860/2016 - 2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4449

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Service Law - Seniority and Promotion - Reservation - Accelerated promotion of reserved category candidates - Consequential seniority - Principles laid down in M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 212 and Jarnail Singh & Ors. v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors. (2018) 10 SCC 396 regarding collection of quantifiable data for reservation in promotion - DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 21.01.2002 - Validity of grant of consequential seniority to SC/ST employees under the 85th Constitutional Amendment - Applicability of the principle that seniority at the feeder level should be preserved at the promotional level, as per Ajeet Singh Januja vs. State of Punjab. (Paras 3.4, 5.5, 5.6)

(B) Service Law - Limitation - Delay and Laches - Challenge to events occurring in 2004 and 2012 - The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the Original Application was barred by limitation. (Para 4.2)

(C) Service Law - Judicial Precedent - Binding Effect of Orders in Similar Cases - The applicant sought parity with the orders of the Chandigarh Bench in OA No.510/2012 and OA No.299/2015, and the Mumbai Bench in OA No.504/2015, which were directed to be implemented subject to the final outcome of a pending Writ Petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The court directed the respondents to consider the applicant's representation in light of these orders. (Paras 7, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 8)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, an LDC directly recruited through the Staff Selection Commission in 1993, sought re-fixation of seniority in the UDC cadre and promotion with retrospective effect. Other general category candidates (not the applicant) had earlier succeeded in OA No.510/2012 (Chandigarh Bench), challenging the seniority list of UDCs after reserved category candidates (respondents 3 and 4) were promoted earlier with consequential seniority. The Chandigarh Bench allowed that OA, relying on the principle that general category candidates senior at the LDC level should retain seniority at the UDC level. This order was directed to be given effect subject to the outcome of a pending writ petition. Similar relief was granted by the Mumbai Bench. The applicant, being similarly situated, made a representation but was not given the same benefit.

Findings of Court:
The court did not adjudicate the merits of the claim conclusively. It noted the respondents' arguments regarding the DoP&T OM of 21.01.2002 and the aspect of limitation. However, the court found that the applicant's grievance should be considered by the competent authority in light of the orders in similar cases (Chandigarh and Mumbai Benches) and the pending writ petition. (Para 8)

Issues: The main issues were whether the applicant, who was senior to the private respondents in the LDC cadre, was entitled to the same benefit of deemed promotion and seniority as the applicants in OA No.510/2012 and OA No.504/2015, and whether his claim was barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court did not lay down a new ratio decidendi. It disposed of the OA with a direction to the respondents to consider the applicant's fresh representation in light of the orders in the cases of similarly situated officers and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh, without interfering in the settled seniority of other employees at this stage. (Paras 7.5, 8) Result : The Original Application is disposed of with directions to the respondents to consider the applicant's representation within 90 days. No order as to costs. (Para 9) Parties involved: Applicant (a general category LDC/UDC) v. Union of India & Ors. (Respondent No. 1 & 2) and Private Respondents (Respondent No. 3 & 4, SC category UDCs). Dissenting opinions: None. The judgment was delivered by a single Member (J).

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Dispute over seniority and promotion of LDCs/UDCs between general and reserved category employees in Central Passport Organization. (Para 1 , 2 )

2. Applicant claims equal treatment based on prior CAT orders; respondents cite limitation and justify accelerated promotion via reservation policy. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )

3. OA disposed of; applicant directed to file comprehensive representation; respondents to decide within 90 days. (Para 8 , 9 )

4. What is the appropriate remedy when an employee claims seniority benefits similar to those granted to others by a coordinate bench?

The employee should file a comprehensive representation; the authority must consider it expeditiously, taking into account the interim orders and judgments in similar cases. (Para 7 , 8 )

O R D E R

PER JAYESH V. BHAIRAVIA, MEMBER (J)

1.By filing the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal‟s Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-

"(A) The Hon‟ble Tribunal be pleased to direct Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 to re-fix the seniority of UDC Group C, as existing on 01.01.2012, and declare the applicant as senior to Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 4 as on 01.01.2012;

(B) The Hon‟ble Tribunal be pleased to direct Respondent No.1 and Respondent No. 2 to promote the applicant to the rank of UDC with effect from 26.02.2004;

(C) The Hon‟ble Tribunal be pleased to direct Respondent No.1 and Respondent No. 2 to promote the applicant to the rank of Assistant Superintendent w.e.f. 09.03.2012;

(D) The Hon‟ble Tribunal be pleased to direct Respondent No.1 and Respondent No. 2 to afford all service benefits, including financial benefits, to the applicant at par with the Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 4;

(E) The Hon‟ble Tribunal may be pleased to grant any other and further reliefs, as the nature and circumstances of the present case may require and in the interest of justice."

2. The brief facts of the case as pleaded in the O.A., are as under :-

2.1 Applicant was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) through the Staff Selection Commission Clerk Grade Examination of 1993, and joined his services on 12.08.1996. It is stated that some of the selected candidates of the same selection list had joined their service in the month of November/December, 1995. Thereafter, the applicant along with other 400 LDCs in the department, were confirmed in service vide Order of the official respondents dated 12.10.2001.

2.2 The Seniority of LDCs was prepared on the basis of on the date of joining of the LDCs and accordingly the official respondents had circulated the seniority list of LDCs on 03.03.2003 wherein, the applicant herein was assigned his seniority at S.No.154 (Annex.A/3).

2.3 In the aforesaid seniority list dated 03.03.2003 of the LDCs, the names of private respondent No.3 & 4 herein, were shown at Sl. No.145 and 153 respectively.

2.4 In the said seniority list, the LDCs, who had been promoted through Limited Departmental Examination were shown senior to the LDCs, who had been directly recruited through the Clerks‟ Grade Examination. Therefore, being aggrieved by the said action on the part of the respondents, the applicant herein filed an Original Application No.124 of 2007 before this Tribunal, which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide Order dated 19.01.2009, the relevant observation of the said order reads as under:-

"11. The applicant in para 3.2 of the OA has stated that his seniority was correctly assigned in 2001. Representation submitted if any on that occasion is not on record. All the persons, who qualified on the basis of special qualifying examination, were above him. The persons, who qualified in Group 'D' examination on 10.3.93 and are at Serial 272-288 and Serial 504-514 respectively,.

12. Neither the Annex.-II of letter dated 3.7.96 is on record nor the principles on which the seniority list of 2001 & 2005 are on record. It is not possible to verify if the position in seniority list is in accordance with what is stated in impugned order.

13. We dispose off this OA by giving a direction to respondent No. 1 to reconsider the representation dated 18.8.2005 and pass a fresh order having regard to the following:

(a) Para 4 of Annex. - II of letter dated 3.7.96 sponsoring the name of applicant and two others.

(b) The policy of Government of India in regard to direct recruits as to whether the seniority is reckoned from date of examination, date of panel by UPSC/SCC or date of actual appointment.

(c) The decisions of Apex Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association vs. State or Maharashtra, AIR 1990 SC 1607 and other decisions.

(d) Whether the seniority list of 2001 was widely circulated and whether the applicant had objected ? It is laid down in K.R. Mudgal vs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4449

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
860/2016
O.A./512/2016

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What is the appropriate remedy when an employee claims seniority benefits similar to those granted to others by a coordinate bench?

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4449

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL860/2016O.A./512/2016

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What is the appropriate remedy when an employee claims seniority benefits similar to those granted to others by a coordinate bench?

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
860/2016
O.A./512/2016