Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr Priyanka Mishra vs Home Affairs on 25 June, 2024
1
O.A. No. 2739/2023
Item No. 137 (C-4)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 2739/2023
Order reserved on : 18.04.2024
Order pronounced on : 25.06.2024
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
1. DR. PRIYANKA MISHRA
Indian Police Service
Director (Admn.)
Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts
Ministry of Culture, Janpath Building
New Delhi-110070
W/o Mr. Veerendra Mishra
R/o C9, 9436, Vasant Kunj,
Delhi- 110070
Email: [email protected]
....Applicant
(By Advocate : Ms. Gauri Puri)
VERSUS
1. UNION OF INDIA
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs
North Block
New Delhi
2. DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
TRAINING (DoPT)
Through the Secretary
Ministry of Personnel, P G and Pensions
Government of India, North Block,
New Delhi - 110 001
2
O.A. No. 2739/2023
Item No. 137 (C-4)
3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
Police Head Quarter
Jahangirabad, Bhopal - 462008
Madhya Pradesh
4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
Police Head Quarter
Jahangirabad, Bhopal - 462008
Madhya Pradesh
Bhopal
5. Raghuvansh Kumar Singh
Indian Police Service
Police Head Quarter
Jahangirabad, Bhopal - 462008
.... Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma)
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
1. The Applicant herein is an officer of the Indian Police Service ("IPS") appointed on promotion in the select list of 2019 from the State Police Service quota of Madhya Pradesh Cadre, which she joined on 02.01.1995.
3O.A. No. 2739/2023 Item No. 137 (C-4)
2. Vide Order dated 24.01.2022 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Applicant's year of allotment to determine her seniority under Rule 3(3)(ii) of the IPS Seniority Rules was fixed as 2011 in the following manner:-
Completed year of service rendered in rank not Total weightage in years in Year of the Date from below that of Dy. SP or terms of IPS (Regulation of Date as treated Select List which equivalent till 31st day of Seniority) Rules, 1988 as as per DO&PT S. Name of on the holding rank December of the year for amended vide notification No. OM NO. Year of No. Officer basis of not below which the SCM was held 14014/ 54/96- AIS (I) dtd.
14014/14/2014- allotment
which that of Dy. to prepare the select list 31.12.97, 14014/1412000 AIS(I)
AIS-I dated
appointed SP or on the basis of which the dtd 30.08.2005 and
16.01.2018
to IPS equivalent said officer was appointed 14014/4/2011 AIS(I) B dated
to IPS (Fraction if any to l8.D4.20l2. (Years) be ignored) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Priyanka
1. 2019 02.01.1995 01.01.1995 25 8 2011 Mishra 2.1 However, the same was superseded vide Order dated 08.09.2022 bearing File No. I-15011/09/2020-IPS-I wherein the year of allotment of the Applicant was fixed as 2012 under Rule 3(3)(ii) of the IPS Seniority Rules as under:-
Completed year of service Total weight-age in years in rendered in rank not below Year of terms of IPS (Regulation of that of Dy. SP or equivalent the Select Seniority) Rules, 1988 as Date from which till 31st day of December of S. List on the amended vide notification No. Name of Officer holding rank not the year for which the SCM Year of No. basis of 14014/ 54/96- AIS (I) dtd.
