Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 72 (CAL)

UNION OF INDIA v. Sarat Chandra Ratho

2012-01-19

ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI, PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY

body2012
JUDGMENT Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J. 1. INSTANT writ petition has been filed on behalf of the Union of India and some the Central Board of Excise and Customs and order dated 2nd May, 2008 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in O.A. No. 360 of 2002 and M. A. No. 427 of 2007. 2. THE respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein filed the aforesaid application being O.A. No. 360 of 2002 before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench challenging the order dated 20th September, 2001 passed by the petitioner No. 5 herein. THE respondents/applicants were all working as Preventive Officers in the Customs Department. THE next promotional post of the Preventive Officers is either Superintendent or Appraiser. THE respondents/applicants herein were promoted as Appraisers on ad-hoc basis during the year 1985-1987. THE services of the respondents/applicants were governed by the recruitment Rules of 1961 which were replaced by the subsequent 1988 Rules wherein a revised method of recruitment was prescribed for the post of appraiser. THE avenue of promotion from the post of Preventive Officers in terms of 1961 of recruitment Rules was to the post of Superintendent of Customs or to the post of appraiser. However in terms of 1988 Rules, method of recruitment to the post of appraiser was revised. In terms of the said 1988 Rules 50% quota was fixed for the direct recruits and balance 50% for the promotees. On the basis of the 1988 Rules applicants/respondents were asked to submit option for promotion as Appraisers which the respondents/applicants refused on the ground that they were already holding the post of appraiser in accordance with 1961 Rules. THE respondents/applicants also submitted before the authorities concerned that in terms of 1961 Rules they should be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner in normal course. THE authorities concerned however, did not prepare any gradation list of seniority for the Appraisers. On the question of seniority and regularisation of services several Customs Officers who were promoted to the post of Appraisers like the respondents/applicants herein on ad-hoc basis also filed several applications before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench. THE applicants/respondents also moved an application before the Calcutta Bench of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. 3. On the question of seniority and regularisation of services several Customs Officers who were promoted to the post of Appraisers like the respondents/applicants herein on ad-hoc basis also filed several applications before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench. THE applicants/respondents also moved an application before the Calcutta Bench of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. 3. THE Calcutta Bench of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal disposed of the application on 7th November, 1991 by directing the authorities concerned to hold a review DPC in order to regularise the respondents/ applicants in the cadre of appraiser. THE authorities concerned namely, the petitioners herein filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the said Special Leave Petition. THE Bombay Bench of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal also decided the similar applications filed on behalf of the ad-hoc Appraisers like the applicants herein and finally disposed of the applications being O.A. 360 of 1990 and other similar cases by the judgment and order dated 18th July, 1991 whereby the Customs Authorities were directed to regularize the services of the ad-hoc Appraisers from the date of their continuous working in the post of appraiser after selection by DPC. THE aforesaid order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition and the said Special Leave Petition was thereafter dismissed by the Supreme Court on merits by the judgment and order dated 10th February, 1992. THE authorities concerned thereafter filed a review application before the Supreme Court which was dismissed on 11th August, 1992. 4. AFTER dismissal of the aforesaid Special Leave Petition, the Competent Authority of the Customs Department in Bombay and Madras regularised all ad-hoc Appraisers following the decision of the Bombay Bench of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. 362 of 1990 (P. H. Mahajan and Ors. v. UOI and Ors.) by granting the benefit of continuous officiation. The identical claims of the applicants/respondents were however denied by the concerned authority of the Customs Department. A similarly circumstanced employee working in Bombay was also denied the benefit of regularisation following the decision of P. H. Mahqjan and Ors. v. UOI and Ors. (supra). The said employee namely, Shri G. B. Yadav filed an application before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench which went up to the Supreme Court. A similarly circumstanced employee working in Bombay was also denied the benefit of regularisation following the decision of P. H. Mahqjan and Ors. v. UOI and Ors. (supra). The said employee namely, Shri G. B. Yadav filed an application before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench which went up to the Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the appeal, finally directed the respondent authorities to prepare all India combined list of Appraisers on the basis of continuous officiation of the incumbent in the post of appraiser. 