Holding

Appellants are entitled to count their substantive BSF service for seniority in Delhi Police, and the Office Memorandum’s offending clause is unconstitutional and must be struck down.

Summary

The appellants, originally Sub‑Inspectors in the Border Security Force (BSF), were deputed to the Delhi Police and later permanently absorbed as Sub‑Inspectors (Executive). They sought to have their continuous substantive service in the BSF counted for seniority in the Delhi Police cadre, a right previously granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in a similar case (Antony Mathew). The later CAT bench, relying on an unpublished Office Memorandum dated 29‑05‑1986, denied this claim, prompting the appellants to challenge the memorandum’s constitutional validity and the tribunal’s departure from precedent. The Supreme Court held that the two posts are equivalent despite differing pay scales, that the memorandum violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and that a coordinate bench of a tribunal cannot overrule an earlier coordinate decision without referring the matter to a larger bench. Consequently, the Court set aside the CAT’s contrary order, struck down the offending clause of the memorandum, and restored the appellants’ right to count their BSF service for seniority.

Issues considered

Whether service rendered as Sub‑Inspector in the BSF should be counted for seniority in the Delhi Police after permanent absorption.
Whether the posts of Sub‑Inspector in the BSF and Sub‑Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police are equivalent for seniority purposes.
Whether the Office Memorandum dated 29‑05‑1986 is constitutionally valid under Articles 14 and 16.
Whether a coordinate bench of the CAT can overrule an earlier coordinate bench decision without referring the matter to a larger bench.
The appropriate role of the State as an employer versus an amicus curiae in inter‑se service disputes.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 141, s. Article 16
Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980s. Rule 17, s. Rule 5(h)

Subjects

inter‑se senioritydeputationpermanent absorptionequivalence of postsOffice MemorandumArticles 14 and 16judicial disciplineprecedentCentral Administrative Tribunalservice law

Judgment

A S.I. ROOPLAL AND ANR.

LT. GOVERNOR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, DELHI AND ORS.

DECEMBER 14, 1999

B [S.P. BHARUCHA, R.C. LAHOTI AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.]

Service Law:

Inter-se seniority-Of transferred officials of Delhi Police-Transferred
C from BSF on deputation-Permanent absorption-Consideration of previous
service in parent department for granting seniority, denied-Reliance by the
State on Office memo-Memo not made public or made known to the concerned
officials-Relevant clause of memo inconsistent-Held, the service rendered
by the transferee officials in BSF as Sub-Inspector is entitled to be counted
D for the purpose of seniority in the cadre of sub-Inspector Delhi Police-...~uch
a right cannot be taken away in the garb of an office memo-In inter-se
disputes between employees, state should act as an impartial employer-Its
role before judicial forum should be of an amicus curiae.

Equivalence of Post-Determination of-Equivalence of the post is not
E judged by the sole fact of equal pay, but other factors like the nature of
duties, responsibilities, minimum qualification etc. are also taken into
consideration.

Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14 & 16-0ffice Memorandum-
Having effect of taking away past service in an equivalent cadre in the
F parent department-Held violative of

Judicial Discipline-Rule of precedence-Judgment passed by a co-
ordinate Bench of Tribunal, which was later confirmed by Supreme Court-
subsequently overruled by another Bench of the Tribunal-Held, opposed to
principles of judicial discipline-A co-ordinate Bench of a court cannot
G pronounce judgment contrary to declaration of law made by another Bench--
It can only refer to a larger Bench in case of disagreement-Constitution of
India, 1950-Artic/e 141.

. The appellants and others, regularly appointed as Sub-Inspectors in
BSF, were transferred on deputation to Delhi Police as Sub-Inspectors and
H 310 ,
S.I. ROOPLAL v. LT. GOVERNOR THROUGH CHIEF SECY. 311
were subsequently permanently absorbed. The service of the transferee A
officials in their parent department (BSF) was not considered for determining
seniority of Sub-Inspectors in Delhi Police. One of the transferee officials
'A' filed an application before Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter

• called CAT) claiming that his continuous officiation on a substantive basis
as Sub-Inspector in the BSF should be counted for determination of his B
seniority in Delhi Police, which was allowed by CAT. Review petition against
the judgment of the Tribunal filed by the State was dismissed. SLP by State
against the order was also dismissed and review by State against the order
in SLP was also dismissed. Respondent gave the benefit of the order to 'A'
but the appellants who were similarly situated like 'A' were denied the benefit
Therefore the appellants filed petition before CAT. The CAT, despite having C
full knowledge of the previous judgment of CAT and of Supreme Court in
'A's' case, dismissed the petition of the appellants coming to a contra-
conclusion, relying on an Office Memorandum dated 29.05.1986, existence
of which was unknown to the concerned officials and the same was also not
referred in 'A's, case at any stage of the case.
D
In appeal to this Court and in writ petition before this court challenging
the c•·nstitutional rnlidity of the Office Memorandum dated 29.05.1986 it was
contended by the appellants that the latter Bench of the Tribunal committed
a judicial impropriety in taking a contra view from the earlier judgment
without following the rule of precedence, and that the Memorandum dated E
29.05.1986 is not applicable because the same was neither made public nor
the existence of the same was made known to anyone concerned with the
controversy and because the same was violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the
Constitution. The respondent contended that the post of Sub-Inspector in
BSF was not equivalent to the post of Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police, since
the pay scale of the two posts were not equal. F

