Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Utpal Nath vs M/O Finance on 29 January, 2026
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No.3298/2024
Reserved on: 27.01.2026
Pronounced on: 29.01.2026
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Sh. Utpal Nath,
Joint Director, Group 'A', aged 57 years,
S/o late Jitendra Nath,
46-C, Vijay Mandal Enclave DDA Flats,
Kalu Sarai, Hauz Khasa,
New Delhi-110016 - Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Vaishali Sukhlan)
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through the Secretary (IES Cadre)
Department of Economic Affairs,
Ministry of Finance, North Block,
New Delhi-110001
2. Mr. Abhay Kumar Lokhande, IES,
Director, M/o Commerce, GOI, New Delhi,
(Model Representative of Senior IES Officers)
Through the Secretary (IES Cadre Division), DEA,
Ministry of Finance, North Block,
New Delhi-1100001 - Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. PK Sharma)
LALIT 2026.01.
30
GOSA 10:05:02
IN +05'30'
2
ORDER
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):
Brief facts of the case as narrated in the OA are that the applicant joined the subordinate cadre service on 03.07.1997 as Small Industry Promotion Officer (SIPO) in the office of the Development Commissioner, Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises (DC-MSME), having been selected through UPSC under the Direct Recruitment quota, pursuant to the recruitment process initiated on 13.04.1994 in response to the DPC held on 12.02.1994 for vacancies accrued during the period from 31.03.1988 to 31.03.1993.
2. On 02.11.2000, the Final Seniority List of SIPOs was circulated by DC-MSME vide letter No. A-23020/1/2000-A (NG) dated 02.11.2000, which suffered from various illegalities, including absence of clear seniority dates, alteration of the existing rota-quota ratio from DR:PR 75:25 to 40:60, and placement of purely ad-hoc promotee SIPOs nearly six years above direct recruit SIPOs.
3. The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, vide judgment dated 19.04.2004 in WP No. 6109/2004 (V.K.K. Nadimpalli vs Union of India), categorically ratified the said Final Seniority List dated 02.11.2000 and confirmed the applicant's subordinate service seniority date as a direct recruit from the date of initiation of the recruitment process, i.e., 13.04.1994, vis-à-vis promotee officers whose seniority was reckoned from the date of occurrence of vacancies between 31.03.1988 and 31.03.1993, strictly following the LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:05:02 IN +05'30' 3 principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and DoPT OMs dated 07.02.1986 and 03.07.1986. The applicant claims reciprocal legal benefits during his subsequent induction into the IES cadre under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
4. Being aggrieved by deviation from the court-settled seniority, the applicant along with Shri V.K.K. Nadimpalli filed OA No. 329/2019 before the CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, seeking directions to the respondents to maintain the court-settled seniority date and inter-se seniority procedure as affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 6109/2004. The Tribunal disposed of the OA on 21.05.2021, directing the respondents to pass an appropriate order on representation, duly considering all relevant factors including the judgment in N.R. Parmar.
5. In purported compliance thereof, the Secretary (DEA-IES Cadre) passed a speaking order dated 22.10.2021, which effectively nullified the Hon'ble High Court's verdict without any cogent reasoning. The applicant thereafter filed OA No. 1482/2022 before the CAT seeking fixation of a precise induction date into IES as 01.01.2001, derived from the inter-se seniority procedure postulated by the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 6109/2004. The OA was dismissed on technical grounds for non-impleadment of senior IES officers. A Review Application No. 101/2022 was also dismissed ex parte on 09.05.2023.
6. Owing to financial constraints, the applicant pursued the matter through legal notices and representations under the National Litigation Policy and also approached the Hon'ble President of India. LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:05:02 IN +05'30' 4 However, no corrective action has been taken by the Secretary (DEA- IES Cadre) till date.
7. The IES Cadre issued a Draft Seniority List of IES Officers vide Order No. 13012/1/2024-IES dated 27.02.2024, disregarding the binding judgments of the Hon'ble High Court, Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the CAT.
9. Counsel for the Applicant submits that his subordinate service seniority date of 13.04.1994 and the inter-se seniority procedure governing his future induction into IES stood conclusively settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WP No. 6109/2004, which attained finality. The said judgment was rendered after fully applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and DoPT OMs dated 07.02.1986 and 03.07.1986, and was further supported by a joint affidavit filed by DC-MSME and the Secretary (DEA-IES Cadre). The said judgment expressly restrained alteration of the applicant's seniority and laid down the manner in which his inter-se seniority would operate for future induction.
