Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13338
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Judicial Member, Pramod Kumar Das, Administrative Member
Pratap Chandra Praharaj – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A.No. 260/00653 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.K.Ojha
For the Respondents: B.R.Swain
Seniority once determined and settled in accordance with a judicial pronouncement is protected and cannot be reopened or altered by administrative authorities when a subsequent judicial decision overruling the previous one is expressly made prospective and indicates that previously settled seniority positions are not to be disturbed.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Seniority - Determination of inter-se seniority - Whether seniority once fixed in accordance with an earlier judicial pronouncement could be reopened or altered following a subsequent prospective overruling - The principle established in the earlier judicial decision was to be applied prospectively and explicitly protected existing seniority lists finalized based on that decision - Administrative authorities are bound by the direction that such seniority must not be disturbed. (Paras 4, 15)
(B) Administrative Law - Right of parties - Necessity of impleading affected parties in seniority disputes - In matters where seniorities of a large number of employees are to be reset, persons whose interests are likely to be jeopardized are necessary parties. (Para 14)
Facts of the case:
The applicants, employees in various capacities, challenged an office order that revised their seniority positions based on new departmental instructions issued in the wake of a later judicial pronouncement. The applicants contended that their seniority had already been settled years prior in compliance with an earlier apex court decision, and that these settled positions were legally protected and could not be reopened or reviewed, especially by including extraneous local administrative issues.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the subsequent judicial order explicitly protected seniority lists already determined based on the earlier settled legal position. Therefore, the authorities acted incorrectly by attempting to revise seniority positions previously established and settled in compliance with the earlier judgment. Furthermore, the court noted that the applicants failed to implead necessary parties whose seniority would be adversely affected by the requested relief, though the substantive merits of the protection of seniority were upheld in favor of the applicants.
Issues: Whether the administrative authority had the jurisdiction to reopen and revise seniority lists that had been settled in accordance with an earlier judicial precedent and whether such revisions violated the prospective application of subsequent judicial rulings.
Ratio Decidendi: Seniority positions once fixed and settled in accordance with judicial dicta are protected from subsequent re-opening, particularly when the later judicial ruling clarifying the law is expressly made prospective and mandates that existing settled seniority remains unaffected.
Result: Application allowed; Respondents directed to issue a revised seniority list restoring the applicants' original positions as they stood prior to the impugned order.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prospective application of post-n.r. parmar seniority guidelines. (Para 1 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. challenge to review dpcs and revised seniority lists. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. requirement of impleading affected parties in seniority disputes. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. protection of seniority fixed under n.r. parmar. (Para 16 , 17) |
1. Shri Pratap Chandra Praharaj, aged about 58 years,
S/o Late Bhaskar Praharaj, Working as ITO(IAP), O/o
the CIT(Audit & ITAT), Bhubaneswar.
2. M. Srinivas Rao, aged about 58 years, S/o Late M.
Dharmananda Rao, Working as ITO, (Judl. & Tech.), O/o
the Pr.CCIT, Odisha Region, Bhubaneswar.
3. Ajay Kumar Nayak, aged about 59 years, S/o Late.
Harchand Nayak, working as ITO, AU-(1)(4)(3), BSNL
Building Bhubaneswar.
4. Balakrushna Sahu, aged about 57 years, S/o Late
Laxmidhar Sahoo, working as ITO Legal, O/o Pr.CCIT,
Odisha Region, Bhubaneswar.
5. Manoranjan Pattanaik, aged about 59 years, S/o
Narayan Pattanaik, working as ITO (PR&W), O/o
Pr.CCIT, Odisha Region, Bhubaneswar.
6. Tanusri Roy, aged about 58 years, D/o Late
Kalicharan Roy, Working as ITO (AU)-(1)(2)(4), O/o the
Pr.CCIT, Odisha Region, Bhubaneswar.
7. S. Venkat Rama, aged about 54 years, D/o Late
S.K.S.Dayal Rao, 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan,
Bhubaneswar.
8. Umakanta Jena, aged about 51 years, S/o Natabar
Jena, working as ITO (IAP), Cuttack.
9 Pranaya Kumar Das, aged about 49 years. S/o Prafula
Chandra Das, Working as IIT, O/o CIT(Audit & ITAT),
Aayakar Bhawan Annexe, Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar.
10. Rupesh Kumar Das, aged about 50 years, S/o late
Subash Chandra Das, working as Inspector of Income
Tax, Office of the DCIT,VU-(1)[1](1), Cuttack, Shelter
Chhak, P.O. Tulasipur, Cuttack, Pin-753008.
11. Keshab Chandra Mantry, aged about 52 years, S/o
Bhubaneswar Mantry, working as Inspector of Income
Tax O/o the ITO(JAO), Cuttack.
12. Alok Ranjan Panda, Aged about 50 years, S/o Naba
Kishore Panda, working as IIT, O/o ITO (Legal), Pr.CCIT,
Bhubaneswar.
……Applicants
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through its Secretary
Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi,
PIN-110001.
2. The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes,
Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North
Block, New Delhi, PIN-110001.
3. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Odisha, Aayakar Bhawan, Rajaswa Vihar, Vani Vihar,
P.S.- Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda, PIN
751007.
……Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. S.K.Ojha, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. B.R.Swain, Counsel
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
Before adumbrating the case in hands, in extenso, it is
necessary to state that in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs.
N.R.Parmar & Ors., in CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 7514-7515 OF 2005
dated NOVEMBER 27, 2012/ 2012 (13) SCC 340, dispute relating
to fixation of inter se seniority between promotees and Direct
Recruits was decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court by holding as
under:
“33. Having interpreted the effect of the OMs dated
7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986 (in paragraphs 20 and 21
hereinabove), we are satisfied, that not only the
requisition but also the advertisement for direct
recruitment was issued by the SSC in the recruitment
year in which direct recruit vacancies had arisen. The
said factual position, as confirmed by the rival parties, is
common in all matters being collectively disposed of. In
all these cases the advertised vacancies were filled up
in the original/first examination/selection conducted for
the same. None of the direct recruit Income Tax
Inspectors herein can be stated to be occupying carried
forward vacancies, or vacancies which came to be filled
up by a later examination/selection process. The facts
only reveal, that the examination and the selection
process of direct recruits could not be completed within
the recruitment year itself. For this, the
modification/amendment in the manner of
determining the inter-se seniority between the
direct recruits and promotees, carried out through
the OM dated 7.2.1986, and the compilation of the
instructions pertaining to seniority in the OM