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : l. A co-ordinate Bench of a court cannot pronounce judgment
contrary to declaration of law made by another Bench. It can only refer it G
to a larger Bench if it disagrees with the earlier pronouncement The manner
in which a co-ordinate Bench of the tribunal has overruled, in effect, an
earlier judgment of another co-ordinate Bench of the same tribunal, is opposed
to all principles of judicial discipline. If at all, the subsequent Bench of the
tribunal was of the opinion that the earlier view taken by the co-ordinate
Bench of the same tribunal was incorrect, it ought to have referred the H
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A matter to Larger Bench, so that the difference of opinion between the two
co-ordinate Benches on the same point could have been avoided. It is not as
if the latter Bench was unaware of the judgment of the earlier Bench but
knowingly it proceeded to disagree with the said judgment against all known
rules of precedent. Precedents which enunciate rules of law form the
B foundation of administration of justice under our system. This is fundamental
principle which every Presiding Officer of a Judicial Forum ought to know,
for consistency in interpretation of law alone can lead to public confidence
in our judicial system. Precedent law must be followed by all concerned;
deviation from the same should be only on a procedure known to law. A
subordinate court is bound by the enunciation of law made by the superior
C courts. (319-H; 320-A, B, C, D)

Tribhuvandas Purshottumdas Thakur v. Ratilal Motilal Patel, (1968)
1 SCR 455, referred to.

2.1. Appellants are entitled to count the substantive service rendered
D by them in the post of Sub-Inspector in the BSF while counting their service
in the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police Force. (322-A)

K. Madhavan and Anr. etc. v. Union of India and Ors. Etc., (1988) 1
SCR 421; R.S. Mokashi and Ors. v. IM. Menon and Ors .. (1982) l SCC 379
and Wing Commander J. Kumar v. Union of India and Ors., (1982) 3 SCR
E 453. relied on.

2.2. The finding of the Tribunal that the posts of Sub-Inspector
(Executive) in Delhi Police are not equivalent, is erroneous and the same is
liable to be set aside. In law it is necessary that if the previous service of
transferred official is to be counted for seniority in the transferred post then
F the two posts should be equivalent. Equivalency of two posts is not judge by
the sole fact of equal pay. While determining the equation of two posts many
factors other than 'Pay' will have to be taken into consideration, like the
nature of duties, responsibilities, minimum qualification etc. The salary of
a post for the purpose of finding out the equivalence of.posts is the last of
G the criterion. If the other three criteria are fulfilled then the fact that the
salaries of the two posts are different, would not in any way make the post
not equivalent. In the instant case, it is not the case of the respondents that
the first three criteria are in any manner different between the two posts
concerned. Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal in the impugned order
that the two posts of sub-Inspector in the BSF and the Sub-Inspector (Executive)
H in Delhi Police are not ::quivalent merely on the ground that the two posts
S.L ROOPLAL v. LT. GOVERNOR THROUGH CHIEF SECY. 313

did not carry the same pay-scale, is necessarily to be rejected. A
(322-G-H; 323, A, B, C, D, E]

Union of India & Anr. v. P.K. Roy & Ors., (1968] 2 SCR 186, relied
on.

2.3. On facts, the respondents ought not to have been permitted to rely B
upon Office Memorandum dated 29.05.1986, because there is no material,
whatsoever produced by the respondents to show that the memorandum which
was issued by the Government of India was either ipso facto applicable to the
Delhi Police Force or the same was adopted and applied by Delhi Police
Force. Since the law in regard to the right of a deeutationist to count his
service for the purpose of seniority in the transferred Department was already C
settled by the court, therefore it is reasonable to expect that a deputationist
when his service is sought to be absorbed in the transferred Department
would certainly have expected that his seniority in the parent department
would be counted. In such a situation, it was really the duty of the respondents.
If at all the conditions stipulated in the impugned Memorandum were applicable D
to such person, to have made the conditions in the Memorandum known to
the deputationist before absorbing his services, in all fairness, so that such
a deputationist would have/had the option of accepting the permanent absorption
in Delhi Police or not. The very fact that such steps were not taken, shows
that this Memorandum was, in fact, never acted upon. (324-8, C, D, E]
E
2.4. A perusal of clause (iv) of the Memorandum shows that the author
of this Memorandum has taken inconsistent views in regard to the right of
a deputationist to count his seniority in the parent department. While in the
beginning part of clause (iv) in clear terms he says that a deputationist holds
an equivalent grade on regular basis in the parent department, such regular
service in the grade shall also be taken into account in fixing the seniority. F
In the latter part the use of the words "whichever is latter" negatives the
right which was otherwise sought to be conferred under the previous
paragraph of clause (iv) of the memorandum. There is no logic behind this.
The use of the words "whichever is latter" being unreasonable it offends
Article 14 of the Constitution. (325-F, G, H; 326-A] G
2.5. Any Rule, Regulation or Executive Instruction which has the effect
of taking away the service rendered by the deputationist in an equivalent
cadre in the parent department while counting his seniority in the deputed
post would be violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. Hence, liable
to be struck down. (327-F) H
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A K. Anjaiah & Ors. v. K. Chandraiah & Ors., (1988) 3 SCC 218, relied
on.