5. IN terms of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G. B. Yadav v. Union of India and Ors., reported in (1996)4 SCC 23 , a draft of all India seniority list of appraisers was published in the month of July, 1997 wherein the names of the respondents/applicants were mentioned. Thereafter in the month of November, 1997 aforesaid draft seniority list was finalised wherein the names of the respondents/applicants were not even mentioned. 6. IN view of the exclusion of the names of the respondents/applicants from the seniority list, another application was filed before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench being O.A. No. 249 of 1998 and the said application was also disposed of by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench as on 6.7.98 as hereunder : "Accordingly, we dispose of the OA with this direction upon the official respondents that they will consider the representations of the petitioners as per Annexure 'G' and 'H' within two months from the date of communication of this order and pass a speaking order, a copy of which should be sent to the petitioners within three weeks from the date it is passed. We make it clear that if even after the disposal of the aforesaid two representations, the petitioners have any grievance, they may approach this Tribunal with a fresh application against such order of the authorities if they are so advised. All interim orders passed earlier in OA stand vacated. However, in order to protect the interest of he applicants and accepting the suggestions given by Dr. All interim orders passed earlier in OA stand vacated. However, in order to protect the interest of he applicants and accepting the suggestions given by Dr. Banerjee which we have already noted, we direct the respondents that till the disposal of the petitioners' representations, the respondents shall keep adequate number of post of Assistant Commissioner of Customs vacant and if there by any difficulty in this regard to keep adequate number of post so vacant, the respondents may give promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Customs from the post of Appraiser purely on ad-hoc and provisional basis on the basis of impugned seniority list as per Annexure 'P." 7. THE Commissioner of Customs thereafter, by the order dated 24th November, 1998 refixed the notional seniority in the grade of Superintendent of Customs ignoring the specific claim of the respondents/applicants for regularisation in the post of appraiser on the basis of their continuous service since 1985-1986. 8. CHALLENGING the aforesaid order dated 24th November, 1998 another application was moved before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench being O.A. 174 of 1999 by the respondents/applicants along with some other identically placed officers. The said application was finally disposed of by the learned Tribunal on 2nd March, 2000 by granting leave to the authorities to deal with the applicants of the said application being O.A. 174 of 1999 in any manner they deemed fit and proper. 9. CHALLENGING the order dated 2nd March, 2000 a writ petition was filed before this court on behalf of the applicants/respondents and the other similarly placed officers and the same was finally disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court presided over by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. B. Sinha (as His Lordship then was) on 13th July. 2000 whereby their Lordships were pleased to allow the writ-petition and remit the matter back to the learned Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with law. 10. THE learned Central Administrative Tribunal thereafter heard the matter on merits and disposed of the application with the following orders:- "(i) THE communication dated 24.12.98 at annexure-O along with the review DPC proceeding held on 21.9.98 are hereby set aside. 10. THE learned Central Administrative Tribunal thereafter heard the matter on merits and disposed of the application with the following orders:- "(i) THE communication dated 24.12.98 at annexure-O along with the review DPC proceeding held on 21.9.98 are hereby set aside. (ii) THE respondents are directed to regularise the service of the applicants and other similarly circumstanced persons at Calcutta Customs, who were given ad-hoc promotion as Appraiser prior to coming into force of 1988 recruitment rules, from the date of their initial appointment, which is admitted to be as per rules, in the same manner as was done in 1984 or in respect of applicants of Mahajan's case, as mentioned above, by undertaking a fresh review of the vacancy position prior to, 31.12.87. (iii) On such regularisation, the applicants names be inducted in the All India senior list at appropriate places based on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gaya Prakash Yadav's case (supra). (iv) If on review it is found that the applicants or any of them could not come within the promotion quota vacancy and if it is so considered necessary, then such excess vacancies as occupied by the applicants or any of them meant for direct recruitment, may be adjusted against the promotion quota vacancies which will arise in subsequent years, as and when the turn of the applicants as per their notional seniority in the grade of Preventive Officer would come against 25% share of promotion quota of Appraisers as per 1988 rules, without affecting the interest of others. (v) THE aforesaid exercise be completed within four months from the date of communication of this order." 