baldeo Prasad vs. Akhouri Sachindra Nath, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Apex court has in unmistakable terms laid down that no person can be promoted with retrospective effect from a date when he was not born in the cadre so as to adversely affect others and that amongst the members of the same grade seniority is reckoned from the date of their initial entry into the service. 22. 2 in State of M. P. and Anr. vs. Prem Prakash and Ors. , 1994 (1) SCC 432, the Apex Court has observed, while considering the action of antedating the date of appointment, as follows :- "this Court has repeatedly struck down and decried any attempt on the part of the appointing authority to give a notional seniority from a retrospective date, especially, when this process affects the seniority of those who have already entered into the service. 22. 3 in Ramvir Singh vs. Union of India, 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 262, a person had been appointed as a Medico Social Worker with effect from 25th September, 1979. 22. 3 in Ramvir Singh vs. Union of India, 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 262, a person had been appointed as a Medico Social Worker with effect from 25th September, 1979. Respondent No. 4, in that case, had been appointed in the same capacity with effect from 11th April, 1980 and had been shown junior to the appellant in the provisional seniority list circulated on 25th July 1984. On 15th March 1987 said respondent No. 4 had submitted a representation and his date of appointment was antedated to 25th September 1979 on the ground that he had wrongly been denied the appointment in 1979. This antedating had resulted in granting him ad hoc promotion in preference to the appellant. This was challenged by the appellant and having failed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court. Accepting the appeal, the Supreme Court observed that the correction of the date of appointment, even if it was desirable was impermissible in law when it was sought to be done 10 years after selection list for the post had been prepared and when the inclusion of the appellant and non-selection of respondent No. 4 in that selection list had remained unquestioned by any mode known to law. The said appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court observing that the action of the respondents therein in antedating the appointment of respondent No. 4 after a lapse of more than 10 years was clearly arbitrary. 22. 4. IN K. R. Mudgal vs. R. P. Singh, AIR 1986 SC 2086 , the Supreme Court observed as follows :- "satisfactory service conditions postulate that there should be no sense of uncertainty amongst the Government servants created by the writ petitions filed after several years as in this case. It is essential that any one who feels aggrieved by the seniority assigned to him should approach the Court as early as possible as otherwise in addition to the creation of sense of insecurity in the minds of the Government servants there would also be administrative complications and difficulties22. 5 the aforesaid principles were followed and applied by a Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Sunil Kumar vs. ONGC, 1996 (2) GLR 781 . The contesting respondents in that case were actually promoted in 1992 alongwith the appellants. The appellants were treated senior to those respondents. 5 the aforesaid principles were followed and applied by a Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Sunil Kumar vs. ONGC, 1996 (2) GLR 781 . The contesting respondents in that case were actually promoted in 1992 alongwith the appellants. The appellants were treated senior to those respondents. On the basis of this seniority, promotions were granted to the next higher post. Subsequently the respondents were sought to be preponement in the original post with effect from 1. 1. 1990 and on the basis of this preponement, they were also sought to be given deemed date of promotion in the next higher post making the appellants junior to those respondents in the subsequent higher post also. The Division Bench of this Court struck down this action as arbitrary. ( 23 ) IN the facts of the instant case also, the petitioners were senior to the contesting respondents as indicated in the chart quoted in para 21 hereinabove. All of them became members of the same class of Rigmen (P ). The petitioners were treated as senior to the contesting respondents for 10 years. The ONGC has made a micro classification of Rigmen (P) by looking at their original birth marks which is not permissible after their entry in the same cadre. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court and this Court, it is clear that the petitioners who were appointed as Rigmen earlier and who have been treated as seniors all these years cannot be made junior to the contesting respondents by giving the contesting respondents the benefit of settlement dated 2. 2. 2000. If at all the ONGC wants to give 97 Rigman (P) the benefit of preponement by two years, the same cannot be done by disturbing the seniority list of Rigman (P) published in October, 1995. ( 24 ) AT the same time, having held that seniority in the cadre of Rigmen (P) cannot be altered to the disadvantage of those who have been treated as senior in the cadre of Rigmen and also in the next higher cadre of Topmen, the question is whether the ONGC can be permitted to implement the settlement dated 2. 