3. After laying down appropriate rules governing the service conditions
of its employees, a State should only play the role of an impartial employer
in the inter-se dispute between the employees. If any such dispute arises, the
B State should apply the rules laid down by it fairly. Still if the matter is
dragged to the judicial forum, the State should confine its role to that of an
amicus curiae by assisting the judicial forum to arrive at a correct decision.
Once a decision is rendered by a judicial forum, thereafter a State should
not involve itself in litigat~on. The matter thereafter should be left to the
C parties concerned to agitate further, if they so desire. When a state, after
a judicial forum delivers a judgment, files review petition, appeal etc. it gives
an impression that it is espousing the cause of particular group of employees
against another group of its own employees, unless of course there are
compelling reasons to resort to such further proceedings. [328-B, C, DJ

D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 5363-64
of 1997.

From the Judgment anq Order dated 4.11.93 of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Delhi in O.A. Nos. 1414 and 1415of1994.

E Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, P.P. Rao, S.K. Dholakia,
Mahabir Singh, Uma Datta, Tarun Sharma, Ms. Binu Tamta, S.W.A. Qadri, Ms.
Sushma Suri, S.N. Terdol, Y.P. Mahajan, B.K. Parasad, D.S. Mehra, Ms. Varona
Bhandari Gugnani, Naresh Kaushik, Ms. Lakita Kaushik, Lalit Kumar Khanna,
Ms. Gargi, P.N. Puri, Ranbir Yadav, Atul Kumar, Bimal Roy Jad, Mukul Gupta,
T.N. Singh and Debasis Misra for the appearing parties.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SANTOSH HEGDE, J. Civil Appeal Nos. 5363-64/97 are preferred against
the order dated 28. l 0.1994 made by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
G Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A. nos. 14145/94. W.P. (C) No. 191/99 filed
before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenges the
constitutional validity of Office Memorandum No. 20002017/80-Estt. (D) dated
29.5.1986 issued by the Government of India. T.C. (C) No. 56199 is a tr~nsfer
case filed seeking transfer of W.P. (C) No. 4128/98 pending on the file of the
High Court of Delhi which involves the same question as is involved in the
H civil appeals referred to above.
S.I. ROOPLAL v. LT. GOVERNOR THROUGH CHIEF SECY. [SANTOSH HEGDE, J.J) 15

, In all the above cases, the question involved is whether Sub-Inspector A
who was appointed as such in the Border Security Force (for short 'the BSF')
when transferred on deputation to Delhi Police in the cad~e of Sub-Inspector
(Executive) on being permanently absorbed in the transferred post, is entitled
to count his substantive service as Sub-Inspector in the BSF for the purpose
of his seniority in the Cadre of Sub-Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police or
not.
B

To appreciate the controversy involved in these cases, it is necessary
to note the background of these transfers from various Police Organisations
to Delhi Police. A perusal of the letter issued by the Commissioner of Police,
Delhi, No. 15413/Est. dated 10.9.1985 shows that in the year 1985 with a view c
to strengthen the existing security system in the Capital, the Delhi Police has
created 12 new Police Stations in Delhi. Consequent to the same and in view
of the prevailing conditions, it was felt necessary to fill up the required posts
in Delhi Police within the shortest possible time so that there is an immediate
"
impact on the law and order situation in Delhi. In the said letter, the
Commissioner noted that in the normal course the recruitment at different D
levels and training of the recruits would take a longer time and in view of the
urgent need of the hour, a decision was taken to take suitable persons on
deputation in the ranks of Inspector, Sub-Inspector, Assistant Sub-Inspector,
Head Constable, Constable and Drivers (Head Constable and Constable). In
the said letter, a request was made to the Director General of the BSF to E
forward the names of suitable persons desirous of joining Delhi Police on
initial deputation for a period of one year. The letter also stated that those
officials taken on deputation are likely to be considered for permanent
absorption after one year if they are found suitable. From the above letter it
is clear that the Delhi Police were in dire need of additional hands to man the
twelve newly created Police Stations in Delhi. In this background, certain Sub- F
Inspectors who were working in the BSF were at first sent on deputation to
Delhi Police in the cadre of Sub-Inspector (Executive) and subsequently they
were permanently absorbed.

The Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980 provide for
G
the mode of recruitment in Delhi Police. Rule 5(h) of the said Rules provides
that if the Commissioner is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient
in the interest of work to do so, he may make appointment(s) to all non-
Gazetted categories of both Executive and Ministerial cadres of Delhi Police
on deputation basis (emphasis supplied) by drawing suitable persons from

- any other State, Union Territories, Central Police Organisation or any other H
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Force. It is not in dispute that in exercise of the said power the appellants
herein and other similarly situated persons were deputed on transfer from the
BSF to Delhi Police.

Rule 17 of the above Rules, which was incorporated on 3 I .3.1983,
empowers the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, to sanction permanent absorption
B of persons sent on deputation with the consent of the deputed official in
Delhi Police of upper and lower subordinates and with the concurrence of the
Head of Police Force from which the said official is deputed. It is also not in
dispute that the absorption of the appellants and other similarly situated
officials in Delhi Police in the cadre of Sub-Inspector (Executive) was done
C in exercise of the above power vested in the Commissioner under Rule I 7 of
the Rules.

