IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15688 of 2024 =====================================================

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Versus SURESH KUMAR RATHOD S/O LATE RAMJIBHAI RATHOD SERVING AS SECTION OFFICER, DRT-1, AHMEDABAD & ANR.

=====================================================

Appearance:

MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4 RONITH JOY(9560) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 =====================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA Date : 11/03/2026

JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)

1. The Union of India has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) by which the Tribunal has allowed the application of the respondent, in part.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the application before the CAT were as follows:

2.1. On 23.08.1994, the respondent had been appointed as a Data Entry Operator with the grade pay of Rs.

2800.

2.2. On 23.08.2006, by virtue of an Assured cadre Progression scheme, his pay scale was enhanced to grade pay of Rs. 4200 on the completion of 12 years of service.

2.3. On 31.12.2007, a notification came to be issued calling for applications for recruitment to the post of Accounts Assistant in the DRT. The only mode of recruitment prescribed for the said post was by deputation.

2.4. On 09.05.2008, the respondent came to be appointed as an Accounts Assistant by deputation for a period of

03 years.

2.5.While the respondent was on deputation as an Accounts Assistant, a notification came to be issued calling for applications for filling up the post of Assistant once again by deputation. The respondent accordingly applied for being appointed as an Assistant on deputation and this application was favourably considered, and he came to be appointed as an Assistant on 18.07.2011. The period of deputation was stated to be 2 years.

2.6. On 22.06.2012, the services of the respondent, who was on deputation, came to be absorbed. In other words, on 22.06.2012, the respondent was absorbed as an Assistant in the DRT.

2.7. The respondent thereafter made an application requesting for promotion to the post of Section Officer.

2.8.The Union of India, by its communication dated

16.09.2014, rejected the claim of the respondent for promotion on the ground that the respondent had not completed the required length of 08 years of regular service as an Assistant, which was the requirement of the rules.

2.9. This communication dated 16.09.2014 was addressed to the Registrar of the DRT and he, in turn, issued a communication to the respondent on 18.09.2014, informing the respondent that his claim for promotion had been rejected by the Union of India.

2.10. Being aggrieved by this rejection, the respondent approached the CAT, two 2 years thereafter, in the year 2016.

2.11.The CAT, by the impugned order, has partly allowed the application with the following reasoning:

“26. The moot question is whether the service rendered as Accounts Assistant and Assistant, prior to absorption, and both in the same pay scale and both being analogous posts as per the Recruitment Rules of 2001 as well as 2018, could be excluded from the regular service, particularly when the Recruitment Rules themselves indicate deputation as a method of recruitment and also when DoPT OM dated 27.03.2001 has clearly stipulated to take that service on deputation into account. We opine that his seniority is not an issue at hand here because this is the only post in DRT II. Since the applicant came on deputation through proper channel, his tenure in the post of Accounts Assistant and Assistant is authorized and legal. Further, his absorption was preceded by the uninterrupted and continuous period of deputation without any gap. Whether he was in NCRB on 4000-6000 scale or 5000-8000 scale (substantive or ACP) is not relevant at this point of time because of stipulation (i), (ii) and (iii) in col