below that of Dy. was held to prepare the allotment
which 31.12.97, 14014/1412000 AIS(I)
SP or equivalent select list on the basis of
appointed dtd 30.08.2005 and
which the said officer was
to IPS 14014/4/2011 AIS(I) B dated
appointed to IPS (Fraction
l8.D4.20l2. (Years)
if any to be ignored)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
3. Raghuwansh
2018 04.06.1996 22 Year 6 2012
Kumar Singh
9. Priyanka
2019 02.01.1995 25 Year 8 2012*
Mishra
2.2 The justification given was that in view of the proviso to Rule
3(3)(ii) of the IPS Seniority Rules as per which, the Respondent No. 5 (belonging to the select list of 1993 in the State Police Service Cadre 4 O.A. No. 2739/2023 Item No. 137 (C-4) and 2018 of the IPS Cadre) has to be senior to the Applicant (who belongs to the select list of 1994 in the State Police Service Cadre and 2019 of the IPS Cadre), The Applicant herein has more years of weight-age in view of her 25 years of continuous service as opposed to the continuous service of 22 years of the Respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 1 i.e Ministry of Home Affairs in several cases has extended the relief sought by the Applicant herein, to other similarly situated persons who approached the respective benches of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal at Allahabad & Lucknow, and passed orders re-fixing the seniority in terms of the continuous service rendered. Respondent No. 1 has issued orders re-fixing the seniority and determination of the year of allotment of IPS officers belonging to a junior batch vis-a-vis the officer(s) belonging to a senior batch who had lesser years of continuous service and weight- age by fixing the year of allotment of the senior officers notionally. Presently, the Applicant has been working on deputation upon her selection as Director (Admn.), Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts (IGNCA), Ministry of Culture, since 16.03.2021 in the Pay Matrix Level 13 Rs. 1,23,100-2,15,900 (7th CPC). The appointment is for a period of three (3) years and as such the Applicant is due for extension for the same. The Applicant then preferred a representation 5 O.A. No. 2739/2023 Item No. 137 (C-4) on 29.06.2023 to the Respondent No. 1 referring to (i) Letter No. 1- 14011/05/2020 dated 28.09.2022 (ii) Letter No. 1-15011/02/2021- IPS.I(E) dated 24.01.2022 and (iii) Letter No. 1-15011/09/2020-IPS-I dated 08.09.2022. The Applicant requested for re determination of her seniority and fixation of the allotment year as 2011 as granted earlier vide letter dated 24.01.2022 instead of 2012. A copy of the said representation is placed at Annexure (A-28). On 12.07.2023, the representation of the applicant was rejected by the respondents vide an non-speaking order stating that no ground was to re-determine the Applicant's seniority.
2.3 Aggrieved by the same the applicant has preferred the instant OA, seeking the following relief:-
"(a) Pass an Order quashing and setting aside the non-speaking Order dated 12.07.2023 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs bearing File No. 1-
15011/02/2021-IPS.I(E) ("Impugned Order I") and declaring that the same is arbitrary, illegal, unlawful and discriminatory;
(b) Pass an Order quashing and setting aside the Order dated 08.09.2023 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs bearing File No. 1-15011/09/2020- IPS-I ("Impugned Order II") and declaring that the same is arbitrary, illegal, unlawful and discriminatory in so far as it concerns the Applicant's year of assignment of seniority as 2012;
(c) Pass an Order declaring that the Applicant should be assigned the year of allotment as 2011 in view of her continuous service of 25 years and weightage of 8 years of service in accordance with the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988 as amended up to date in view of the Judgment dated 31.07.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative 6 O.A. No. 2739/2023 Item No. 137 (C-4) Tribunal, Allahabad Bench in O.A. no. 330/00463/2016 titled as "Kavindra Pratap Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors":
(d) Pass an Order directing the Respondent No. 1-4 to re determine the seniority/year of allotment of the Applicant and thereby assign the year of allotment as 2011;
(e) In the alternative, pass an Order directing the Respondent No. 1 to implement the Order dated 24.01.2022 issued vide File No. 1-
15011/02/2021-IPS.I (E). thereby assigning 2011 as the seniority/year of allotment of the Applicant;
(f) Pass any Order or further Order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interests of Justice."