In view of the fact that when the inter se seniority list of the Sub-
Inspectors in Delhi Police was drawn, the concerned authorities did not take
into consideration the service put in by the transferee officials like the appellants
D in their parent department, namely the BSF, one of the aggrieved persons by
name Antony Mathew filed an application before the Central Administrative
Tribunal (CAT) in O.A. No. 470/9 I wherein he claimed that for determination
of this seniority in the Delhi Police the date of his continuous officiation on
a substantive basis as Sub-Inspector in the BSF has to be counted. A
Principal Bench of the tribunal in the said application, vi de its judgment dated
E 2.3. I 993 held as follows :-

"The petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector in Border
Security Force on 21.4. I 980. He was appointed as Sub-Inspector
on substantive basis w.e.f. I.I 0. I 984. He came to be sent on
deputation basis to Delhi Police on 19.1 I.1985. He came to be
F absorbed in the Delhi Police in the same grade of Sub-Inspector
w.e.f. 19.6.1987. He has in due course been confirmed in that
position. The petitioner's claim in this case is for determining his
seniority taking into c.onsideration the date of continuous
officiation as Sub-Inspector in the Border Security Force, i.e.
from 21.4. I 980, on which date he was appointed as Sub-Inspector
G
in the Border Security Force or w.e.f. I .10.1984, the date of his
substantive appointment in the Border Security Force. The
respondents have decided to accord seniority to the petitioner
with effect from the date of his absorption, namely 19.6.1987. ·
The contention of the petitioner is that he is entitled to the
H benefit of service rendered by him with the Border Security
S !. ROOPLAL v. LT. GOVERNOR THROUGH CHIEF SECY. [SANTOSH HEGDE, J 1317

Force for the purpose of reckoning his seniority. So far as the A
principle of law is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner
relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 1987 SC
2291 between K. Madhavan and Anr. v. Union of India and
others. The relevant discussion in paragraph 21 of the judgment
makes it clear that full credit must be given to the petitioner for B
the services rendered by him on a substantive basis in the
Border Security Force w.e.f. l.10.1984. The petitioner contends
that he should be given seniority taking the date of his initial
appointment or in the alternative his seniority may be counted
w.e.f. 1.10.1984 when he was appointed on substantive basis
with the Border Security Force. The petitioner has not produced C
any material showing that he was appointed w.e.f. 21.4.1980 on
permanent basis. In the absence of clear material, we will not be
justified for taking 21.4.1980 as the c01Tect date. There is no
dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector with
the Border Security Force w.e.f. 1.1o~1984 on a substantive basis.
That is the date which should be taken into account for D
determining the seniority of the petitioner.
2 For the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed. The
respondents are directed to accord seniority to the petitioner in
the Delhi Police taking 1.10.1984 as the date of appointment as
Sub Inspector in the Border Security Force on a substantive E
basis. He shall be accorded all other benefits flowing from
determination of such seniority. No costs."

It is seen from the above order of the tribunal that it relied upon a
judgment of this Court in the case of K. Madhavan and Anr. etc. v. Union
of India and Ors. etc., [ 1988] 1 SCR 421, which judgment required that full F
credit must be given to the official for substantive service in the equivalent
post in the transferred department while computing his seniority in the
transferred department.

The Delhi Administration which was the respondent in the said G
application (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') filed a review petition
against the said judgment of the tribunal, urging new ground, inter alia, that
the post of a Sub-Inspector in the BSF was not equivalent to the post of a
Sub Inspector in Delhi Police because the pay-scales of the two posts were
not the same. Hence, their service in the parent department cannot be counted
for seniority in the transferred post. The said review petition came to be H
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A dismissed by the tribunal by a rea~oned order. It held that equal pay-scales
was not the sole determinative factor while detel1)1ining the equivalency of the
two posts. It also reiterated itS finding that the law laid down by this Court
in Madhavan 's case (supra) was applicable on all fours to the facts of the
case.

B On not being satisfied with the order of the Tribunal in the review
application also, the respondent filed an SLP before this Court against the
original judgment and the order in review vide SLP (C) No. 2575-75A of 1993.
In the said SLP, the respondent specifically contended that the ratio of this
Court in Madhavan 's case (supra) was not applicable to the case of Antony
C Mathew, on the ground that the post held by Antony mathew in the BSF was
not equivalent to the post of a Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police. A three-Judge
Bench of this Court vide its order dated 22.4.1994 found no merit in the
petition filed by the Delhi Administration and dismissed the same. It is
worthwhile to note that the above-referred dismissal order of this Court
J shows that the respondents in the SLP were represented by a counsel and
D the Court passed an order after hearing the counsel, Strangely enough, the
respondent which was the employer of both the originally recruited Sub-
Inspectors of Delhi Police as well as subsequently transferred and absorbed
officials was still not satisfied even with this decision of the apex Court and
filed a review petition against the said order of dismissal of the SLP, which
E review petition came to be dismissed by this Court with the following order:-
"Apart from the fact that the petitions are delayed by 444 days, even on
merits we see no reason to entertain these petitions. Hence the Review
Petitions are dismissed." Thus, the first bout of litigation which originated
with regard to a simple question of counting the seniority, in the year 1991
came to an end in February, 1996. But, so far as the respondent is concerned,
F it was not prepared to accept the law laid down in Antony Mathew's case.
Though it gave the benefit of the order of the Tribunal, as affirmed by this
Court, to Antony Mathew, it was not ready to extend the same benefit to the
persons similarly situated like the appellants herein. As stated above, the
appellants were also originally appointed like Antony Mathew in the BSF as
G Sub-Inspectors and subsequently transferred and absorbed as such in the
Delhi Police Force and, as a matter of fact, the first appellant was even senior
to Antony Mathew in the cadre of Sub-Inspectors in the BSF and was also
absorbed in the Delhi Police on a date anterior to that of Antony Mathew.
The refusal of the Delhi Administration to give benefit of the judgment in the
case of Antony Mathew to the appellants despite their repeated representations
H and consequent denial of their seniority, compelled these appellants to file
S.I. ROOPLAL v. LT. GOVERNOR THROUGH CHIEF SECY. [SANTOSH HEGDE, J.J3} 9

original applications being O.A. Nos. 1414/94 and 1415/94 before another A
Principal Bench of the C.A.T. at Delhi.

