Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN, MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA, JJ
R.G. Meena Son Of Late Shri Sualal Meena – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India, Through Its Secretary To The Government Of India – Respondent
Order :
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
1. This petition is filed aggrieved of order dated 01.10.2021 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur (for short ‘the tribunal’). The bone of contention in litigation is fixation of seniority. The petitioner claims seniority above respondent No.5 who despite service has chosen not to appear before this Court.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in 1984 and promoted to Upper Division Clerk and Assistant in 1989 and 2000 respectively. After promotion to the post of Office Superintendent in March 2003, the petitioner became Administrative Officer Grade-II (hereinafter referred to as ‘AO’) in the year 2007. As per All India Seniority List dated 31.03.2011, the petitioner was senior to respondent No.5 being at serial No.27 against serial No.51 of respondent No.5. In the seniority list issued in 2013, the petitioner was kept at serial No.15 and respondent No.5 was at serial No.3, the Original Application filed by petitioner challenging the seniority dated22.04.2013 was dismissed by the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was promoted as Assistant in the year 2000 and t
The tribunal erred in determining seniority by not considering the promotion dates of the petitioner and respondent, leading to an incorrect placement in the seniority list.
Promotion seniority is determined by Annual Confidential Reports, not merely by prior position, emphasizing non-arbitrariness in promotion decisions based on performance evaluations.
The tribunal's order on revising seniority based on initial engagement dates was upheld, emphasizing the need for uniform application of policies regarding seniority and promotions.
Established seniority lists must be adhered to unless timely objections are raised; age considerations alone do not override settled seniority.
The tribunal affirmed that seniority should be determined based on the initial date of engagement, emphasizing the provisional nature of prior seniority lists.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to direct the second respondent to pass necessary orders for the fixation of correct seniority on par with S. Shanmugam in th....
The principle of natural justice mandates giving an opportunity of hearing before passing an adverse order. Violation of this principle can lead to the setting aside of the order.
The 'catch up Rule' allows a candidate to regain seniority based on promotion from the feeder cadre, as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Settled seniority cannot be disturbed after a significant delay without timely objections to established seniority listings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
