Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
(Munish Kumar & Others vs Union Of India & Others on 17 October, 2013
O.A.No. 1088-CH-2013
(MUNISH KUMAR & OTHERS
VS.
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
Decided on: 17.10.2013
CORAM: HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J) &
HONBLE MS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A)
Present: Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, Advocate, counsel for the applicants.
Ms. Mohinder Gupta, Advocate,
counsel for the respondents.
O R D E R
HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)
1. In this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, twenty five applicants, working as Inspectors and some of them as Superintendents on adhoc basis, in the Central Excise Department, have joined together seeking the following relief:-
Issue directions to the Respondents to give effect to the judgement delivered by the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and others Versus N.R. Parmar and others reported as 2013 (2) SCT 287 and recast the seniority of the applicants who are direct recruits by allotting them the year of 1990-91 as year of allotment in which the vacancies arose and promote them to the next higher post of Superintendent with effect from the date, persons junior to them were promoted as such with all the consequential benefits.
(ii) Issue further directions to the Respondents not to make any further promotions to the next higher post of Superintendent without recasting the seniority of direct recruits viz-a-viz promotees of the cadre of Inspectors
2. Respondents have contested the O.A. by filing a reply. They submit that the relative seniority of direct recruits and promotees is to be determined as per principles laid down in O.M.No.3501/2/90-Estt. (D) dated 7.2.1986 and O.M.No. 22011/7/86-Estt. (D) dated 3.7.1986 according to which relative seniority of two categories mentioned above is determined as per rotation of vacancies etc. Reliance is also placed on O.M.No.20011/1/2006-Estt. (D) dated 3.3.2008. Similar issue was raised in O.A.No. 91-PB-2005 (Sarabjit Singh etc. Vs. UoI etc.) which was disposed of on 11.8.2005 commanding the respondents to pass speaking order and in pursuance of which Annexure R-4 dated 2.3.2006 was passed rejecting their claim. It is submitted that a direct recruit can claim seniority only from the date of his regular appointment. It is stated that the representations of applicants qua benefit of decision in N.R. Parmars case has been forwarded to the Central Board of Customs and Excise (Respondent No.2) to take up the issue with Respondent No.1 for issuance of necessary guidelines in case decision is taken to implement the decision.
4. In view of the above noticed facts and finding that the issue is inviting attention of the respondents at the highest level and no decision has been taken so far, this O.A. shall stand disposed of with a direction to the competent authority amongst the respondents to take a view qua the claim of the applicants, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The decision taken shall be conveyed to the applicants in writing by passing a detailed and speaking order. If they are found entitled to the relief, same shall be released to them within a further period of one month thereafter.
5. However, if the ultimate result is not favourable to the applicants, they would be at liberty to challenge the same as per rules and law, if so advised.
6. Needless to mention that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim.
7. Disposed of accordingly.
(SANJEEV KAUSHIK) MEMBER (J) (RAJWANT SANDHU) MEMBER (A) Place: Chandigarh Dated: 17.10.2013 HC*