Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA, JJ
Rakesh Mathur, Presently Production Assistant – Appellant
Versus
Anjulai Soni Wife Of Shri Vijay Soni – Respondent
Order :
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
1. These writ petitions are filed by the Union of India (for brevity ‘UoI’) and private respondents before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘private respondents’) challenging the order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter ‘the tribunal’).
2. The issue involved in these writ petitions is similar. For convenience, the facts are being taken from D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14506/2022.
3. The brief facts are that the respondent Nos.1 to 12 in this petition (hereinafter ‘the applicants’) filed Original Application (‘OA’) before the tribunal for revision of the seniority list and for granting seniority on the basis of their initial date of engagement. The date of engagement and regularization of the applicants and the private respondents are not in dispute. The private respondents were regularized in the year 1992 whereas the applicants were regularized in the year 2000 to 2006.
4. In the first round of litigation before the tribunal in OA No.375/2009 the applicants partially succeeded and it was ordered that they be granted pay-scale 6500-10500 from the date on which juniors than the petitioner
The tribunal affirmed that seniority should be determined based on the initial date of engagement, emphasizing the provisional nature of prior seniority lists.
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.
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.
Employment and Service matter - Re-assessment of seniority - As per Rule 3(1)(b), seniority of teachers in a grade has to be determined on basis of their substantive appointment in that grade, meanin....
Established seniority lists must be adhered to unless timely objections are raised; age considerations alone do not override settled seniority.
Delay in challenging seniority list should not be condoned as it seeks to disturb the vested rights of other individuals.
Seniority once settled cannot be unsettled after a long delay, and an order given in ignorance of the terms of a Statute or a rule having the force of Statute is per incuriam.
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.
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