2.4 Learned counsel for the applicant, states that the Impugned Order is unlawful and arbitrary and deprives the Applicant of her continuous service of 25 years by fixing the year of allotment as 2012 instead of 2011, on the ground that Respondent No. 5, belonging to a senior batch has lesser continuous service. This has been done in view of the proviso to Rule 3(3)(ii) of the IPS Seniority Rules as per which an officer shall not be assigned a year of allotment earlier than the year of allotment assigned to an officer senior to him in that select list or appointed to the service on the basis of an earlier select list. She would argue that the applicant cannot be made to surrender her legitimate claim based on continuous length of 7 O.A. No. 2739/2023 Item No. 137 (C-4) service which is the main criteria for awarding weightage and assigning the year of allotment and in doing so the handicap of one senior would then be transferred to the junior batch mechanically and as such the same would be a gross miscarriage of justice. She then draws attention to Order dated 24.01.2022 issued by Respondent No. 1, which reads as under:-
"
2.5 To further support her arguments she draws attention to an order passed by CAT, Allahabad Bench vide Judgment dated 8 O.A. No. 2739/2023 Item No. 137 (C-4) 31.03.2017 passed in O.A. no. 330/00463/2016 titled as "Kavindra Pratap Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors." was pleased to direct re-determination of seniority of the Applicants therein who were aggrieved with their fixation of seniority in terms of Rule 3 (3)(ii) of the IPC Seniority Rules and consequently, re-fixed the seniority for the year 2003 in place of 2005. The operative portion of the same reads under:-
"26. What then is the resolution of the controversy? In our view. both the parameters (Supra) have to be read and interpreted harmoniously. Both must be balanced against each other. Neither should be allowed to eclipse the other. Gestalt of all components and parameters has to be maintained in a system. Two valid principles involved in this case can be and have to be reconciled with each other. The interpretation of rules cannot be permitted to create consequences which are not conducive to equity and justice. The balance of convenience in the instant case rests in favour of the applicants. The applicants cannot be made to surrender their legitimate claim based on the length of continuous service which is the main criteria for awarding weightage and assigning the year of allotment.
27. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we feel that a harmonious way of resolving this issue would be to retain the original weightage of 07 years to the applicants without any damage to be caused by the position of respondent no. 6. Further, the seniority of the respondent no. 6 above the applicants, can be preserved by giving him 07 years of weightage.
28. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position, we are of the considered opinion that restriction of the weightage and consequent seniority awarded to the applicants is unjustified and unsustainable. The applicants are entitled to their legitimate claim of seven weightage points and, accordingly, the seniority of 2003 instead of 2005 in the Indian Police Service. The O.A deserves to succeed. 29. Accordingly, the O.A is allowed. Impugned order dated 07.08.2015 passed 9 O.A. No. 2739/2023 Item No. 137 (C-4) by the Respondent no. 1 insofar as it relates to the applicants herein is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to re-determine the seniority of the applicants and fix their year of allotment as 2003 in place of 2005 as per their original weightage of 07 points."
2.6 She states that the Judgment in Kavindra Pratap Singh (supra) has been assailed before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in W.P. (C) No. 1309/2018, vide Order dated 12.01.2018, wherein the High Court observed as under :-
"Mere pendency of the writ petition would not amount to stay of any proceedings before the authorities below or stay of the order impugned."
She further states that the decision of Kavindra Pratap Singh (supra) has been relied on by CAT, Lucknow Bench in O.A. No. 23/2016 titled as "Rajesh Kumar Pandey vs. Union of India" vide Final Order dated 25.10.2018 and CAT, Allahabad Bench in O.A. No. 330/00403/2018 titled as "Virendra Kumar Mishra & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors." vide Judgment dated 16.02.2021. She states that this would be fixed if the Official Respondents had given notional weightage and seniority to the Respondent No. 5, thereby balancing the rights of the Applicant and Respondent No. 5 in an equitable manner. She draws attention to Rule 3 of the All India Services 10 O.A. No. 2739/2023 Item No. 137 (C-4) (Conditions of Service-Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960 wherein the government has the power to relax rules in certain cases in a just and equitable manner. She closes her arguments stating that in the event the seniority of 2011 is not assigned to the Applicant, she would not be entitled to the selection grade scale in the Pay Matrix Level 13 Rs. 1,23,100-2,15,900 (7th CPC) upon completion of 13 years of service in IPS as on 01.01.2024 and would instead, be downgraded and will only be entitled to the higher pay scale on 01.01.2025 and that this would severely hamper the future career prospects of the Applicant in the event she seeks to apply for any other post in the Government of India.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents states that determination of seniority of a promotee officer is not an independent exercise, rather, it is decided by certain factors including length of continuous service in Deputy Superintendent of Police or equivalent, Select List from which an officer stands appointed and the relevant rules existing on the date of appointment.
