Important Point
All the employees recruited in the service under Rule 5(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Group B & C Miscellaneous Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1989 are entitled to the benefit of the service on equivalent post in their parent departments. The period of holding of the equivalent post in the parent department would be the relevant period to be taken note of for the purposes of determining the seniority under Rule 5(2) and its proviso.

Headnote:Service Law-Inter se seniority -Employees recruited on deputation and absorbed-Central Administrative Tribunal employees recruited and absorbed in terms of Rule 5(1) of Central Administrative Tribunal (Group B and C Miscellaneous Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1989-All employees recruited in service under Rule 5(1) are entitled to benefit of service on equivalent post in their parent departments-Seniority of officers recruited from same source has to be determined by giving them benefit of equivalent post held by them in their parent departments-Total length of service is not relevant for determining seniority but length of service to a particular class, category or grade is relevant consideration for purpose of counting period with respect to length of service for purpose of determining seniority under Rules 5(2).
       Held : There is no dispute that appointment/recruitment to any service can be made from different sources, i.e., by direct appointment, by promotion or by absorption/transfer. The source of recruitment can either be internal or external. Internal source would relate to cases where the appointments are made by promotion or by transfer and by absorption. External source would conceive the recruitment of eligible persons who are not already in service in the organisation to which the recruitment is to be made. For the purposes of posts in the service regarding which the dispute has arisen, the source of recruitment for the purposes of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 are : (i) promotion, (ii) transfer on deputation/transfer. Persons specified in the aforesaid categories possessing requisite qualification prescribed therein are eligible for appointment. Reference to the persons and the departments cannot be held to mean that such reference was to the ‘source’ as admittedly the sources are either promotion or by transfer on deputation/transfer. It is not disputed that in the instant case all the contesting parties have been recruited to the service from source (ii). It is also conceded that before their recruitment on deputation they possessed the requisite qualifications as prescribed under Column No. 12(ii)(a)(i)(ii)(b). The Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in holding that the source of appointment of parties to the dispute was either the Central or the State Government or the High Court or the Subordinate Courts. The proper interpretation of the Rule read with Schedule is that all such parties were recruited from the same source, i.e., Transfer on deputation/ Transfer and possessed requisite qualifications for recruitment to the new service. (Para 6)
       Referring to the Official Memorandum dated 3rd July, 1986, it has been contended on behalf of the contesting parties that the relative seniority of all the direct recruits has to be determined in terms of para 3.4.1 of the said Memorandum. The interpretation put on the said para centres around the words “whichever is later” occurring at its end. It is contended that the seniority must be determined from the date a person is holding the post on deputation or the date from which he had been appointed on a regular basis to the same or equivalent grade in its parent department “whichever is later”, meaning thereby if a person gets himself deputed earlier to the service, he would be entitled to seniority notwithstanding the length of service or earlier holding of the equivalent post or grade by a person who incidentally happens to be sent on deputation at a later date. Such a contention, if accepted, would be against the settled principles of service jurisprudence. We also feel that, as the Rules hold the field, the Official Memorandum has to give way in the matter of determination of inter se seniority of the persons recruited to the service on the same date. (Para 7)
       Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 is the relevant rule relating to the determination of the seniority of the officers recruited to the service under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5. The seniority of such recruited officers is required to be determined with reference to the dates of their regular appointment to the posts. The proviso to Sub-rule (2) shall cover the case of such officers whose seniority cannot be determined under Sub-rule (2) as is the present case of the persons appointed/recruited on the same date. In such a case the seniority of the officers recruited from the same source has to be determined by giving them the benefit of the equivalent post held by them in their parent departments. Sub-rule (2) and its proviso is based upon the general principle of service jurisprudence. It is not correct to say that the rules do not provide any method of determining the seniority of the persons recruited to the service and that in the absence of there being specific rule, resort be had to the Official Memorandum relied upon by the respondents. Seniority is a relevant term having reference to the class, category and the grade to which the reference is made. Length of service is a recognised method of determining the seniority. Such length of service shall have reference to the class, category or grade which the parties were holding at the relevant time. It, therefore, follows that total length of service is not relevant for determining the seniority but length of service to a particular class, category or grade is relevant consideration for the purposes of counting the period with respect to length of service for the purposes of determining the seniority. In other words the period of holding of the equivalent post in the parent department would be the relevant period to be taken note of for the purposes of determining the seniority under Rule 5(2) and its proviso. Any other interpretation would be against the settled rules of service jurisprudence and is likely to create many anomalies resulting in failure of justice and defeating the acquired rights of the civil servants based upon their length of service. A perusal of the Rules does not, in any way, show and rightly so that the rule making authority had ever intended to take away the benefit of the length of service of a person in his parent department before his deputation and absorption in the service. (Para 10)
       The Tribunal has taken a very casual approach while passing the order impugned in this appeal and completely ignored the basic principles of service jurisprudence as confirmed and applied by this Court by way of pronouncements in various cases, some of which have been noted hereinabove. We are of the view that all the employees recruited in the service under Rule 5(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Group B & C Miscellaneous Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1989 are entitled to the benefit of the service on equivalent post in their parent departments. (Para 11)

