Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 9455
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH JABALPUR
Akhil Kumar Srivastava, J, Mallika Arya, Member (A)
Mukesh Kumar Shrivastava – Appellant
Versus
M/o Home Affairs – Respondent
Original Application No. 240 of 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi, Mukesh Kumar Agrawal
For the Respondents: S.P. Singh, Pradeep Singh
Seniority for promotee IPS officers is determined strictly by actual completed years of continuous service as per the prescribed weightage formula; claims based on hypothetical joining dates or the year of competitive examination are untenable.
Headnote:The applicant challenged the assignment of his seniority year in the Indian Police Service (IPS) as 2009, seeking it to be revised to 2008. The dispute centers on the interpretation of Rule 3(3)(ii) of the Indian Police (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988, regarding the computation of qualifying service. The applicant contended that since his competitive examination was held in 1993, he should be credited with 21 years of service by 31.12.2014, whereas the respondents calculated 20 years based on his actual joining date of 01.02.1994. The primary issue was whether the applicant could claim seniority based on the year of the examination or a hypothetical joining date. The court observed that seniority is determined by the actual 'completed years of continuous service' rendered in the State Police Service. The court reasoned that the applicant's claim was based on assumptions regarding the issuance of the appointment letter and that there is no provision to condone fractions of a year or assume joining dates for the purpose of seniority weightage. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Reserved
(On 22.06.2026)
O R D E R
By Ms. Mallika Arya, Member (A)
This is the second round of litigation. Earlier the applicant had filed OA No. 1021 of 2018 and the same was disposed by this Tribunal vide order dated 30.10.2018 (Annexure A-5) wherein the respondents were directed to decide the representation of the applicant within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order by way of a speaking order. The respondents have rejected the representation of the applicant vide order dated 28.02.2019 (Annexure A-1) under Rule 3 (3) (ii) of Indian Police (Regulation of Seniority, Rules 1988.
The applicant appeared in the competitive examination conducted by State of MP Public Service Commission and was selected for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police vide order dated 13.01.1994 (Annexure A-2). The applicant gave his joining on 01.02.1994, in the Jawaharlal Nehru Police Academy, Sagar (M.P.),
PIYUSH CHANDRA DD512c5CRFa2e1 oiN Heg 6c 8 xa: Ai 5 5 i40 et staC N f 18 c oP9l= 8d3 Dny 0 Dd2I , : RcN s 5 Fc9S I5 Ai, 11 eg a= 0 RO fcdn mU7 57 ece=0 dt 1 a1dP t6 5a hb dc 3 3E rb e9 e0 2 8yR P c r9 a1 f 61 crS VP ue a d2eO eI td d 7Y hb2 r8 eN 4 soe5U 0 s i2 r0A 4 oS 8 h f8 o0L n71 ,H 0 f4 , :6 4 S f tT 2,C d hb E , 0= C4 i0 H sRP 28 0b N A 4oI d2 2A =N .s o1 7f 3L Pt c0 5D ca .N I 0u,a el YR C mUP5 9UA o9 7h M eSdb bo nBe H8 2n tE=a 0e 8 2R=3 4=6 a2 37 a
In terms of appointment order dated 13.01.1994, after completion of requisite years of service in the State Police Service. Respondent No. 1 in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule-9(1) of the Indian Police Service (Recruitment Rules, 1954) read with Regulation-9(1) of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955, appointed the applicant to the Indian Police Services and allotted him M.P. Cadre under Rule-5(1) of Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 vide notification dated 23.09.2015 (Annexure A-3). He finds his name in select of 2014. In pursuance of the notification dated 23.09.2015, the services of the applicant have been computed vide order dated 14.12.2015 (Annexure A-4). The applicant was appointed on 13.01.1994 and gave his joining on 01.02.1994. Thus the services of the applicant have been counted as 20 years instead of 21 years in terms of Rule 3 (3) (ii) of the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority, Rules 1988. The aforesaid Rule 3 underwent an amendment vide notification No. 14014/4/2011-AIS-I (B) dated 18.04.2012. As per the revised formula, in order to have 21 years of qualifying service, weightage/benefit of 6 years is given whereas for qualifying services of 18 years, weightage/benefit of 5 years is given. As applicant's services have been counted as 20 years from 01.01.1995 to 31.12.2014, thus, weightage of 5 years has been given to him and
PIYUSH CHANDRA DD512c5CRFa2e1 oiN Heg 6c 8 xa: Ai 5 5 i40 et staC N f 18 c oP9l= 8d3 Dny 0 Dd2I , : RcN s 5 Fc9S I5 Ai, 11 eg a= 0 RO fcdn mU7 57 ece=0 dt 1 a1dP t6 5a hb dc 3 3E rb e9 e0 2 8yR P c r9 a1 f 61 crS VP ue a d2eO eI td d 7Y hb2 r8 eN 4 soe5U 0 s i2 r0A 4 oS 8 h f8 o0L n71 ,H 0 f4 , :6 4 S f tT 2,C d hb E , 0= C4 i0 H sRP 28 0b N A 4oI d2 2A =N .s o1 7f 3L Pt c0 5D ca .N I 0u,a el YR C mUP5 9UA o9 7h M eSdb bo nBe H8 2n tE=a 0e 8 2R=3 4=6 a2 37 a
his year of allotment to IPS is 2009, as per the revised modified formula. Therefore he has lost 1 year of service.
The applicant had earlier filed OA No. 1021 of 2018 before this Tribunal. The same was disposed vide order dated 30.10.2018 with a direction to the respondents to dispose the representation dated 30.10.2018 of the applicant within 60 days by way of a speaking order (Annexure A-5). The representation of the applicant was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 02.05.2019. It has been submitted that in similar circumstances the benefit was extended to other IPS officers but the applicant has been singled out. A copy of the order dated 05.03.2018 is enclosed as Annexure (A-
