Concession granted based on a specific letter cannot be withdrawn retrospectively, and seniority should not be compromised in subsequent decisions.

G.S. SISTANI, J.

1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 30.05.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 1143/2013, whereby the Tribunal had denied to revert the petitioner/applicant therein to his parent Commissionerate, i.e. Delhi Zone.

2. Notice to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted.

3. Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

4. With the consent of the parties this writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

5. Brief facts which are required to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner joined the Central Excise and Customs, Delhi Zone in December, 2009 as an inspector. On 09.04.2010, the petitioner made an application before the respondent No. 3 seeking Inter Commissionerate Transfer (ICT) from Delhi to Kanpur (Lucknow Zone) for the reason that he was unable to tend to his family and wife, who was employed as an Assistant Teacher in a Junior Government High School located in district Fatehpur, U.P. The Department in response, by a Letter dated 30.04.2010, requested the petitioner to specify as to whether he was requesting the ICT on ‘Spouse Ground’ in terms of the Ministry’s Letter [F.No.A-22015/19/2006-Ad.III.A] dated 27.03.2009 or on deputation basis. The petitioner replied by a letter dated 25.05.2010 specifying that he wanted an ICT on ‘Spouse Ground’. Consequently, the application was processed and the petitioner was transferred by an order dated 13.04.2011 from Central Excise (Delhi Zone) to Central Excise (Lucknow Zone). The petitioner was relieved from the Delhi Zone on 10.06.2011 and joined the Lucknow Zone on 13.06.2011.

6. Meanwhile, on 16.05.2011, the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal passed an order in the case of Joju M. Mampilly and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., O.A. 643/2009 by which the Letter dated 27.03.2009 was quashed. It is also the case of petitioner that when he joined Central Excise (Lucknow Zone) on 13.06.2011, he was informed that the Letter of 27.03.2009 is under challenge and his seniority is subject to the outcome of the same. Subsequently, on 27.10.2011, the respondent No. 2/Central Board of Excise and Customs issued a Notification stating that the employee transferred on ‘Spouse Ground’ shall lose his seniority. The Notification reads as:

“(ii) The transferee will be placed below all officers appointed regularly to that post/grade on the date of his/her appointment on transfer basis in terms of Para 3.5 of DOP&T’s O.M. dated 03.07.1986. In other words, such a transferee will be junior to those regularly appointed officers prior to his/her transfer. However, such transferred officer will retain his/her eligibility of the parent Commissionerate for his/her promotion to the next higher grade, etc. …

(vi) The seniority of the officers who were allowed ICT earlier by the various Cadre Controlling Authorities on the basis of Board’s letters F.No.A.22015/19/2006-Ad.III.A dated 27.03.2009 … shall be fixed as per the present instructions.” (Emphasis Supplied)

7. The Notification was made applicable retrospectively to all officers who had been granted ICTs in pursuance of the Letter dated 27.03.2009. Inevitably, the petitioner was deprived of his seniority without giving him any option. Accordingly, on 08.11.2011 the petitioner made a representation seeking reversal of his transfer as he did not want to lose his seniority. The request of the petitioner was not acceded to by an order dated 28.12.2011. Another representation was also made and the same was rejected on 23.08.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an O.A. which was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner did not retain his lien upon his previous post in Delhi and that consequently, there was no slot for the petitioner to come back to. Being aggrieved the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner had sought a tran