Ranganath Misra,; M.M. Punchhi and; K. Ramaswamy, JJ.
1. We have heard learned Attorney General appearing for Union of India and respondent 1 in person. An affidavit has now been filed by respondent 1 which indicates that with effect from January 19, 1990, he has been appointed as a full-fledged Secretary to the Government in the Ministry of Welfare and he wants this fact to be taken notice of and its effect on the Union of India's appeal to be considered.
2. Learned Attorney General while accepting that fact states that the appeal apart from giving relief to the respondent has laid down certain propositions which would be difficult for the Union Government to accept and, therefore, even if respondent 1 has been given the relief which he claimed and the Union of India has given effect to the decision of the Tribunal, the appeal has to be heard unless we are prepared to adopt the course adopted by this Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 2458 of 1984 and 322 of 1984.
3. Respondent 2 has not challenged the Tribunal's decision holding respondent 1 to be senior to the former. The Union of India has implemented the main direction of the Tribunal by appointing respondent 1 as Secretary to Government. The only other part of the claim which respondent 1 is looking for in terms of the impugned order is compensation on the basis that the promotion should be deemed to be retrospective from March 19, 1987, when respondent 2 was appointed as Secretary. Learned Attorney General has fairly stated that the said claim shall be considered on its own merit by Government. We consider it appropriate that it is not expedient that the Union Government and its Secretary should be on litigating terms.
4. We accordingly set aside the findings and the propositions of law occurring in the impugned judgment and sustain the conclusion only to the effect that respondent 1 is senior to respondent 2 and on that basis is entitled to the relief.
5. The appeal has thus become infructuous and is disposed of with these observations without costs.