2. 2000 in a manner so as not to adversely affect the seniority in the cadre of Rigmen (P) and the consequential seniority in the cadre of Topmen. 2. 2000 in a manner so as not to adversely affect the seniority in the cadre of Rigmen (P) and the consequential seniority in the cadre of Topmen. While Mr GK Pillai, Mr RR Vakil and Mr HH Raval have submitted that at present 97 employees in the production discipline are given the benefit of preponement by the ONGC, and if the benefit of preponement is given to all seniors to the beneficiaries within the cadre of Rigmen (P), only 27 employees are required to be given such benefit so that the seniority in the cadre of Rigmen (P) and the consequential seniority in the higher cadre of Topmen (P) will not be disturbed. ( 25 ) ON the other hand, Mr RH Mehta, learned counsel for the ONGC and Mr AK Clerk and Mr PR Nanavati, learned counsel for the contesting respondents have opposed the above submission and have submitted that this Court cannot give any direction to the ONGC to give the benefit of settlement dated 2. 2. 2000 to the persons who are not covered by the terms of the settlement because the settlement is binding on all the members of the Rigmen and Topmen Association who have entered the settlement and also binding on the other workmen of the ONGC. ( 26 ) IT is true that the settlement arrived at under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is binding on all the workmen under the employer in view of the provisions of Section 18 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, but at the same time in these petitions under Articles 226 and 227, the petitioners have already made out the case of discrimination and arbitrariness on the part of the ONGC in disturbing the seniority of the petitioners in these petitions vis-a-vis other employees in the cadre of Rigmen (P) and have also made a grievance that their seniority is sought to be adversely affected after 7 to 10 years by giving the beneficiaries preponement in the cadre of Rigmen (P ). Since the settlement dated 2. 2. Since the settlement dated 2. 2. 2000 itself is on the anvil in this group of six petitions and having held that the settlement will not be otherwise arbitrary or illegal in the context of challenge levelled by or on behalf of the employees in the disciplines other than drilling and production or even in the context of challenge made by the employees in another promotional channel within the production discipline (SCA 11523/2001), the implementation of the settlement only qua the 97 Rigmen (P) would be arbitrary if the benefit is to be given to these employees by adversely affecting the seniority of other Rigmen (P) who have been treated as senior all these years and who have also been promoted to the higher post of Topmen (P) and are consequently also treated senior in the cadre of Topmen (P ). In these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Court does have the discretion to clarify that if the ONGC does not want the benefit conferred by the settlement dated 2-2-2000 to be lost to the 97 beneficiaries, the ONGC shall not allow them to steal a march over other Rigmen (P) by disturbing their inter se seniority. The Court would accordingly direct the ONGC that while giving the benefit under the settlement dated 2. 2. 2000 to the Rigmen (P) in the production discipline, the ONGC shall not disturb the inter se seniority of the other Rigmen (P) and that such benefit of the settlement shall be given to those beneficiaries covered by the impugned settlement only if such benefit is also given to the other Rigmen (P) who were senior to the beneficiaries in the cadre of Rigmen (P), who have already been promoted to the next higher post of Topman (P ). In case the ONGC has so far given any benefits which are inconsistent with this direction, the ONGC shall rectify the same and pass appropriate orders to bring them in conformity with this direction. ( 27 ) AT this stage, the Court would like to make a reference to one more plea of the contesting respondents in respect of an employee though he is not a party to any of these proceedings. According to the contesting respondents, Mr Mansinh D Parmar at Sr. No. 4 in the seniority list of Rigmen (P) as on 1. 1. According to the contesting respondents, Mr Mansinh D Parmar at Sr. No. 4 in the seniority list of Rigmen (P) as on 1. 1. 1995 for Western Region of ONGC is shown to have joined the ONGC as AT (ROM) on 20. 5. 1989 and is shown to have joined as Rigmen on 24. 7. 1989. It is contended that this was not possible and that the said employee was wrongly shown at Sr. No. 4 in the seniority list of Rigmen (P ). It is, therefore, submitted that on account of such mistake in the seniority list, the Court may not proceed to examine the grievance of the petitioners of Special Civil Application Nos. 10417 of 2000 and cognate petitions on the basis of such senior list. ( 28 ) THIS is the only grievance which is made against the seniority list of Rigmen (P ). It is pertinent to note that the seniority list was published as far back as in October, 1995. Objections were invited. Nothing is brought on record to show whether the contesting respondents or any other person had objected to the seniority given to Mr Mansinh D Parmar at the relevant time. Mr Mansinh Parmar is not before this Court in the present proceedings and nobody has challenged his seniority. From the particulars given in the seniority list, it appears that Mr Mansinh D Parmar was selected for the post of Rigman (P) on 30. 