Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 2272
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. MURALIDHAR, TALWANT SINGH, JJ.
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
Vinod Ashwini Saxena & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (C) 5954 of 2016 & CM 24536 of 2016 (stay), W.P. (C) 1206 of 2017 & CM 5492 of 2017 (stay)
Decided on : 02-12-2019
For the Appellant :Ms. Maninder Acharya, ASG and Mr Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC for UOI with Mr Nikhil Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr Ajay Kumar Tandon, Ms Purnima Singh, Mr Sudhir Walia and Ms Niharika Ahluwalia, Mr Dewesh Singh and Mr Sukriti Ghai, Advocates
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the R&AW (RC&S) Rules, 1975, and the CCS (Pension) Rules in determining the seniority of the petitioner in the RAS. The court's decision was influenced by its analysis of these rules and their implications on the petitioner's seniority.
Headnote:
Seniority - Administrative Tribunal Order - R&AW (RC&S) Rules, 1975, CCS (Pension) Rules - The court discussed the R&AW (RC&S) Rules, 1975, and the CCS (Pension) Rules in relation to the determination of seniority in the Research and Analysis Services. The court highlighted the interpretation of the rules and their application in fixing the year of allotment for the petitioner. The decision was influenced by the court's analysis of the rules and their implications on the petitioner's seniority.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the seniority of the petitioner in the Research and Analysis Services (RAS) and the impact of his previous service in the Indian Engineering Services (IES) on his seniority. The petitioner sought rectification of his year of batch allotment and conferment of seniority with allied benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) had misconstrued the purport of Rule 26(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules regarding the protection of past service. The court also noted that the CAT overlooked the spirit of the advertisement for induction in RAS and committed errors in presuming the non-affectation of seniority of others. The court set aside the CAT's order and the dismissal of the review application.
Issues: The central issue was the determination of the petitioner's year of allotment in RAS and the impact of his previous service in IES on his seniority. The court also addressed the errors committed by the CAT in its interpretation of relevant rules and the impact on the seniority of other officers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the misinterpretation of the CCS (Pension) Rules by the CAT, the oversight of the spirit of the advertisement for induction in RAS, and the errors in presuming the non-affectation of seniority of others. The court found these factors unsustainable in law and set aside the CAT's order and the dismissal of the review application.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions, set aside the CAT's order, and the dismissal of the review application. The court also clarified that the outcome of another pending case filed by the petitioner against his dismissal from service would be decided separately by the CAT.
JUDGMENT :
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.
1. These two petitions are directed against an order dated 1st December, 2015, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (“CAT”) in OA No.1366/2014 filed by the Respondent No.1 in W.P.(C) No.5954/2016, Mr. Vinod Ashwani Saxena (who is also Respondent No.2 in W.P.(C) No.1206/201).
2. In the said order, the CAT directed that the seniority of Respondent No.1 in the Research and Analysis Services (“RAS”) should be fixed by taking into account his year of allotment in the Indian Engineering Services (“IES”).
3. Additionally, W.P.(C) No.1206/2017 filed by Mr. Sidharth Zutshi (who was Respondent No.3 in OA No.1366/2014 before the CAT), also challenges an order dated 7th December, 2016, passed by the CAT in RA No.206/2016, declining to review its earlier order dated 1st December, 2015 in OA No.1366/2014.
4. The background facts are that Mr. Saxena, who at the time of filing the above OA No.1366/2014 was working as Director in the Cabinet Secretariat, initially cleared the IES exam conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (“UPSC”) in 1992. On 7th February, 1994, Mr. Saxena joined the IES as a Group-A service and he was selected in the Central Public Works Department (“CPWD”).
5. Mr. Saxena again appeared for the Civil Services (Main) Exam in 1993 and was selected in the Indian Civil Accounts Service (“ICAS”). He submitted a technical resignation from the IES and joined ICAS with effect from 5th October, 1994 in the forenoon.
6. On 1st October, 1996 the willingness of Mr. Saxena was sought by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure (“DoE”), Government of India, for consideration for direct recruitment to the Cabinet Secretariat in RAS. According to Mr. Saxena, the original seniority of the officers selected in the RAS was protected and the inter se seniority of officers of the same year of allotment was determined on the basis of the UPSC merit. Mr. Saxena contends that at the relevant time, IES was not a feeder cadre for the RAS and that, therefore, Mr. Saxena’s seniority of ICAS was only protected. He was allotted the 1994 batch of the RAS.
7. Mr. Saxena states that on 28th May, 1997 the Cabinet Secretariat informed him that his past service would count for seniority, pension, leave, LTC, etc. On 13th October, 1997, the DoE conveyed its sanction for counting Mr. Saxena’s past service “as qualifying service for pensionery benefits in terms of Rule 26 (2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules”. It was further directed in the said order as under:
“The transit time from 4.10.94 to 12.10.94 being the time taken by Shri Saxena to Join the ICAS at Hyderabad shall be treated as the kind of leave due and admissible to Shri Saxena on the date of relief from. CPWD w.e.f. 3.10.94 (AN) in terms of Rule 26(3) of the CCS (Pension) Rules. Accordingly, he will also be entitled to carry forward his balance of leave due to him before joining ICAS and also leave salary for the transit time If not already drawn."
8. IES became the feeder service for the RAS subsequently. According to Mr. Saxena, in 2013 he came across certain officers in the Cabinet Secretariat, who had been recruited from the Central Power Engineering Service (“CPES”), Central Water Engineering Service (“CWES”), etc., to fill up its various posts on lateral induction / direct recruitment on transfer basis. The IES, CPES, CWES, etc. had been included in the list of eligible Group-A services for recruitment in the RAS.
9. Upon making inquiries, Mr. Saxena learnt that Mr. Dharmendra Bhargava (Respondent No.2 in OA No.1366/2014 and Respondent No.2 in W.P.(C) No.5954/2016) had passed the IES exam in 1993 and had been on deputation on Cabinet Secretariat in the telecom cadre since July, 2005. He was given the seniority of 1993 batch i.e. the year of exam, and was also promoted in the Senior Executive Cadre (SEC) of the RAS ahead of Mr. Saxena. According to Mr. Saxena, since he had qualified for the IES in the 1992 exam, he ought to