11. THE applicants in the aforesaid Tribunal Application being O.A. No. 174 of 2009 thereafter filed a review application before the Calcutta Bench of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal which was disposed of by circulation on 4th April, 2001. (v) THE aforesaid exercise be completed within four months from the date of communication of this order." 11. THE applicants in the aforesaid Tribunal Application being O.A. No. 174 of 2009 thereafter filed a review application before the Calcutta Bench of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal which was disposed of by circulation on 4th April, 2001. THE relevant extracts from the aforesaid order dated 4th April, 2001 in Review Application being R.A. No. 12 of 2001 are set out hereunder:- "On a perusal of the above order it is abundantly clear that the respondents were directed to comply with the directions contained in paras (i), (ii) and (iii) and if any event they found any difficulty to comply with the directions as embodied in paras (i), (ii) and (iii), then they should not unnecessarily sit over the matter and in that event only they can take recourse to the direction given in para (iv). It is abundantly clear that the direction was given to fix the seniority in the light of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gaya Prakash Yadav's, as mentioned in the order." 12. PURSUANT to the order passed by the Calcutta Bench of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal on 28th March, 2001 in OA. No. 174 of 1999 a review DPC meeting was held on 17th September, 2001 for regularisation of the services of the applicants of the aforesaid Tribunal Application. Five of the applicants in OA No.174 of 1999 were regularised but the other six applicants who are respondents herein were not regularised by the authority concerned on the plea of want of vacancies. 13. THE petitioner No. 5 by the order dated 20th September, 2001 regularised the services of the said five applicants in O.A. 174 of 1999, although not from the date of their initial promotion to the post of appraiser, on ad-hoc basis, upon granting the benefit of their continuous service. THE names of the applicants/respondents herein were however, not mentioned in the aforesaid order dated 20th September, 2001 issued by the petitioner No.5 since according to the authorities, aforesaid six applicants could not be regularised for want of vacancies. 14. THE names of the applicants/respondents herein were however, not mentioned in the aforesaid order dated 20th September, 2001 issued by the petitioner No.5 since according to the authorities, aforesaid six applicants could not be regularised for want of vacancies. 14. THE learned Tribunal upon considering the submissions of the learned counsel of both the parties and scrutinizing the relevant records and also considering the earlier decisions of the learned Tribunal, Division Bench of this Court as well as the Supreme Court was pleased to direct the authorities concerned namely, the petitioners herein by the order dated 2nd May, 2008 to regularise the services of the applicants in the said Tribunal Application being O.A. No. 360 of 2002 as Appraisers with effect from the date of their initial appointment on ad-hoc basis. 15. ASSAILING the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal on 2nd May, 2008. the present writ petition has been filed at the instance of the concerned authorities namely, the writ petitioners herein. 16. THE learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that ad-hoc promotions granted to the respondents herein were subject to following three conditions:- i) Their promotion as Appraisers were against the posts reserved for direct recruit candidates and they are liable to reversion without notice to their substantive post as and when direct recruits join. ii) Their promotions are without prejudice to the claims of their seniors who cannot he promoted now but may be promoted. iii) Their ad-hoc promotion will not bestow on them any claim for regular promotion and that ad-hoc service rendered would not count for the purpose of seniority in the grade of Appraiser or for eligibility for promotion, confirmation etc. Under circumstances the said conditions which were accepted by the respondents could not confer a right on the respondents to claim seniority from the date of ad hoc appointment. Such seniority would count from the date of regular promotion given to the respondents in accordance with law. 17. THE learned Additional Solicitor General further submitted that the aforesaid conditions which were accepted by the respondents could not confer any right on the said respondents to claim regular promotion and/or seniority from the date of ad hoc promotion. 18. Such seniority would count from the date of regular promotion given to the respondents in accordance with law. 17. THE learned Additional Solicitor General further submitted that the aforesaid conditions which were accepted by the respondents could not confer any right on the said respondents to claim regular promotion and/or seniority from the date of ad hoc promotion. 