Surprisingly, even though the case of the applicants before the Tribunal
in the above-referred Original Applications from which the present civil appeals
arise, was identical to the case of Antony Mathew both on facts and in law,
the tribunal in total disregard to the rule of precedence, inspite of having B
noticed the earlier judgment of a coordinate Bench of the same tribunal and
having noticed the fact that !he review petition filed before the tribunal, SLP
filed before this Court and review petition filed before this Court were
dismissed, it still proceeded to consider the application independent of the
law laid down in the previous case and came to an entirely contra conclusion C
and further held that the judgment in Madhavan's case had no bearing to the
facts of the present case. In this process it relied on an Official Memorandum
dated 2.5.1986 the existence of which was unknown to all concerned and
reference to which was not made by the respondent either as a defence in
the Original Application of Antony Mathew's case or in review filed thereafter
or before this Court in the SLP or in the review petition filed before this Court. D
In this se.~ond round of litigation, the tribunal came to the conclusion that
the post held by the present appellants in the BSF was not an equivalent post
of Sub Inspector in Delhi Police and also in view of the language employed
in O.M. dated 29.5.1986, held that the appellants herein were not entitled to
count the service rendered by them prior to their absorption in Delhi Police E
for the purpose of their seniority in the cadre of Sub-Inspector (Executive) in
Delhi Police. It is against this order of the tribunal that the appellants have
preferred SLPs. in which leave to appeal was granted by this Court.

Before us in these matters, Mr. P.P. Rao and Mr. S.K. Dholakia, learned
senior counsel appearing for the parties contended that the latter Bench of F
the tribunal committed a judicial impropriety in taking a contra view from the
earlier judgment without following the rule of precedent. They questioned the
correctness of the finding of tribunal in the impugned judgment as to equation
of the two posts of Sub-Inspector based only on an unequal pay scale. The
reliance on the O.M. dated 29.5.1986 was also questioned on the ground that
same was not acted upon earlier and the existence of the same was not made G
known to all concerned at any relevant point of time. It is to be noted that
the constitutional validity of the said O.M. is also challenged before us in
W.P. No. 191of1999. We have heard the teamed Additional Solicitor General
and Sri Bimal Roy Jad on behalf of the respondents.

At the outset, we must express our serious dissatisfaction in regard to H
320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A the manner in which a coordinate Bench of the tribunal has overruled, in
effect, an earlier judgment of another coordinate Bench of the same tribunal.
This is opposed to all principles of judicial discipline. If at all, the subsequent
Bench of the tribunal was of the opinion that the earlier view taken by the
coordinate Bench of the same tribunal was incorrect, it ought to have referred
B the matter to a larger Bench so that the difference of opinion between the two
coordinate Benches on the same point could have been avoided. It is not as
if the latter Bench was unaware of the judgment of the earlier Bench but
knowingly it proceeded to disagree with the said judgment against all known
rules of precedents. Precedents which enunciate rules of law from the ·
foundation of administration of justice under our system. This is a fundamental
C principle which every Presiding Officer of a Judicial Forum ought to know, for
consistency in interpretation of law alone can lead to public confidence in our
judicial system. This Court has laid down time and again precedent law must
be followed by all concerned; deviation from the same should be only on a
procedure known to law. A subordinate court is bounded by the enunciation
of law made by the superior courts. A coordinate Bench of a Court cannot
D pronounce judgment contrary to declaration of law made by another Bench.
It can only refer it to a larger Bench if it disagrees with the earlier
pronouncement. This Court in the case of Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas
Thakur v. Ratilal Afotilal Patel, [ 1968] I SCR 455 while dealing with a case
in which a Juage of the High Court had failed to follow the earlier judgment ·
E of a larger Bench of the same court observed thus:
"The judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court was
binding upon Raju, J. If the learned Judge was of the view that the
decision of Bhagwati, J., in Pinjare Karimbhai's case and of Macleod,
C.J., in Haridas's case did not lay down the correct Law or rule of
F practice, it was open to him to recommend to the Chief Justice that
the question be considered by a larger Bench. Judicial decorum,
propriety and discipline required that he should not ignore it. Our
system of administration of justice aims at certainty in the law and
that can be achieved only if Judges do not ignore decisions by Courts
of coordinate authority or of superior authority. Gajendragadkar, C.J.,
G observed in Lala Shri Bhagwan and .-inr. v. Shri Ram Chand and
Anr.

"It is hardly necessary to emphasis that considerations of judicial
propriety and decorum require that if a learned single Judge hearing
a matter is inclined to take the view that the earlier decisions of the
H High Court, whether of a Division Bench or of a single Judge, need
S.L ROOPLAL v. LT. GOVERNOR THROUGH CHIEF SECY. [SANTOSH HEGDE, J 1321

to be re-considered, he should not embark upon that enquiry sitting A
as a single Judge, but should refer the matter to a Division Bench, or,
in a proper case, place the relevant papers before the Chief Justice to
enable him to constitute a larger Bench to examine the question. That
is the proper and traditional way to deal with such matters and it is
founded on healthy principles of judicial decorum and propriety."
B
We are indeed sorry to note the attitude of the tribunal in this case
which, after noticing the earlier judgment of a coordinate Bench and after
noticing the judgment of this Court, has still thought it fit to proceed to take
a view totally contrary to the view taken in the earlier judgment thereby
creating a judicial uncertainty in regard to the declaration of law involved in
this case. Because of this approach of the latter Bench of the tribunal in this C
case, a lot of valuable time of the Court is wasted and parties to this case
have been put to considerable hardship.