10. Counsel for the applicant contended that despite being a co- respondent in the said writ petition, the Secretary (DEA-IES Cadre) failed to implement the judgment at the time the applicant became eligible for induction into IES on completion of seven years of service from the settled seniority date, i.e., 01.01.2001. Any subsequent alteration of the applicant's settled seniority date from 13.04.1994 to 18.02.1997 is without jurisdiction, contrary to the doctrine of res judicata, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:05:02 IN +05'30' 5
11. Counsel for the applicant further submitted that the DC- MSME, being the sole competent authority for fixation of subordinate cadre seniority, vide letter dated 06.09.2021, reiterated the vacancy year as 1994 and confirmed that the Final Seniority List dated 02.11.2000 is final and not liable to be reopened. This communication was deliberately ignored by the IES Cadre while issuing the speaking order dated 22.10.2021.
12. It is contended that the reliance placed by the IES Cadre on DoPT OM dated 13.08.2021 is misconceived, as the applicant's induction into IES occurred during the period when the law laid down in N.R. Parmar governed the field, which was also expressly upheld for the interregnum period by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Meghachandra Singh and clarified by DoPT OM dated 13.08.2021 itself.
13. It is submitted that once a judgment has attained finality, it cannot be indirectly nullified by executive action, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CP (C) No. 248/2007 and reiterated in CA No. 2320/2021 (State of UP vs M.K. Sharma). The impugned Draft Seniority List dated 27.02.2024 is therefore void ab initio.
14. Counsel for the argued that the respondents have willfully failed to comply with the binding judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 6109/2004 and the CAT in OA No. 329/2019 and OA No. 627/2003, read with DoPT OMs dated 07.02.1986, 03.07.1986, 03.03.2008, 04.03.2014 and 13.08.2021, thereby illegally denying the applicant induction into the IES cadre from 01.01.2001. LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:05:02 IN +05'30' 6
15. It is also argued that the Secretary (DEA-IES Cadre) illegally reopened and altered the applicant's subordinate service seniority date which had attained finality, in violation of the doctrine of res judicata and stare decisis, as expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Kumar vs Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 207.
16. Counsel for the applicant argued that the respondents failed to consider and incorporate the official communication dated 06.09.2021 issued by DC-MSME, which reaffirmed the applicant's settled seniority position, while passing the impugned speaking order dated 22.10.2021.
17. Counsel for the applicant further pleaded that the respondents misapplied DoPT OM dated 13.08.2021 to defeat rights crystallised during the operative period of N.R. Parmar, contrary to the express clarification contained in Para 7(iii) of the said OM.
18. It is argued that the respondents selectively applied the protection clause of DoPT OM dated 04.03.2014 while deliberately ignoring the similar protection clause contained in DoPT OM dated 03.03.2008, thereby acting arbitrarily.
19. Counsel for the applicant contended that the respondents failed to implement the rota-quota ratio of DR:PR 60:40 as mandated under the IES Rules, 1961 and as directed by the CAT in OA No. 627/2003, resulting in prolonged denial of promotion to the applicant.
20. Counsel for the applicant further argued that the respondents trespassed into the exclusive jurisdiction of the subordinate cadre LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:05:02 IN +05'30' 7 authority by altering the applicant's service seniority date, without any legal authority, thereby causing irreparable prejudice.
21. It is lastly argued that the impugned Draft Seniority List of IES Officers dated 27.02.2024 suffers from manifest illegality, arbitrariness, and non-application of mind, and is liable to be quashed.
22. Counsel for the respondents has filed the counter affidavit and submitted that the applicant was initially recruited as Small Industry Promotion Officer (SIPO) in the office of the Development Commissioner, Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises (DC- MSME) through UPSC as a Direct Recruit against the vacancy year 1994 and joined on 03.07.1997 pursuant to the DPC held on 24.02.1994 for vacancies accrued from 31.03.1988 to 31.03.1993. Thereafter, the applicant was inducted into the Indian Economic Service (IES) in October, 2013. In January, 2019, Shri V.K.K. Nadimpalli, an officer inducted into IES in 2011 and now retired, along with others including Shri Utpal Nath, filed OA No. 329/2019 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, seeking fixation of their seniority with retrospective benefits. The plea of the applicants therein was to fix their seniority at par with the promotees of the same vacancy year in DC-MSME in accordance with DoP&T O.M. No. 20011/1/2012-Estt.(D) dated 04.03.2014. The said OA was decided by the Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 12.05.2021, whereby the applicants were directed to submit representations ventilating their grievances regarding fixation of seniority, duly enclosing all relevant documents, and the LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:05:02 IN +05'30' 8 respondents including the Department of Economic Affairs were directed to pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt of such representations, after taking into account all relevant factors including the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.R. Parmar and K. Meghachandra Singh cases.
