Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6878

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Urmita Datta Sen, Judicial Member, Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member
Alak Pal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. 350/00958/2025|O.A. 350/00947/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A. Chakraborty
For the Respondents: M.K. Bandyopadhyay, A.K. Chattopadhyay

In service matters, once an employee's seniority is judicially corrected and fixed relative to their peers, they are entitled to equal service benefits, including selection grades, granted to their juniors in the same seniority bracket, upholding the principle of parity and compliance with previous judicial directions.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Service Law - Seniority and Promotion - Entitlement to notional benefits - Where an applicant is placed in a seniority position below a senior officer as per court orders, they are entitled to parity in benefits, including selection grade and consequential promotional benefits, with other officers similarly situated in the same panel. (Paras 3, 7, 8)

(B) Service Law - Juniority and Seniority - Parity of treatment - If an officer junior to the applicant has been granted promotion to a higher grade or selection grade based on their placement in a relevant panel, ignoring the applicant's corrected seniority position to deny similar benefits constitutes unfair treatment and warrants judicial intervention to restore parity. (Paras 6, 8)

Facts of the case:
The applicants sought the grant of a Selection Grade benefit following the correction of their seniority lists in compliance with previous court orders. Despite the revision of their seniority to place them below a specific senior officer, the respondents failed to grant the Selection Grade at par with other officers in the same merit order, some of whom were junior to the applicants. The respondents argued such benefits were not feasible due to insufficient vacancies and the lapse of time, but the court found such arguments inconsistent with the mandate of previous judicial directives.

Findings of Court:
The court held that since the applicant's seniority had been fixed in compliance with previous orders and they were interpolated in the correct order of merit, they were entitled to the same benefits as other candidates in the same panel. Since junior officers had already received the Selection Grade, denying the same benefit to the applicants was unjustified.

Issues: Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of Selection Grade w.e.f. a specific date at par with junior colleagues despite the respondent's contentions regarding vacancy constraints and the feasibility of review DPCs.

Ratio Decidendi: Once seniority is revised and fixed by way of judicial mandate relative to senior officers, all consequential benefits, including entitlement to selection grades and promotions must be granted at par with other officers in the same seniority bracket to ensure compliance with the principles of service equality and past court orders.

Result: Original Application allowed. Respondents are directed to extend the benefit of Selection Grade with all consequential benefits within three months.

Table of Content
1. procedural background and history of applicant's seniority claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. respondents' justification for non-entitlement to career advancement. (Para 4 , 5)
3. applicant's rejoinder regarding promotion and seniority discrepancies. (Para 6)
4. judicial finding on eligibility for consequential seniority benefits. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)

O R D E R

Ms. Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member:

Since both the applicants share a common interest and common cause of action, they are taken up together and Order passed in this O.A. will govern the O.A. No. 350/00947/2025 also.

2. For the sake of brevity facts are delineated from O.A. No. 958/2025.

The applicant in O.A. No. 958/2025 has filed the instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:-

“a) An Order do issue directing the respondents

to grant the benefit of selection Grade w.e.f.

01.01.18 in favour of the applicant at par

with his junior R.L. Shukla, Respondent No.

5 & Uttam Majumdar, Respondent No. 6 and

to grant all consequential benefits with

arrears.”

3. The applicant appeared in the selection test for promotion to the post of AEN (Group – B) through LDCE against 30% vacancies in Civil Engineering Department. He was declared successful in the written test and viva voce test but his name was not included in the panel of successful candidates. Being aggrieved with such non-inclusion of his name in the panel for promotion to the post of AEN (Civil Engineering) Department, the applicant preferred an Original Application being O.A. No. 908 of 1997 before this tribunal, which was dismissed vide Order dated 02.05.2005. Challenging the said Order, the applicant approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing WPCT No. 845 of 2005, which was disposed of holding inter alia as under:-

‘The authority would accommodate the petitioners by giving suitable opportunity to be considered in such limited quota and if they succeed in such process, they should be given notional benefit from the date, when the first lot was given appointment. In case, the authority is not in a position to accommodate the petitioners, the authority must call back the entire lot and conduct a fresh selection process. The present incumbents working in the promotional post should not be disturbed for the time being and after the selection process is over, the successful candidates would get back their seniority as on the date of the initial appointment. The petitioner would also get such benefit although notionally.”

Challenging this Order, the respondents went up before the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing SLP, which as subsequently dismissed vide Order dated 06.09.2013. Thereafter, in compliance of the Hon’ble High Court’s judgment dated 08.11.2011 passed in WPCT No. 845 of 2005, the name of the applicant was included in the panel of AEN Gr. ‘B’ published in 1996. On 20.10.2014, the applicant made a representation before the Respondent No. 2 praying for proper fixation of seniority w.e.f. 12.08.1996 instead of 11.06.1998 and a reminder to that effect was also sent to the General Manager with a prayer to fix proper seniority w.e.f. 12.08.1996 along with Shri A.R. Jana instead of 11.06.1998. Subsequently, the applicant was informed by the Deputy Chief Personnel Officer on behalf of Chief Personnel Officer that he is not eligible for notional seniority as also benefits at par with Shri A.R. Jana. Challenging the Office Order dated 24.12.2014, the applicant again approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 2049 of 2015, which was disposed of quashing the Order dated 24.12.2014 and thereby remitting the matter back to the respondents to grant benefits to the applicant strictly in accordance with the Order passed by the Hon’ble High Court. Being aggrieved with the said Order, the respondents challenging the same by filing WPCT No. 66 of 2019 before the Hon’ble High Court, which was dismissed with a direction upon them to comply with the Court’s Orde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6878

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALUrmita Datta Sen, Judicial Member, Anindo Majumdar, Administrative MemberAlak Pal – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentO.A. 350/00958/2025|O.A. 350/00947/2025

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Urmita Datta Sen, Judicial Member, Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member
Alak Pal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. 350/00958/2025|O.A. 350/00947/2025