18. THE learned Additional Solicitor General contended that after enforcement of the 1988 Rules, the department cannot fall back on the instructions which had been issued in 1961 or before 1987 since it cannot be said that such Rules or Instructions are in vogue even after new Rules of 1988 have come into force. It was submitted that any ad- hoc promotion given to an employee would not give any substantive right to such a person and the said person is liable to be reverted on subsequent finalization of the seniority list and regular promotion of any senior officer. THE learned Additional Solicitor General pointed out that the contention of the respondent is that on the basis of continuous officiation from the date of ad-hoc promotion they should be considered as seniors and their promotion/seniority should be made from the date of ad-hoc promotion. It was submitted that such a contention raised by the respondents is fallacious inasmuch as ad-hoc promotion would not give any substantive right to such person and such person is liable to be reverted on subsequent finalisation of the seniority list and regular promotion of any senior officer. In the circumstances it was submitted that the learned Members of the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in directing regularization of the respondents from the date of ad-hoc promotion. THE learned Additional Solicitor General further submitted that according to the well settled principles of law the respondents are liable to be promoted from the date of their regular promotion according to their seniority and their seniority would count from the date of their regular promotion and not from the date of their ad-hoc promotion. 19. THE learned Additional Solicitor General further submitted that according to the well settled principles of law the respondents are liable to be promoted from the date of their regular promotion according to their seniority and their seniority would count from the date of their regular promotion and not from the date of their ad-hoc promotion. 19. THE next branch of submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General was that ad-hoc promotees promoted before December, 1987 in excess of the maximum permissible 50% of the posts cannot claim regularisation from the date of ad-hoc promotion, and as such, the learned Members of Central Administrative Tribunal fell in error in holding that the three respondents should be regularised as Appraisers with effect from the date of their initial appointment on ad-hoc basis. Consequently, ad-hoc promotees promoted before December, 1987 in excess of maximum permissible 50% of the posts on their subsequent regularisation after 1988 Rules came into force, can claim seniority from the date of regular promotion and not from the date of their ad-hoc promotion. It was submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General that promotion and seniority are interdependent on each other. According to learned Additional Solicitor General, unless a person in service is promoted and regularized, he cannot claim seniority over and above who are already promoted and regularized. 20. IN support of the aforesaid contention the learned Additional Solicitor General relied on a judgment passed by Their Lordships of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 21st April, 2006 in W. P. Nos. 26975 of 2002, W. P. No. 39564, 39583 of 2005, 15158 of 2002 and W.P. Nos. 29393 to 29396, 42049, 42416 and 42432 of 2004 and W. P. No. 26975 of 2005 (Sharath Kumar Rath and Ors. v. Central Administrative Tribunal and Ors.) 21. IT was further pointed out by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the said judgment of the Madras High Court had already been confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Customs Appraising Officers Association v. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2008) 7 SCC 278 . 22. v. Central Administrative Tribunal and Ors.) 21. IT was further pointed out by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the said judgment of the Madras High Court had already been confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Customs Appraising Officers Association v. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2008) 7 SCC 278 . 22. ON the basis of the said two decisions it was vehemently urged by the learned Additional Solicitor General, that ad-hoc promotion of the three respondents, was regularised on 1.4.2002, 1.7.2006 and 15.9.2003 respectively against the promotee quota vacancies of 20% meant for Preventive Officers and consequently their seniority would count from the date of regularisation as above and not from the date of their ad-hoc promotion. 23. IT was pointed out by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the judgment of the Madras High Court was delivered on 21.4.2006 and the same was not at all considered by the learned Members of Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench while passing the impugned order on 2.5.2008. As the said judgment of the Madras High Court has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chennai Customs Appraising Officers Association v. Union of India, seniority of the ad hoc promotees like the respondents herein would count from the date of regularisation and not from the date of ad-hoc promotion which was purely conditional and did not confer any right on them to claim regular promotion. 24. IT was submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the draft seniority list of Customs Appraisers upto 30.06.1998 was finalised by the Department upon hearing objections of all parties including the respondents herein in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in its judgment dated 21.04.2006 which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 3630 of 2008 (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 17493 of 2006 -Chennai Customs Appraising Officers Association v. Union of India and Ors.) 25. THE learned Additional Solicitor General pointed out that while passing its order, the learned Members of Central Administrative Tribunal, Caclutta Bench did not at all consider the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court on 21.04.2006. THE learned Additional Solicitor General pointed out that while passing its order, the learned Members of Central Administrative Tribunal, Caclutta Bench did not at all consider the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court on 21.04.2006. Learned Additional Solicitor General further submitted that the correct law with regard to promotion/seniority of ad-hoc appointees has been well settled by the judgment of Madras High Court which was subsequently upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the judgment/order passed by the Learned Members of Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench on 2.5.2008 in O.A.No.360 of 2002 cannot be said to lay down the correct law on the subject. According to the learned Additional Solicitor General, the said judgment/order passed by the learned Members of Central Administrative Tribunal cannot override the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and consequently the respondents herein cannot be given regular promotion/seniority from the date of their ad-hoc promotion. 