$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Decision delivered on: 12.09.2024 + W.P.(C) 7444/2024 SHRI. SUNIL KALGOUNDA PATIL & ORS .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Sumita Hazarika and Ms.

Mansi Mehta, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE. AND ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. A.K. Trivedi, Mr. Dhruv Kothari and Ms. Shipra Yadav, Advocates.

Mr. D Shashank Bajpai, CGSC with Mr. Rudra Paliwal, Government Pleader for UOI.

Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Advocate for R-4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought the following relief:

“a) Pass an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated March 24, 2023 passed by CAT, Principal Bench in OA No. 3243/2019;

b) Pass an appropriate Writ, direction or order directing the respondents to grant notional promotion to the Petitioners from the date they were eligible for promotion applying the ratio 13:2:1 for the three feeder categories of Superintendent Central Excise, Customs Preventive and Customs Appraisers from the year 2002 and giving all consequential benefits.”

2. Though the present petition has been filed on 26 grounds, however, learned counsel for the petitioners has confined her submissions to the following grounds only:

“A. Because the Hon'b1e Supreme Court vide order dated 3/8/2011 passed in Civil Appeal No.1198/2005 had clearly directed inter alia that; “The Union of India shall duly consider all such representations including those made before it in light of the subsequent development in the cadre strength of the3 feeder categories of Group-B services and amend/revise the Recruitment Rules including altering the existing ratio to secure just and fair representation to all the 3 feeder categories.”

The Hon'ble Supreme Court while passing the above directions was referring to the change in 2001 and thereafter in the relative cadre strength of the 3 feeder categories of the Group B services and to secure just and fair representation to all the three. Therefore the amended rules had to be applied with retrospective effect to ensure the same.

B. Because the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 3/8/2011 passed in Civil Appeal No.1198/2005 had further directed inter alia; that “Having perused one of the Office Orders (No.51/2011 dated 18th March, 2011), whereby some officers were promoted from Group B to the grade of Assistant Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise in the Pay Band 3 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-on purely ad hoc basis, we direct that all such ad hoc promotions shall abide by the final decision to be taken by the Department in terms of this order.” This direction further clarifies that it was open to the Respondent to apply to amended rules revising the existing ratio to secure just and fair representation to all the 3 feeder categories to the post of Assistant Commissioner with retrospective effect.

C. Because the Tribunal dismissed the OA holding inter alia that;

“11. We hereby after considering the rival contentions and the material placed before us, are of the view that the Hon'b1e Apex Court decision is loud and clear that all the three categories may approach the respondents by way of representation who may consider the same and formulate the promotion policy on the basis of strength certainly not from retrospective date. In view of this, there is 35 Hon’ble 3 Group B just B. Hon’ble 2011 No.Group B the grade Band 3 on just 3 C. Hon’ble 35 no merit in the present OA whatsoever and the same is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.”

Therefore the Hon'ble Tribunal could not have concluded that there was no direction to the Respondents to apply the revised Rules from retrospective effect. If that was so the Hon'ble Supreme Court would not have directed