The determination of seniority for redeployed surplus staff is subject to the resolution of the conflict between the N.R. Parmar and K. Meghachandra Singh judgments by a larger bench of the Supreme Court.

ORAL ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

The applicant has filed the OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:

“........... to call for the records related to the surplus process and the notice for the request against the existing vacancies of 2009 and the consequent appointment order issued to the applicant and to quash the impugned order C. No. 90(12)/ESTT/SEN/2016 dated 30-11-2016 further to direct the respondents to assign seniority to the applicant in terms of N.R. Parmar’s case and to pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper and thus to render justice”.

Brief facts of the case in a nutshell are as follows:

The applicant was appointed as an Assistant Assay Superintendent in the Assay Department, I.G. Mint, Mumbai, on 13.04.1989 and continued to serve in the said capacity until 13.10.2010. Subsequently, upon corporatization of the unit, certain employees, including the applicant, were declared surplus. The authorities invited options from the surplus employees regarding their willingness to continue in Government service, and the applicant exercised his option to continue in a Government Department. Pursuant to the Ministry of Finance's letter dated 29.05.2009, the applicant was formally declared surplus on 22.07.2009. Thereafter, a request/notification dated 01.09.2009 was forwarded to the first respondent, seeking his appointment against available vacancies in the Government establishment. Consequently, an appointment order was issued vide Memorandum, dated 23.09.2010, pursuant to which the applicant joined the post on 14.10.2010 and has since been serving under the respondents. The applicant submits that, notwithstanding the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. N.R. Parmar & Others, particularly with regard to determination of seniority with reference to the date of initiation of the recruitment process/notification of vacancies, and the consequential Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, the applicant's entry into the cadre and his consequential placement in the seniority list have not been determined in accordance with the said principles. Hence, the present OA for the aforementioned relief.

When the matter was taken up for final hearing, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the respondents had failed to properly assess and determine the applicant's seniority vis-à-vis the other incumbents in the cadre in accordance with the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 7514-7515 of 2005, Union of India & Others v. N.R. Parmar & Others. It was specifically contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court had categorically held that the direct recruits concerned were required to be appropriately interspaced with the promotees of the corresponding recruitment year. According to the applicant, the same principle ought to have been extended to the vacancies pertaining to the year 2009, pursuant to which the applicant was appointed. The failure of the respondents to extend the benefit of the said principle to the applicant has resulted in an erroneous determination of his seniority and is contrary to the binding declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Learned counsel further submitted that the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India is binding upon all authorities. Consequently, any action of the respondents which is inconsistent with the principles laid down in N.R. Parmar is liable to be held unsustainable in law and the consequential seniority determination, to that extent, is liable to be set aside. It was further submitted that the judgment in N.R. Parmar was duly acknowledged and acted upon by the Government of India through Office Memorandum No. 20011/1/2012-Estt.(D), dated 04.03.2014, is