26. MR. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned senior counsel of the respondents submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of suppression of material facts and on account of abuse of process of law. MR. Mukherjee submitted that the Government of India's decision dated 23rd August, 2001 for implementation of the order dated 28th March, 2001 passed in O.A. No.174 of 2001 was never disclosed until CAN No. 4195 of 2010 was filed before this court. MR. Mukherjee referred to and relied on the following; decisions in support of his aforesaid contentions :- 1. S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L. Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by L. Rs. and Ors. reported in AIR 1994 SC 853 (Paras 7 and 8). 2. G. Narayanaswamy Reddg (dead) by L. Rs. and Anr. v. Government of KarnatakaandAnr. reported in AIR 1991 SC 1726 Para 2. 3. Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India, reported in (2007) Vol. 8 SCC 449. 4. K. D. Sharmav. Steel Authority of India Limited and Ors., reported in (2008) Vol. 12 SCC 481 Para 34. 5. Naraindas v. Government of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., reported in AIR 1974 SC 1252 Para 7. 6. Dalip Singhv. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., reported in (2010) Vol. 2 SCC 114. 7. Gaya Baksh Yadav v. Union of lndia and Ors. with Kishorilal Bablani and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., reported in (1996) Vol. 4 SCC 23 Paras 16 and 17. 27. 6. Dalip Singhv. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., reported in (2010) Vol. 2 SCC 114. 7. Gaya Baksh Yadav v. Union of lndia and Ors. with Kishorilal Bablani and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., reported in (1996) Vol. 4 SCC 23 Paras 16 and 17. 27. THE Division Bench of this court while deciding the writ petition being W.P.S.T. No. 247 of 2000 has categorically held that the respondents herein were promoted to the post of Appraisers through a regular selection held by DPC, but appointed on ad-hoc basis due to non-availability of posts against the quota fixed for the promotees and therefore, the right of seniority of the respondents herein due to the continuous officiation cannot be curtailed. THE relevant portions of the aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench of this Court are set out hereunder:- .........It is not a case where persons have been promoted on ad-hoc basis without following the Recruitment Rules. THE petitioners were found to be eligible to hold the post of Appraisers but only in view of tie fact that at least 50 per cent of the said posts were reserved by way of direct recruitment, they were appointed on ad-hoc basis." .........THE petitioners in terms of 1961 rules were entitled to be considered for promotion but they could not be promoted on a regular basis in view of the quota rule in respect of the direct recruits. It is, therefore, not a case where the seniority of the petitioner would be counted only from the date of their regularisation but from the date of their posting as has been held by the Bombay Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal which view has been upheld by the Apex Court. Thus, their seniority was to be reckoned from the date from which they were officiating in the said post." 28. MR. Mukherjee submitted that the aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench has attained its finality since no appeal was preferred from the said order. MR Mukherjee further submitted that the order passed by the learned Tribunal in OA No. 174 of 1999 has also attained finality since the same was not challenged before any higher forum. MR. Mukherjee submitted that the order dated 28th March, 2001 passed in O.A. No. 174 of 1999 has a binding effect upon Union Of India and other respondents. 29. MR. Mukherjee submitted that the order dated 28th March, 2001 passed in O.A. No. 174 of 1999 has a binding effect upon Union Of India and other respondents. 29. THE learned senior counsel representing the respondents herein urged before this Court that the right crystalised in favour of the respondents by virtue of the order dated 28th March, 2001 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 174 of 1999 cannot be taken away specially when no appeal has been preferred before the higher forum assailing the said judgments. 30. MR. Mukherjee submitted that the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Customs Appraising Officers' Association cannot be made applicable in respect of the respondents herein since promotees in the case of Chennai Customs were promoted on ad-hoc basis without following the regular selection process whereas the respondents herein were promoted on ad-hoc basis through a regular selection. 31. MR. Mukherjee referred to and relied upon the following decisions in support of his arguments:- 1. Madan Mohan Pathak and Anr v. Union of India and Ors. and Ram Prakash Manchandaand Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., reported in AIR 1978 SC 803 Paras 8 and 9. 