In our opinion, the above error on the part of the tribunal in the normal
course should have made us remand this case to the tribunal to be decided
by a larger Bench of the tribunal to decide the issue involved in this case, D
but then taking into consideration the time already consumed by this case
and cost an~ inconvenience suffered by the parties concerned because of the
.' above referred indiscretion of the tribunal we think in the interest of justice
we should put to rest the controversies involved in these appeals.

We will now take up the question whether the appellants are entitled E
to count their service rendered by them as Sub-Inspector in the BSF for the
purpose of their seniority after absorption as Sub-Inspector (Executive) in
Delhi Police or not. We have already noticed the fact that it is pursuant to
the needs of Delhi Police that these officials were deputed to Delhi Police from
the BSF following the procedure laid down in Rule 5(h) of the Rules and F
subsequently absorbed as contemplated under the said Rules. It is also not
in dispute that at some point of time in the BSF, the appellants' services were
regularised in the post of Sub-Inspectors and they were transferred as regularly
appointed Sub-Inspectors to Delhi Police force. Therefore, on being absorbed
in an equivalent cadre in the transferred post, we find no reason why these
transferred officials should not be permitted to count their service in the G
parent department. At any rate, this question is not res integra and is
squarely covered by the ratio of judgments of this Court in more than one
case. Since the earlier Bench of the tribunal relied upon Madhavan' s case to
give relief to the deputationists, we will first consider the law laid down by
this Court in Madhavan 's case (supra). This Court in that case while considering H
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R .

.A a similar question, came to the following conclusion:
"We may examine the question from a different point of view. There
is not much difference between deputation and transfer. Indeed, when
a deputationist is pennanently absorbed in the CBI, he is under the
rules appointed on transfer. In other words, deputation may be regarded
B as a transfer from one government department to another. It will be
against all rules of service jurisprudence, if a government servant
holding a particular post is transferred to the same or an equivalent
post in another government department, the period of his service in
the post before his transfer is not taken into consideration in
computing his seniority in the transferred post. The transfer cannot
c wipe out his length of service in the post from which he has been
transferred. It has been observed by this Court that it is a just and
wholesome principle commonly applied where persons from different
sources are drafted to serve in a new service that their pre-existing
total length of service in the parent department should be respected
D and presented by taking the same into account in determining their
ranking in the new service cadre. See R.S. Mokashi and Ors. v. l.M
Menon and Ors., [ 1982] 1 SCC 379 and Wing Commander J. Kumar
v. Union of India and Ors., [1982] 3 SCR 453." · ·
(emphasis supplied)

E Similar is the view taken by this Court in the cases of R.S. Mokashi and
Ors. and Wing Commander J Kumar (supra) which judgments have been
followed by this Court in Madhavan 's case. Hence, we do not think it is
necessary for us to deal in detail as to the view taken by this Court in those
judgments. Applying the principles laid down in the above referred cases, we
F hold the appellants are entitled to count the substantive service rendered by
them in the post of Sub-Inspector in the BSF while counting their service in
the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive) in De!hi Police force.

In Jaw, it is necessary that if the previous service of a transferred official
is to be counted for seniority in the trnnsferred post then the two posts
G should be equivalent. One of the objections·raised by the respondents in this
case as well as in the earlier case of Antony Mathew is that the post of a
Sub-Inspector in the BSF is not equivalent to the post of a Sub-Inspector
(Executive) in Delhi Police. This argument is solely based on the fact that the
pay-scales of the two posts are not equal. Though the original Bench of the
H tribunal rejected this argument of the respondent, which was con finned at the
SI. ROOPLAL v. LT. GOVERNOR THROUGH CHIEF SECY [SANTOSH HEGDE, J.J323

stage of SLP by this Court, this argument found favour with the subsequent A
Bench of the same tribunal whose order is in appeal before us in these cases.
Hence, we will proceed to deal with this argument now. Equivalency of two
posts is not judged by the sole fact of equal pay. While determining the
equation of two posts many factors other than 'Pay' will have to be taken
into consideration, like the nature of duties, responsibilities, minimum B
qualification etc. It is so held by this Court as far back as in the year 1968
in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. P.K. Roy and Ors., [1968] 2 SCR 186.
In the said judgment, this Court accepted the factors laid down by the
Committee of Chief Secretaries which was constituted for settling the disputes
regarding equation of posts arising out of the States Reorganisation Act,
1956. These four factors are : (i) the nature and duties of a post, (ii) the C
responsibilities and powers exercised by the officer holding a post; the extent
of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged; (iii) the
minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post; and (iv)
the salary of the post. It is seen that the salary of a post for the purpose of
finding out the equivalency of posts is the last of the criterion. If the earlier
three criteria mentioned above are fulfilled then the fact that the salaries of D
the two posts· are different, would not in any way make the post 'not
equivalent'. In the instant case, it is not the case of the respondents that the
first three criteria mentioned hereinabove are in any manner-different between
the two posts concerned. Therefore, it should be held that the view taken by
the tribunal in the impugned order that the two posts of Sub-Inspector in the E
BSF and the Sub-Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police are not equivalent
merely on the ground that the two posts did not carry the same pay-scale,
is necessarily to be rejected. We are further supported in this view of ours
by another judgment of this Court in the case of Vice-Chancellor, L.N.
Mithila University V. DayanandJha, [1986] 3 sec 7 wherein at para 8 of the
judgment, this Court held: "Learned counsel for the respondent is therefore F
right in contending that equivalency of the pay-scale is not the only factor
in judging whether the post of Principal and that of Reader are equivalent
posts. We are inclined to agree with him that the real criterion to adopt is
whether they could be regarded of equal status and responsibility. xxx The
true criterion for equivalence is the status and the nature and responsibility G
of the duties attached to the two posts. xxx"

