Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.

1. Private respondent No. 1 was the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (for short 'CAT'). He filed O.A. No. 050/00460 of 2015. After hearing the parties, the CAT allowed the O.A. application, quashed two impugned orders dated 09/12.06.2015, which was Annexure-A/8, and 12.12.2014, which was Annexure-A/4 to the O.A. application and directed recasting of the inter-se seniority in light of the judgment and decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Union of India (UOI) and Ors. etc. etc. v. N.R. Parmar and Ors. etc. etc. reported in (2012) 13 SCC 340. Since these petitioners are now directly affected by the decision of CAT, dated 03.05.2016, the writ application has been filed.

2. The private respondent No. 1 filed the O.A. seeking following reliefs :

"8.1 That your Lordships may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 09/12.06.2015 passed by the Respondent No. 1 together with order dated 12.12.2014 passed by the respondent No. 4 as contained in Annexure-A/8 and A/4 respectively which are contrary to the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in N.R. Parmar case and DOP&T's O.M. dated 04.03.2014 as referred to above.

8.2 That your Lordships may further be pleased to direct the respondents to recast the seniority list afresh on the basis of principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in N.R. Parmar case and DOP&T's O.M. dated 04.03.2014 as referred to above without any further delay.

8.3 That the Respondents further be directed to issue corrigendum/amendment/correction slip in Indian Railway Establishment Manual Volume-1, henceforth in view of new Guidelines/directives of DOP&T OM dated 04.03.2014 as contained in Annexure-A/11 which is based on the principle/law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in N.R. Parmar case regarding fixation of inter-se seniority between Direct Recruitees and promotees Officers.

8.4. That the respondents further be directed to grant all consequential benefits in favour of the applicant including promotion in JA Grade on the basis of his seniority as per the principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in N.R. Parmar case and DOP&T's O.M. dated 04.03.2014 as referred to above."

3. The factual background, which led to the present litigation, is that a requisition was sent by the Railway Board dated 23.10.2007 to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC for short). As a consequence thereof, the private respondent came to be appointed on a Group-A service of Indian Railway Service of Signal Engineers on 01.12.2009 through Engineering Service Examination - 2008. While the private respondent was working as a Group-A officer of the Signal Engineering Service, vide order dated 12.08.2014 a panel for the year 2012-13 and 2013-14 with effect from 08.05.2014 was drawn-up. The promotee officers were given benefit of seniority with effect from 08.05.2009, whereas the private respondent despite being a direct recruit, was not given the benefit of seniority w.e.f. 23.10.2007, i.e. the date of requisition for filling up the vacancies of Group-A service despite the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of N.R. Parmar (supra).

4. After the decision of the Apex Court in N.R. Parmar's case (supra), the DOP&T, Government of India, issued a OM dated 04.03.2014 for fixation of seniority of direct recruits vis-à-vis promotees. The private respondent vide order dated 12.12.2014 was placed below the promotees for the panel year 2012-13 and 2013-14, which the private respondent made a grievance of that such a decision was totally illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in teeth of N.R. Parmar's case (supra) as well as the DOP&T OM dated 04.03.2014, which clearly stipulated that the date of sending requisition for filling-up vacancies to the recruiting agency, i.e. the UPSC, in relation to direct recruits will be the date for fixing their seniority and not the date of joining.