Judgment

Sethi, J.-The dispute sought to be resolved in this appeal is regarding inter se seniority of the employees of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the CAT”) who were recruited from time to time as per requirement but came to be absorbed on the same day in terms of Section 5(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Group B & C Miscellaneous Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). One set of employees claim their seniority from the date of their deputation to the aforesaid service of the CAT and the other set of employees pray for counting of the period of their service to the equivalent post held by them in their parent department, before their deputation and absorption in the service. On the application filed by respondent No. 1, the CAT accepted the former plea and directed the determination of the seniority of the employees of the CAT from the date of their deputation. Such directions were issued on the basis of the official memoranda and departmental instructions after holding that there did not exist any provision in the Rules for the purposes of determination of the seniority of persons recruited to the service by absorption on the same day. Not satisfied with the findings of the Tribunal, the appellant herein has preferred this appeal.

2. Most of the facts in the case are admitted. The controversy revolves upon the interpretation of the Rules. The appellant contends that Rule 5(2) and its proviso governs the method for determining the seniority but the respondent No. 1 who has appeared in person and learned counsel appearing for the Union of India have contended that the inter se seniority of the employees of the CAT has to be determined on the basis of the official memoranda on the subject which were consolidated by the Government of India on 3rd July, 1986. Necessary admitted facts are that the Central Administrative Tribunal was constituted on 1.11.1985. The CAT (Staff) (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1985 came into effect on 31st October, 1985. Rule 4 of the said Rules prescribed that the condition of service of the officers and other employees of the CAT in matters of pay, allowances, leave provident fund, age of superannuation, pension and retirement benefits, medical facilities and other conditions of service were to be regulated in accordance with such rules and regulations as were, for the time being, applicable to the officers and employees belonging to Group A, B, C and D, as the case may be, of the corresponding scales of pay stationed at those places. The respondent No. 1 was in the service of Delhi Court and sent on deputation to the CAT, Principal Bench as Court Officer on 8.1.1986. The terms of his deputation were extended from time to time in public interest. The appellant, who was holding the post of Section Officer in his parent department with effect from 31st December, 1982, joined the CAT on deputation as Section Officer on 1.6.1987. The respondent No. 1 is alleged to have become entitled to hold equivalent post in his parent department on 1.8.1986. The Rules for the post of Section Officer/Court Officer in CAT were notified, for the first time, on 20th September, 1989. All willing and fit deputationists including all private parties in this appeal were absorbed in the service on 1.11.1989. The draft seniority list of Section Officers/Court Officers/Private Secretaries in the CAT was published on 16.11.1990. Final seniority list as on 1.11.1989 is admitted to have been published on 17.5.1994. Respondent No. 1 filed Original Application before the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal on 2.6.1995 seeking the following reliefs :

“(i) to quash erroneous guidelines (Ann. A-6 collectively) issued by respondent No. 2 being contrary to statutory rules and D.O.P.T’s instructions/O.Ms;

(ii) to quash letter No. PB/7/12/94-Estt.I dated 24.1.1995 (Ann. A-12) issued by respondent No. 2;

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 1089

Cases Referred (7)