CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MADRAS BENCH
OAs 310/01237/2016, 310/01454/2015, 310/01536/2016 & MAs 781/2016, 889/2016, 878/2016, 880/2016, 890/2016,897/2016, 923/2016
Dated 10/01/2017
The Operative Part of the order is as under:-
14. Heard both. Perused the materials placed on record. It is not in dispute that the applicantswere recruited as Direct Recruit (DR) Inspectors and joined the department during the year 1985 throughan examination conducted by the SSC for the vacancy position pertaining to the year 1983. It is alsonot in dispute that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.R. Parmar had held that the DirectRecruits Seniority would commence from the date of initiation of recruitment process when the vacancies were notified by the user department to the recruitment agency. Now the grievance of the applicants is that the respondent department had not revised the seniority of the applicants based onthe N. R. Parmar's case. For which the official respondents would submit that as per the DOPT OM dt. 04.03.2014 the principles of determination of inter se seniority of Direct Recruit and Promoteeswould be effective from 27.11.2012, the date of Supreme Court Judgment in N.R. Parmar case.
15. On perusal it is seen that the para 5(h) of the DoPT OM dt. 04.03.2014 clarifies the principles of determination of inter se seniority of Direct Recruit and Promotees is only prospective from the date ofSupreme Court Judgment. But challenging the provision of the DOPT OM dt. 04.03.2014, OA was filed before the CAT, Mumbai Bench in OA 741 & 692/2013 wherein this Tribunal vide order dt.06.05.2015 had held that the DOPT provision of prospective application of Apex Court Judgment in N RParmar case has to be ignored and the judicial principle enshrined under the said judgment ought to be applied retrospectively. It is clear that the order of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal had been accepted and conceded by the 1st and 2nd respondents before the High Court, Mumbai inWP No. 6784/2013 vide its order dt. 22.09.2014 and had also implemented it in Mumbai and Goa CustomsCommissionerates. Now the grievance of the applicants is that if their cases are not considered foradhoc promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner on par with the similarly placed persons as perJudgment of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal they would not only be deprived of their right of promotionbut also their juniors will become senior to them.
16. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that the applicants are similarly situatedpersons as that of the applicants in OA 741 and 692 of 2013 of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal which was confirmed by Mumbai High Court. The mere fact that they were recruited before 1986 could notdeprive them of the applicability of the 1986 OM of the DoPT. Had this been the correct law, theapplicants' senioirty would have been fixed in terms of the 1959 OM which might have been even more beneficial to them. Having applied the 1986 OM for fixing their seniority at the relevant time, the respondents cannot now argue that the 1986 OM as interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court would have no applicability to the applicants' case. Further, the respondents cannot be oblivious of the factthat such selective application of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court might make a 1985 direct recruit junior to a 1986 direct recruit which cannot be sustained by any logic or reason. We are,therefore of the view that the relief sought by the applicants has to be granted. Accordingly the senioritylist published by the respondent department without applying the N.R. Parmar ratio is quashed and therespondent department is directed to draft a seniority list following the N.R. Parmar case and also the order in OA 741 and 692/2013 of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal which was confirmed by Mumbai High Court,by giving seniority to the applicants from the date of initiation of recruitment process. Also the respondents are directed to consider the names of the applicants strictly in accordance with such revisedseniority in the ensuing DPC. Accordingly all the OAs are allowed. MAs 878/2016, 880/2016, 890/2016, 897/2016, 923/2016 filed for vacating the stay are also closed. No costs.
(R. RAMANUJAM) (A. ARUMUGHASWAMY) Member (A) 10.01.2017 Member (J)