3.1 He states that to ascertain the basic aspect of the controversy involved in the matter it is essential to quote rule 11 O.A. No. 2739/2023 Item No. 137 (C-4) 3(3) (ii) of IPS(Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988 as amended on 18-4-2012 which reads as under :-
"3 (3) (ii) The year of allotment of a promotee officer shall be determined with reference to the year for which the meeting of the Committee to make selection, to prepare the Select List on the basis of which he was appointed to the Service, was held and with regard to the continuous service rendered by him in the State Police Service not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or equivalent, up to the 31st day of December of the year for which the meeting of the Committee to make selection was held to prepare the select list on the basis of which he was appointed to the Service"
3.2 He states that when the seniority of other officers of SL 2018 & 2019 of MP Cadre was fixed, the seniority of the applicant got restricted to a senior officer of SL. 2018 namely Shri. Raghuvansh Kumar Singh, who was given the seniority of year 2012 and therefore the seniority of the applicant was also revised and re-fixed as 2012 in terms of proviso to Rule 3(3)(ii) of IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988, vide this Ministry order dated 08.09.2022, The detail of seniority of all the officers of Select List 2018 & 2019 of MP cadre is as under:- 12 O.A. No. 2739/2023
Item No. 137 (C-4) 3.3 He states that it is pertinent to mention here that the proviso to Rule 3(3)(ii) of the seniority regulations envisages that even if a junior officer is having longer service as Dy. S.P to his credit than that of his senior in the IPS, he will not be given a higher batch year than that of his senior. In other words, it restricts the junior IPS officer to get higher batch year than that of his senior. This is a logical rationale provided to ensure 13 O.A. No. 2739/2023 Item No. 137 (C-4) that senior remains senior and junior may not become senior to his senior. He further submits that the seniority of a promotee IPS officer is to be fixed by this Ministry after completion of Induction Training Course (ITC) at SVPNPA, however, in this case, on the request of Government of Madhya Pradesh, seniority of the applicant was fixed, giving one-time relaxation from Induction Training course, vide order dated 14.01.2022.
In that order the applicant was given the seniority of the year 2011 based on her actual service rendered in SPS from 02.01.1995 to 31.12.2019. But later on, when the seniority of other officers of SL 2018 & 2019 of MP Cadre was fixed, as stated earlier, the seniority of the applicant got restricted to a senior officer of SL 2018 namely Shri Raghuvansh Kumar Singh, who was given the seniority of year 2012. In regard to Kavindra Pratap Singh (supra) he states that the applicant has not been given any benefit. However, in compliance of the orders of the Hon'ble CAT, Allahabad Bench, it was decided that the seniority of Shri Ram Bodh (due to whom the seniority of Shri Kavindra Pratap Singh & Others was restricted) may be fixed by counting his service in the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police w.e.f. the date on which his junior 14 O.A. No. 2739/2023 Item No. 137 (C-4) Shri Kavindra Pratap Singh joined the service in relaxation of Rule 3(3)(ii) of IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988 by invoking the powers conferred under All India Service (Conditions of Service-Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960 as a special case not to be quoted as precedence subject to the outcome of Writ Petition No. 1309 of 2018 filed by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The said WP is still pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad. He further states that in the instant case the seniority of the applicant has been restricted to the senior officer of earlier Select List whereas the seniority of the KP Singh was restricted to the senior officer of the same Select List as such there is no similarity between the instant matter and KP Singh matter. There is no instance where this Ministry, in compliance of court order, has re-determined the seniority of the officer whose seniority was restricted form an officer of earlier Select List in relaxation of the proviso to Rule 3(3)(ii) of IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988 and that the instant case is first of its kind. He would argue that the applicant's claim of drawing parallels with KP Singh case is not correct and hence unjustified.
15O.A. No. 2739/2023 Item No. 137 (C-4)
4. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the applicant would argue that It is submitted, that the objection raised by the official Respondent that there has been no case where the seniority of an officer whose seniority was restricted from an officer of an earlier select list been redetermined is belied by theJudgment dated 16.02.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench in O.A. No. 403/2018 titled as "Virendra Kumar Mishra & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors"[Annexure A-20 @ Pg. 231-247], the operative portion of which reads as under:-
"14. In sum, we are inclined to agree with the view of the applicants that the benefit of the judgement and order of this Tribunal given in OA 463/2016 vide order dated 31-3-2017 should be given to the applicants subject to the final decision of the Hon Allahabad High Court in WP 1309/2018: Union of India versus Kavindra Pratap Singh which is still pending and there is no stay in the matter with regards to the order of this Tribunal dt 31.03.2017. Further that since the relief in this OA is being granted in terms of the relief granted in the OA 463/2016, hence we are not adjudicating on the relief sought with respect to quashing of the Proviso / Explanation to Rule 3(3) (ii) of the 1988 Rules.