1. 1989 and he was awaiting appointment to the post of Rigman (P ). In the meantime, it appears that he had also applied for the post of AT (ROM) and having been appointed to the said post, he joined as AT (Rom) on 20. 5. 1989. Subsequently, having been appointed as Rigman pursuant to his selection made on 30. 1. 1989, Mr Mansinh D Parmar joined as Rigman (P) on 24. 7. 1989. In view of these facts emerging from the seniority list on record, the Court does not find any substance in the contention urged on behalf of the contesting respondents that the placement of Mr Mansinh D Parmar in the aforesaid seniority list should not be accepted or that no relief can be granted on the basis of the said seniority list. The contention urged on behalf of the contesting respondent is, therefore, rejected as both belated and misconceived. The contention urged on behalf of the contesting respondent is, therefore, rejected as both belated and misconceived. ORDERS ( 29 ) IN view of the above discussion, the following orders are passed :- (I) Special Civil Application No. 6299 of 2001 is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. (II) Special Civil Application No. 11523 of 2001 is also dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. (III) Special Civil Application Nos. 10417 of 2000, 1389 of 2001 and 11489 of 2001 are hereby allowed. The ONGC is directed that while giving the benefit of the settlement dated 2. 2. 2000 arrived at between the ONGC and the Rigmen and Topmen Association at Annexure "h" in favour of the Rigmen (P) covered by the said settlement, the seniority of Rigmen (P) as contained in the Seniority List dated October, 1995 shall not be disturbed and consequently their seniority in the cadres Topman (P) and Assistant Engineer (P) shall also not be disturbed. The benefits given by the ONGC so far (i. e. from February, 2000 onwards) which are inconsistent with thisdirection shall be rectified so as rule is accordingly made absolute in these three petitions with no order as to costs. (M. S. Shah, J.) @@@ CHART - I Hierarchy of Comparative Posts With reference to SCA No. 6299 of 2001 - Sr. Payscale present drilling production electrical No. at the pay- discipline discipline discipline relevant scale (Illustrative time (Rs.) (Rs.) discipline) 1800-2200 18500- chief chief chief 23900 engineer (D) engineer (P) engineer (E) 1500-2000 17500- suptdg. Suptdg. Suptdg. 22300 engineer (D) enginee. 1400-1860 16000- dy. Suptdg. Dy. Suptdg. Dy. Suptdg. 20800 engineer (D) engineer (P) engineer (E) 1100-1750 13750- sr. Driller/ executive executive 18700 executive engineer (P) engineer (E) engineer (D) 700-1500 12000- driller/ Asst. Exe. Engineer (P) asst. Executive 17500 asst. Exe. Engineer (E) engineer (D) 650-1200 10750- asst. Asst. Asst. Asst. 16750 driller/ driller/ Engineer (P) engineer (E) assistant assistant engineer (D) engineer (P) 530-1060 oe 6500 topman (D) topman (P) Chargeman (P) chargeman (E) 440-758 oe 5800 rigman (D) rigman (P) Jr. Jr. Technician (P) technician (E) 370-640 oe 5100 Assistant assistant Technician (P) technician (E) - -. . T. . . . . . . . . . . . . . T. . . . . . . . . . . . . J. . . . . Jr. Technician (P) technician (E) 370-640 oe 5100 Assistant assistant Technician (P) technician (E) - -. . T. . . . . . . . . . . . . . T. . . . . . . . . . . . . J. . . . . T. . . . . . . . . T. . . . . . . . . . . . T. . . . . . . . . . . . j CHART - II Hierarchy of Posts in three Branches of Production Discipline With reference to SCA No. 11523 of 2001. - Sr. Payscale present designation of Posts in three Branches No. at the pay- relevant scale production production boiler time (Rs.) (Rs.) (Drilling) 9. 1800-2200 18500- Chief Engineer (P) 23900 8. 1500-2000 17500- Suptdg. Engineer (P) 22300 1400-1860 16000- Dy. Suptdg. Engineer (P) 20800 1100-1750 13750- Executive Engineer (P) 18700 700-1500 12000- Asst. Exe. Engineer (P) 17500 650-1200 10750- asst. Assistant foreman 16750 driller/ engineer (P) boiler assistant engineer (P) 530-1060 oe 6500 topman (P) chargeman (P) sr. Boiler operator 440-758 oe 5800 rigman (P) jr. Technician boiler (P) operator 370-640 oe 5100 assistant assistant technician (P) boiler operator Note: I Col. 7 to Item No. 6 in the Production Discipline in Schedule I to the 1980 Regulations mentions the feeder cadres for the post of Asst. Exe. Engineer (Production) as under:- asst. Engineer (Production)/asst. Driller (Production) II The modified Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1980 as approved by the Board of Directors of the Oil and Natural Gas Company Ltd. at its 34th meeting held on 6-2-1997 mentions the following feeder cadres for the post of Assistant Exec - - a. E. (Prodn)/ae (Prodn-Drilling)/ AE (Boiler) CHART - III Service Particulars of Petitioners and Respondents in SCA No. 10417 of 2000 and 1389 of 2001 Sr. Petitioners date of date of Sr. No. Date of remarks No. Appointment appointment/ in promotion in 370-640 date of senior- as Topman scale joining as ity list assistant rigman (P) of Rigman technician in 440-758 (P) dtd. (P) scale oct. 1996 .