ORDER

Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):

1.The present OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:-

“(i) quash and set aside the action of respondents in not placing the applicant in the Establishment Order No.21/8 dated 16.02.2018 whereas, name of many of his juniors have been incorporated;

(ii) direct the respondents to give the benefit of promotion/upgradation to the level of Superintendent w.e.f. 30.09.1996 i.e. the date from which the juniors were promoted along with all other benefits viz. fixation of pay, arrears, seniority and revision of pension etc.

(iii) May also pass any further order(s), direction(s) as be deemed just and proper to meet the ends of justice.”

2. The brief facts as narrated by the applicant in this OA are that the applicant is a citizen of India and a retired Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise who superannuated on 30.04.2015. The applicant is aggrieved by the denial of benefit of promotion/upgradation to the post of Superintendent in Customs & Central Excise w.e.f. 30.09.1996, the date on which many of his juniors were promoted/upgraded on the basis of completion of more than 17 years of service in the grade of Inspector. The applicant was similarly placed, having rendered the requisite 17 years of service in the grade of Inspector. The post of Superintendent, Customs & Central Excise is a Group B post.

3. The applicant initially joined the Customs & Central Excise Department as an Inspector on 12.12.1978 after qualifying the All India Examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission and was allotted Bombay Collectorate at the relevant time. In accordance with the prevalent policy and instructions dated 20.05.1980 issued by the office of respondent no.2, the applicant applied for Inter- Collectorate (now Commissionerate) transfer to Delhi in the office of respondent no.3. The said request was acceded to, and the applicant joined the post of Inspector in Delhi on 02.04.1982. He was placed at the bottom of the seniority list of direct recruits of that year, i.e., 1982, at Sl. No. 204. The applicant does not dispute his seniority and is not claiming any benefit on that account.

4. It is submitted that due to acute stagnation in the cadre of Inspectors, the office of respondent no.2, with the approval of the Central Government, framed a policy whereby certain posts of Inspector were upgraded to the level of Superintendent and an equal number of posts were abolished. This policy was unique and not governed by Recruitment Rules, which otherwise required 8 years of service. Under this policy, Inspectors with 17 years or more of service who had not been promoted were to be granted upgradation to the level of Superintendent across India. Various incumbents, including juniors to the applicant, approached this Hon’ble Tribunal by filing OA No. 651/1997 (I.C. Joshi & Ors.), and vide order dated 26.08.1997 (Annexure-A-3), the Tribunal held that for the purpose of upgradation, length of service would be the governing factor and seniority would have no consequence.

5. The said judgment was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, which vide order dated 18.02.2009 (Annexure-A-4) upheld the Tribunal’s decision. Thereafter, on an application for correction, the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 09.04.2010 (Annexure-A-5) granted consequential benefits including seniority, pay fixation, and arrears. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while disposing of SLP (Civil) CC No. 17635-17636/2010, upheld the said judgment and clarified that consequential seniority benefits would apply to the concerned respondents. A subsequent SLP filed by the Union of India was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 12.12.2011 both on grounds of delay and merit.

6. In compliance, Establishment Order No. 30/2012 dated 31.01.2012 was issued. Further, in OA No. 338/PB/2012 (Balwinder Singh Matharoo & Ors.), the Hon’ble Chandigarh Bench allowed similar relief vide order dated 03.08.2012, which was upheld