15. On the basis of foregoing discussions and detailed analysis of the matter, the prayed for relief is granted and it is directed as follows:
i. The order dated 13.07.2018 rejecting the representation of the applicant Virendra Kumar Mishra is quashed ii. The order dated 11.01.2016 in respect of all applicants fixing their seniority erroneously is quashed.16
O.A. No. 2739/2023 Item No. 137 (C-4) iii. The respondent/ competent authority is directed to issue orders with respect to corrected seniority of the applicants taking into account the weightage admissible as per the latest amendments and circulars of DOPT including vide dated 18.04.2012 iv. The above orders are subject to the final order in WP 1309/2018 pending in the Hon Allahabad High Court."
She states that the Applicants belonging to the 1988 and 1989 batches had their year of allotment of seniority re-fixed vis-a- vis the officer belonging to an earlier batch of 1987 and the assertion by the learned counsel for the respondents that the present is the case of the first kind is incorrect and misleading. She further states proviso to Rule 3(3)(ii) of the IPS Seniority Rules ought to be harmoniously and purposive construed in as much as while the same is to protect the right of a senior employee, it was not included to damage the claim of the junior. She further states that the CAT, Lucknow Bench vide Order dated 04.08.2022 passed inO.A. No. 54/2022 titled as "Pawan Kumar Gangwar vs. UOI & Ors.", placed at Annexure (Annexure A-31), was pleased to observe that the interpretation of the proviso has to be made constructively and as such, the main provision of Rule 3 (3)(ii) of the IPS Seniority Rules is made subservient to the proviso in a blind one sided manner causing injustice to one part in an over reach 17 O.A. No. 2739/2023 Item No. 137 (C-4) to give justice to another. Therefore, the Hon'ble Tribunal held that the proviso ought to be given a positive interpretation and cannot impose a negative burden or encumbrance on an officer for no fault on their part and as such, cannot be made to surrender a legitimate claim based on length of continuous service which is the main criteria for awarding weightage and assigning the year of allotment. She would go on to submit that the conduct of Respondent No. 1 is clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, itself, in as much as similarly situated persons like the Applicant have been extended the relief (albeit subject to outcome of the Writ Petition pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) as sought by the Applicant herein by issuance of the following Orders in compliance of the Judgments/Orders passed by the respective benches of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunals at Lucknow and Allahabad placing reliance on Kavindra Pratap Singh (supra).She would close her arguments stating that the Applicant was assigned the year of allotment as 2011 vide Order dated 24.01.2022 which was capriciously and without putting the Applicant to notice, superseded vide the Impugned Order II and changed her year of 18 O.A. No. 2739/2023 Item No. 137 (C-4) allotment to 2012 and such volte face suppression of the Order dated 24.01.2022 which directly affects the Applicant ought to be done after putting the Applicant to notice of such change in year of allotment.
5. Having heard the counsel for the respective parties and perused the records of the case.
6. ANALYSIS 6.1 Rule 3 (3) (ii) - for promotee reads as under:-
"(ii) The year of allotment of a promotee officer shall be determined with reference to the year for which the meeting of the Committee to make selection, to prepare the select list on the basis of which he was appointed to the Service, was held and with regard to the continuous service rendered by him in the State Civil Service not below the rank of a Deputy Collector or equivalent, up to the 31st day of December of the year immediately before the year for which meeting of the Committee to make selection was held to prepare the select list on the basis of which he was appointed to the Service."
6.2 The Rule speaks of year of allotment and not seniority. 6.3 YEAR OF ALLOTMENT IS ASSIGNED - in terms of Rule 3 (3) (i) -for direct recruits - following year of competitive examination in which examination held.