23. It is submitted that pursuant thereto, the applicants submitted representations dated 20.06.2021 to DC-MSME and the IES Cadre. DC-MSME, vide its communication dated 06.09.2021, conveyed that all the applicants of the said OA were recruited against the vacancy year 1994, for which the DPC to fill up the promotion quota was held on 24.02.1994 and the requisition for filling up the Direct Recruitment quota was sent on 13.04.1994, as stated in the counter affidavits filed before the Tribunal. It was further conveyed that the final seniority list of feeder grade officers issued vide letter No. A- 23020/1/2000-A dated 02.11.2000 has attained finality and may not be reopened in view of DoP&T O.M. dated 04.03.2014. Thereafter, the IES Cadre, after examining the representations dated 20.06.2021 in compliance with the Hon'ble Tribunal's judgment dated 12.05.2021 and after duly considering DC-MSME's letter dated 06.09.2021, issued a well-reasoned speaking order dated 22.10.2021 conveying to all the applicants, including Shri Utpal Nath (IES: 2013), that the seniority as fixed was found to be correct and in order and that cases already settled may not be reopened.
24. It is further submitted that subsequently, Shri Utpal Nath preferred another representation dated 01.09.2022. The IES Cadre, vide communication dated 18.11.2022, clarified that the issue had LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:05:02 IN +05'30' 9 already been examined and settled vide the speaking order dated 22.10.2021.
25. It is submitted that the seniority of the applicant has been examined as per the interpretations contained in DoP&T O.Ms. dated 07.02.1986 and 03.07.1986 and found to be correct and in order, in terms of DoP&T O.M. No. 20011/1/2012-Estt.(D) dated 04.03.2014.
26. Counsel for the respondents also submitted that the Department of Economic Affairs issued a detailed and well-reasoned speaking order No. 11024/3/2019-IES dated 22.10.2021, informing Shri Utpal Nath that his case of seniority had been duly examined as per DoP&T O.Ms. dated 07.02.1986 and 03.07.1986 and found to be correct and in order, and that in terms of DoP&T O.M. dated 04.03.2014, cases of seniority already settled with reference to the applicable interpretations of availability may not be reopened.
27. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that representations dated 01.09.2022, 24.01.2024 and 02.04.2024 were duly received in the Department, examined in detail, and disposed of vide IES Cadre O.M. No. 11024/3/2019 dated 18.11.2022 and subsequent communication No. 14023/02/2016-IES dated 10.05.2024.
28. It is submitted that each year, as on 1st January of the vacancy year, an Integrated Eligibility List of feeder post holders is prepared from among participating Ministries, Departments and Organizations for Economic Officers who have rendered at least seven years of regular service as Economic Officer or are holding an LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:05:02 IN +05'30' 10 equivalent post, based on the information furnished by the concerned organizations.
29. It is submitted that the Department of Economic Affairs prepares the Integrated Eligibility List for induction into the Indian Economic Service strictly in accordance with the extant IES Rules, applicable guidelines issued by DoP&T, and the details furnished by the participating Ministries, Departments and Organizations. The date of entry into the IES, in the case of Direct Recruits, is the date of recommendation by UPSC, and in the case of promotee officers, is the date of recommendation by the Departmental Promotion Committee. To bring uniformity and equality in the process of preparation of the Integrated Eligibility List, the IES Cadre uniformly adopts the recommendation date of UPSC or DPC, as applicable. The IES Cadre has duly complied with the judgment of the Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No. 329/2019 by issuing the speaking order dated 22.10.2021 after examining the representations of Shri Utpal Nath and other applicants, the letter of DC-MSME dated 06.09.2021, and the judgment of the Tribunal dated 12.05.2021.