Therefore, in our opinion, the finding of the tribunal that the posts of
Sub-inspector in the BSF and Sub-Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police are
not equivalent, is erroneous, and the same is liable to be set aside.
H
324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A This. leaves us·to consider the validity of the Office Memorandum which
was relied upon by the tribunal in tne impugned judgment. We have noticed
earlier in the judgment that the constitutional validity of this Memorandum
is independently challenged by the appellants in W.P.© No. 191/99. There is
considerable force in the ar~ument addressed on behalf of the appellants that
B this Memorandum had neither been made public nor the existence thereof
made known to anybody concerned with the controversy in question. We
have already referred to this fact. Hence, we do not want to repeat the same
in detail. On facts, we are of the opinion that the respondents ought not to
have been permitted to rely upon this document because there is no material
whatsoever produced by the respondents to shown that this Memorandum
C which was issued by the Government of India was either ipso facto applicable
to the Delhi Police Force or the same was adopted and applied by the Delhi
Police Force. It is to be noted that the law in regard to the right of a
deputationist to count his service for purpose of seniority in the transferred
Department was settled as far back as in the year 1982 itself in the cases of
R.S. Mokashi and Ors. and Wing Commander J. Kumar (supra) (if not earlier).
D Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that a deputationist when his service is
sought to be absorbed in the transferred department would certainly have
expected that his seniority in the parent department would be counted. In
such a situation, it was really the duty of the respondents, if at all the
conditions stipulated in the impugned Memorandum were applicable to such ....
E person, to have made the conditions in the Memorandum known to the
deputationist before absorbing his services, in all fairness, so that such a
deputationist would have had the option of accepting the permanent absorption
in Delhi Police or not. The very fact that such steps were not taken, shows
that this Memorandum was, in fact, never acted upon. Apart from the above
question of equity, the appellants have challenged the constitutional validity
F of the above Memorandum on the ground that the same violates Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution. One of the grounds raised is that their vested right
of counting the seniority in the deputed Department, after absorption in an
equivalent post, is arbitrarily taken away, if the Memorandum in question is
applicable to them. Therefore, they had prayed for a declaration that the
G Memorandum be declared as ultra vires to the extent it offends their
fundamental right.

The relevant part of the Memorandum impugned in the writ petition
referrt:d to above, reads thus:
H "Even in the type of cases mentioned above, that is, where an officer
S.I. ROOPLAL v. LT. GOVERNOR THROUGH CHIEF SECY. [SANTOSH HEGDE, J J325

initially comes on deputation and is subsequently absorbed, the normal A
principles that the seniority should be counted from the date of such
absorption, should mainly apply. Where, however, the officer has
already been holding on the date of absorption in the same or
equivalent grade on regular basis in his parent department, it would
be equitable and appropriate that such regular service in the grade
should also be taken into account in determining his seniority subject B
only to the condition that at the most it would be only from the date
of deputation to the grade in which absorption is being made. It has
also to be ensured that the fixation of seniority of a transferee in
accordance with the above principle will not effect any regular
promotions made prior to the date of absorption. Accordingly it has C
been decided to add the following sub-para (iv) to para 7 of general
principles communicated vide O.M. dated 22nd December, 1959.
"(iv) In the case of a person who is initially taken on deputation and
absorbed later (i.e. where the relevant recruitment rules provide for
"Transfer on deputation/Transfer"), his seniority in the grade in which D
he is absorbed will normally be counted from the date of absorption.
If he has so ever been holding already (on the date of absorption) the
same or equivalent grade on regular basis in his parent department,
such regular service in the grade shall also be taken into account in
fixing his seniority, subject to the condition that he will be given
seniority from E
- the date he has been holding the post on deputation, or
- the date from which he has been appointed on a regular basis to the
same or equivalent grade in his parent department, whichever is
later." (emphasis supplied) p
A perusal of clause (iv) of the Memorandum shows that the author of
this Memorandum has taken inconsistent views in regard to the right of a
deputationist to count his seniority in the parent department. While in the
beginning part of Clause (iv) in clear terms he says that if a deputationist
holds an equivalent grade on regular basis in the parent department, such G
regular service in the grade shall also be taken into account in fixing the
seniority. In the latter part the author proceeds to say-"subject to the
condition that he will be given seniority from the date he has been holding
the post or the date from which he has been appointed on a regular basis to
the same or equivalent grade in his parent department whichever is later." The
use of the words "whichever is later" negatives the right which was otherwise H
326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A sought to be conferred under the previous paragraph of Clause (iv) of the
Memorandum. We are unable to see the logic behind this. The use of the
words "whichever is later" being unreasonable, it offends Article 14 of the
Constitution. It is also argued on behalf of the appellants that this Memorandum
is further violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution inasmuch as it
arbitrarily takes away the service rendered by the deputationist when he is ,_
B absorbed in Delhi Police which right of a civil servant cannot be taken away
without authority of law. We have noticed earlier that the petitioners who are
the appellants in the civil appeals, were regularly appointed as Sub-Inspectors
in the BSF on the date of their deputation. We have also accepted the fact
that the ·post of Sub-Inspector held by them in the BSF is equivalent to the
C post of Sub-Inspector (Executive) in the Delhi Police to which they stood
deputed. That being the case, in view of the judgment in the cases of R.S .
._Mokashi, Wing Commander J. Kumar and Madhavan (supra), it is clear that
they are entitled to count the service rendered by them in the post of Sub-
Inspector in the BSF for the purpose of seniority in the cadre of Sub-
Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police. Therefore, such a right of the petitioners/
D appellants could not have been taken away in the garb of an Office
Memorandum which is impugned in the above writ petition. This view of ours
finds support from a judgment of this Court in the case of K. Anjaih & Ors.
v. K. Chandraiah and Ors., (1988] 3 SCC 218. In that case this Court was
considering a statutory regulation which in almost similar terms used in the
E Office Memorandum with which we are concerned, deprived the civil servants
of their past service in the department. The Regulation involved in the said
case reads:

"9. (I) The persons drawn from other departments will carry on their
service and they will be treated as on other duty for a tenure
F period to be specified by the Commission or until they are
permanently absorbed in the Commission whichever is earlier.
(2) The services of those staff members working in the Commission
on deputation basis and who opted for their absorption in the
Commission, shall be appointed regularly as the staff in the
G Commission, in the cadre to which they belong, as per the orders
of Government approving their appointments batch by batch
and to determine the seniority accordingly. For this purpose the
Commission may review the promotions already affected."

The validity of the said Regulation was challenged and the same was
H struck down by the A?ministrative Tribunal in that case and when the matter
S.l. ROOPLAL v. LT. GOVERNOR THROUGH CHIEF SECY. [SANTOSH HEGDE, J J327

was brought up in appeal before this Court, the argument of the aggrieved A
persons that the offending regulation did not violate Articles 14 and 16 was
repelled by this Court and it upheld the argument of the deputationist which
was as follows:

"xxx that when persons from different sources are drafted to serve in
a new service, their pre-existing length of service in the parent B
department should be respected and preserved by taking the same
into account in determining their ranking in the new service cadre and
this has been done under Regulation 9( 1) that benefit cannot be taken
away for determination of the inter se seniority as per Regulation 9(2)
and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in striking down Regulation C
9(2).xxx"

However, in that case this Court instead of striking down the said
regulation, upholding the contention that a deputationist is entitled to count
his seniority when absorbed in the deputed post, observed thus:

"xxx When the Commission finally takes a decision to permanently D
absorb these deputationists after obtaining their option the question
of their inter se seniority in the Commission crops up and Regulation
9 (2) deals with the said situation. In the case of R.S. Mokashi v. l.M
Menon this Court had indicated that it is a just and wholesome
principle commonly applied to persons coming from different sources E
and drafted to serve a new service to count their pre-existing length
of service for detennining their ranking in the new service cadre. The
said principle was reiterated by this Court in K. Madhavan case. A
three-Judge Bench judgment of this· Court in the case of Wing
Commander J. Kumar also reiterated the aforesaid well-known principle
in the service jurisprudence, xxx" F
It is clear from the ratio laid down in the above case that any Rule,
Regulation or Executive Instruction which has the effect of taking away the
service rendered by a deputationist in an equivalent cadre in the parent

- department while counting his seniority in the deputed post would be violative
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Hence, liable to be struck down.
Since the impugned Memorandum in its entirety does not take away the
above right of the deputationists and by striking down the offending part of
the Memorandum, as has been prayed in the writ petition, the rights of the
G

appellants could be preserved, we agree with the prayer of the petitioners/
appellants and the offending words in the Memorandum "whichever is later" H
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A are held to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, hence, those
words are quashed from the text of the impugned Memorandum. Consequently,
the right of the petitioners/appellants to count their service from the date of
their regular appointment in the post of Sub-Inspector in BSF, while computing
·their seniority in the cadre of Sub-Inspector (Executive) in the Delhi Police,
is restored.
B
Before concluding, we are constrained to observe that the role played
by the respondents in this litigation is far from satisfactory. In our opinion,
after laying down appropriate rules governing the service conditions of its
employees, a State should only play the role of an impartial employer in the
C inter-se dispute between its employees. If any such dispute arises, the State
should apply the rules laid down by it fairly. Still if the matter is dragged to
a judicial forum, the State should confine its role to that of an amicus curiae
by assisting the judicial forum to a correct decision. Once a decision is
rendered by a judicial forum, thereafter the State should not further involve
itself in litigation. The matter thereafter should be left to the parties concerned
D to agitate further, if they so desire. When a State, after the judicial forum
delivers a judgment, files review petition, appeal etc. it gives an impression

E
that it is espousing the cause of a particular group of employees against
another group of its own employees, unless of course there are compelling
reasons to resort to such further proceedings. In the instant case, we feel the
respondent has taken more than necessary interest which is uncalled for. This
-
act of the State has only resulted in waste of time and money of all concerned.

In the light of the view taken by us, the civil appeals .and W.P. (C)
No.191/99 are allowed "to the extent mentioned above. W.P.(C) No. 4128/98

F
pending on the file of Delhi High Court which has been registered. here as
TC (C) No. 56199 is withdrawn to the file of this Court and the same is
I
dismissed. The respondent (Delhi Administration) shall pay costs in all the
above matters.
•
KKT. Appeals and Petition allowed
T.C. No. 56199 dismissed.