6.4 Rule 4, envisages Inter-se seniority of the officers who are assigned the same year of allotment:-
19O.A. No. 2739/2023
Item No. 137 (C-4) "The inter-se seniority of the officers appointed to the Service shall be in the following order and in each category the inter-se seniority shall be determined in the following manner:-
i. direct recruit officers shall be ranked inter-se in the order of merit as determined in accordance with rule 10 of the Indian Administrative Service (Probation) Rules, 1954; ii Promotee officers shall be ranked inter-se in the order in which their names are arranged by the Commission for the purpose of appointment to the Service by promotion; iii officers appointed by selection shall be ranked inter-se in the order in which their names are arranged by the Commission for the purpose of appointment to the Service by selection. " 6.5 The respondents are mis-reading Rule , the opening words of Rule 4 are to the effect govern the field , wherein, Inter-se seniority of the officers who are assigned the same year of allotment. 6.6 In present case, the case of the applicant cannot be equated with respondent no.5 who was not assigned the same year of allotment. The year of allotment is purely personal to the officer concerned. For the purpose of calculation in terms of clause (a) for the service rendered by him up to twenty one years, he shall be given a weightage of one year for every completed three years of service, subject to a minimum of four years; Further , in terms of clause (b) he shall also be given a weightage of one year for every completed two years of service beyond the period of twenty one years, referred to in sub-clause (a), subject to a maximum of three years.20
O.A. No. 2739/2023
Item No. 137 (C-4) 6.7 Under the said Rules, the following are invariable factors and remain unchanged :-
a) year of allotment
b) Ranking of inter-se with promotee officers or
officers appointed by selection, as the case may be, having the same year of allotment in the cadre with reference to the date on the basis of which he was assigned the year of allotment.
c) Proviso to Rule 3(3)(ii) of the IPS Seniority Rules ought to be harmoniously and purposely construed in as much as while the same is to protect the right of a senior employee, it was not included to damage the claim of the junior.
6.8 The Applicant herein has more years of weightage in view of her 25 years of continuous service as opposed to the continuous service of 22 years of the Respondent No. 5. In the event the interpretation given by the respondents have to be accepted , the same would render and defeat the whole purpose of granting such weightage and such provision would rather render provision nugatory. Even otherwise, consideration of 21 O.A. No. 2739/2023 Item No. 137 (C-4) weightage to purely personal to an officer, which does not effect the rights of the respondent no.5 , who is within his rights to seek such personal benefits in accordance with Rules. 6.9 The Applicant was assigned the year of allotment as 2011 vide Order dated 24.01.2022 which was capriciously and without putting the Applicant to notice, superseded vide the Impugned Order II and changed her year of allotment to 2012 and such volte face suppression of the Order dated 24.01.2022 which directly affects the Applicant ought to be done after putting the Applicant to notice of such change in year of allotment similarly situated persons like the Applicant have been extended the relief (albeit subject to outcome of the Writ Petition pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad).
6.10 In O.A. No. 403/2018 titled as "Virendra Kumar Mishra & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors"[Annexure A-20 @ Pg. 231-247] applies in equal force to the facts of the present case.
7. CONCLUSION :-
22O.A. No. 2739/2023
Item No. 137 (C-4) 7.1 On the basis of detailed analysis of the matter, the prayed for relief is granted and it is directed as follows:
(a) We quash and set aside the non-speaking Order dated 12.07.2023 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs bearing File No. 1-15011/02/2021-IPS.I(E) ("Impugned Order I") and Order dated 08.09.2023 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs bearing File No. 1-
15011/09/2020-IPS-I ("Impugned Order II").
(b) The Applicant should be assigned the year of allotment as 2011 in view of her continuous service of 25 years and weightage of 8 years of service in accordance with the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988 as amended up to date in view of the Judgment dated 31.07.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench in O.A. no. 330/00463/2016 titled as "Kavindra Pratap Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors": and directing the Respondent No. 1-4 to re determine the seniority/year of allotment of the Applicant and thereby assign the year of allotment as 2011 and /or directing the 23 O.A. No. 2739/2023 Item No. 137 (C-4) Respondent No. 1 to implement the Order dated 24.01.2022 issued vide File No. 1- 15011/02/2021-IPS.I (E). thereby assigning 2011 as the seniority/year of allotment of the Applicanttaking into account the weightage admissible as per the latest amendments and circulars of DOPT including vide dated 18.04.2012
c) The above orders are subject to the final order in WP 1309/2018 pending in the Hon Allahabad High Court.
d) The exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order.
e) Accordingly, the OA is allowed. All pending applications if any are also disposed of.
f) No costs.
(Chhabilendra Roul) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ss/