2. Ishwar Duttv. Land Acquisition Collector and Anr., reported in (2005) Vol. 7 SCC 190 Para 23. 3. P. Venugopal v. Union of India, reported in (2008) Vol. 5 SCC 1 Paras 15, 25 and 30. 32. THERE is no dispute that the respondents herein were promoted to the post of Appraisers on ad-hoc basis, but through regular selection prxess. The decision of the Madras High Court which was subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has no manner of application in the facts of the present case since the respondents herein were promoted through a regular selection process even though such promotion was granted on ad-hoc basis. The aforesaid distinguishing factor cannot be overlooked by any Court of law. The learned Members of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench while deciding the application being O.A. No. 174 of 1999 decided the issues correctly and the decision reached its finality as no appeal was preferred from the said judgment. The aforesaid distinguishing factor cannot be overlooked by any Court of law. The learned Members of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench while deciding the application being O.A. No. 174 of 1999 decided the issues correctly and the decision reached its finality as no appeal was preferred from the said judgment. The subsequent application being O.A. No. 360 of 2002 was filed by the respondents herein before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench challenging the order dated 20th September, 2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Administration) namely, the petitioner No.5 herein. By the aforesaid order dated 20th September, 2001, petitioner No. 5 herein sought to regularise the services of the Appraisers working on ad-hoc basis against the available vacancies without giving any benefit for their ad-hoc service as Appraisers. The learned Members of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench while deciding the said application being O.A. No. 360 of 2002 relied upon the earlier decision of the said Tribunal in O.A. No. 174 of 1999 and was pleased to set aside the said order dated 20th September, 2001 upon issuing specific direction for regularisation of the respondents herein as Appraisers with effect from the date of their initial appointment on ad-hoc basis. 33. THE learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the decision of the Madras High Court which was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court was not taken into consideration by the Calcutta Bench of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal while deciding the application being O.A. No. 360 of 2002 by the order dated 2nd May, 2008. 34. WE are, however, of the opinion that the aforesaid decision cannot have any application in the instant case since the petitioners before the Madras High Court were not appointed through a regular selection process like the respondents herein. Furthermore, the case of Chennai Customs Appraising Officers Association (supra) was decided by the Supreme Court on 16th May, 2008 i.e., after disposal of the aforesaid application by the Calcutta Bench of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. 35. IN the Case of Madan Mohan Pathak and Ann v. Union of India and Ors. and Ram Prakash Manchanda and Ors. Furthermore, the case of Chennai Customs Appraising Officers Association (supra) was decided by the Supreme Court on 16th May, 2008 i.e., after disposal of the aforesaid application by the Calcutta Bench of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. 35. IN the Case of Madan Mohan Pathak and Ann v. Union of India and Ors. and Ram Prakash Manchanda and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:- "...............................If by reason of retrospective alteration of the factual or legal situation, the judgment is rendered erroneous, the remedy may be by way of appeal or review, but so long as the judgment stands, it cannot be disregarded or ignored and it must be obeyed by the Life INsurance Corporation. We are, therefore, of the view that, in any event, irrespective of whether the impugned Act is constitutionally valid or not, the Life INsurance Corporation is bound to obey the writ of Mandamus issued by the Calcutta High Court and to pay annual cash bonus for the year 1st April, 1975 to 31st March, 1976 to Class III and Class IV employees............................" 36. THE aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is very much relevant for the purpose of deciding the issues raised in the present writ petition. 37. THE one other important fact which we cannot overlook is that the Under Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue by the written communication dated 23rd August, 2001 specifically directed the Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata to implement the judgment of the learned Tribunal passed in O.A. No. 174 of 1999 by extending the benefit of the said order to the respondents herein. THE aforesaid written communication dated 23rd August, 2001 was not disclosed either before the Calcutta Bench of the learned Tribunal or even before this Court at any stage till the filing of the recalling application No.4195 of 2010. THE aforesaid application was affirmed and filed before this Court on 4th May, 2010. THE present petition was filed by the Union of India and the Customs Authorities in the year 2009 in clear violation of the specific order passed by the competent authority of the Government of India namely, the Under Secretary, Govt., of India. THE petitioners herein should not have filed the present application in view of the aforesaid decision of the Govt. THE petitioners herein should not have filed the present application in view of the aforesaid decision of the Govt. of India which was communicated to the Commissioner of Customs by the written communication on 23rd August, 2001. THE aforesaid written communication dated 23rd August, 2001 issued by the Under Secretary, Govt. of India is set out hereunder:- F. No. A. 23011/1/99 Ad.II (A) Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2001. To THE Commissioner of Customs Calcutta. Subject: O.A. No. 174 of 1999 filed by N. N. Chakraborty and Ors. before CAT, Calcutta Bench reg. Regularisation to the post of Appraiser from the date of officiation reg. Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter No. S.51-38/98 Estt. dated August, 2001 of the above subject and to request you to implement the judgment in respect of O.A. No.174/1999. THE benefit of the order may be extended to the petitioners only. Yours faithfully, Sd/-(S. K. Bahl) Under Secretary to the Govt. of India. 38. IN view of the aforesaid specific direction issued by the Government of India, respondents herein are entitled to enjoy all the benefits pursuant to the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in O.A. No. 174 of 1999. We take serious exception to the conduct of the petitioners suppressing the direction issued earlier by the competent authority of the Government of India. 39. THE decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prestige Lights Ltd. (supra) is very much relevant in this respect Relevant paragraph from the aforesaid decision is set out hereunder:- "It is thus clear that though the appellant Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution it had not candidly stated all the facts of the Court. THE High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a court of law is also a court of equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter." 40. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter." 40. IN the case of K. D. Sharma (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed:- "IN the case on hand, the appellant had not come forward with all the facts. He has chosen to state the facts in the manner suited to him by giving an impression to the writ court that an instrumentality of State (SAIL) has not followed doctrine of natural justice and fundamental principles of fair procedure. This is not proper. Hence, on that ground alone, the appellant cannot claim equitable relief. But we have also considered the merits of the case and even on merits, we are convinced that no case has been made out by him to interfere with the action of SAIL, or the order passed by the High Court." 41. HOWEVER, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in the subsequent order dated 2nd May, 2008 passed in O.A. No. 360 of 2002 upheld the legitimate claims of the respondents herein on merits and relying on the earlier decision of the said learned Tribunal passed in OA. No. 174 of 1999 issued specific directions to the petitioners for regularising the service of the respondents as Appraisers with effect from the date of their initial appointment order on ad-hoc basis. The aforesaid direction of the learned Tribunal cannot be held to be erroneous in view of the decisim of the Madras High Court which was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Customs Appraising Officers Association (supra) since the Appraisers in the aforesaid case were not appointed by the Chennai Customs Authorities through a regular selection process. 42. FOR the aforementioned reasons, we are of the opinion that the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench has rightly decided the issues raised in the application being O.A. No. 360/2002 and we find no error and/or infirmity in the impugned order dated 2nd May, 2008 passed by the said learned Tribunal. 43. WE are also of the opinion that the present writ application has been filed by the authorities of the Calcutta Customs in order to deny and defeat the rightful and legitimate claims of the respondents herein. 44. 43. WE are also of the opinion that the present writ application has been filed by the authorities of the Calcutta Customs in order to deny and defeat the rightful and legitimate claims of the respondents herein. 44. MOREOVER, as observed above this writ petition has been moved in suppression of facts, by not disclosing the specific direction of the competent authority of the Government of India being the Under Secretary, Government of India dated 23rd August, 2001 for implementation of the judgment and order passed earlier by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in O.A. No. 174 of 1999. The appellant has not only suppressed the aforesaid material fact before the learned Tribunal but also before this Court at the time of filing the writ petition. The suppression is highly improper on the part of the petitioners. We take serious exception to the aforesaid conduct of the petitioners. We are of the opinion that on the aforesaid ground alone, the petitioners herein are not entitled to claim equitable relief from this Court. However considering the merits of the case, we are also satisfied that no case has been made out by the petitioners herein for interference with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. 45. IN the aforesaid circumstances, we affirm the impugned judgment and order dated on 2nd May, 2008 passed in O.A. No. 360 of 2002 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench and dismiss this application for want of any merit and also award costs assessed at 500 Gms. 46. LET urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates of the parties on usual undertaking. Petition dismissed.