30. Counsel for the applicant has filed the rejoinder stating that the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh adopted a balanced, reasoned, and judicious approach while adjudicating Writ Petition No. 6109/2004. The said judgment has attained finality, as neither party chose to challenge it by filing a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is a settled principle of law, reiterated in several landmark judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that once a subsequent judgment overrules an earlier judgment on a point of LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:05:02 IN +05'30' 11 law, the earlier judgment which has already attained finality cannot be reopened or reviewed on the basis of the subsequent judgment. There must be an end to litigation; otherwise, the rights of parties would remain in perpetual flux, leading to uncertainty and administrative injustice.
31. Counsel for the applicant submitted that however, Respondent No.1, namely the Secretary (DEA-IES Cadre), despite being a co- respondent in WP No. 6109/2004, has deliberately circumvented and undermined the essence of the binding judgment by unlawfully altering the applicant's court-settled service seniority date from 13.04.1994 to 17.02.1997 and thereafter manipulating the court- postulated IES cadre induction date from 01.01.2001, which arises from the "occurrence of vacancy" principle as recognised by the Hon'ble High Court and the IES Recruitment Rules, to an arbitrary and concocted date of 01.10.2013.
32. Counsel for the applicant submitted that it clearly emerges from the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court that Direct Recruits are to be assigned seniority from the date of initiation of the recruitment process, i.e., April 1994, whereas Promotees derive their seniority from the actual date of occurrence of vacancies, i.e., between 1988 and 1993. Notwithstanding this categorical finding, Respondent No.1 contemptuously disregarded the judgment and instead relied upon a self-serving notion of "uniformity", as a result of which the applicant has unlawfully suffered a loss of more than ten years of service seniority vis-à-vis his own juniors. Applying the principle of "occurrence of vacancy" as judicially settled in WP No. 6109/2004, LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:05:02 IN +05'30' 12 the applicant ought to have been inducted into the IES cadre with effect from 01.01.2001, which flows directly from the court-settled seniority date of April 1994 coupled with the mandatory requirement of seven years' qualifying service in the feeder cadre, as per the IES Recruitment Rules, read with the judgment of the CAT, Delhi in OA No. 627/2003. Any deviation from this settled legal position results in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality and equal opportunity in public employment.
33. It is submitted that the applicant filed OA No. 329/2019 before this Hon'ble Tribunal. The sole directive issued by this Tribunal on 12.05.2021 in OA No. 329/2019, requiring Respondent No.1 to consider the applicant's claim in accordance with the N.R. Parmar judgment, was legally sound and indisputable. The N.R. Parmar judgment is fully aligned with the binding judgment in WP No. 6109/2004 and does not contain any continuation clause protecting illegally prepared seniority lists. Nevertheless, the Secretary (DEA- IES Cadre) deliberately nullified the Tribunal's clear and reasoned direction by falsely asserting that the Tribunal relied upon a redundant and obsolete law. This assertion is patently incorrect, as both the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the DoPT have unequivocally affirmed the applicability of the N.R. Parmar judgment to inter-se seniority disputes during the period from 27.11.2012 to 18.11.2019. The applicant's induction into the IES cadre on 18.11.2015 and the filing of OA No. 329/2019 squarely fall within this period.
44. It is further submitted that the IES Cadre illegally relied upon the DoPT OM dated 13.08.2021, which was issued long after the LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:05:02 IN +05'30' 13 disposal of OA No. 329/2019 on 17.05.2021, to nullify this Tribunal's verdict, while simultaneously ignoring the DoPT OM dated 04.03.2014, which expressly protects court-settled seniority matters. This selective and retrospective application of executive instructions is impermissible in law.
45. Counsel for the applicant alleged that the IES Cadre has also deliberately ignored the principle of res judicata, which clearly provides that cases of seniority already decided by a court in accordance with DoPT OMs dated 07.02.1986 and 03.07.1986 are not to be reopened. While Respondent No.1 selectively invoked this principle to deny relief to the applicant, the same principle was conspicuously ignored while implementing the binding judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 6109/2004. Furthermore, the authorized legal opinions of the Department of Legal Affairs and DoPT, communicated through DC-MSME vide letter dated 06.09.2021 in compliance with the Tribunal's direction in OA No. 329/2019, unequivocally reaffirmed the continuing applicability of the High Court's judgment to the applicant. These opinions were deliberately disregarded.
46. Counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned speaking order dated 22.10.2021 demonstrates a deliberate misuse of the doctrine of res judicata to evade compliance with this Tribunal's order, while fraudulently failing to uphold the same doctrine for implementing the High Court's final judgment. Such conduct reflects a clear disregard for judicial authority. LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:05:02 IN +05'30' 14
47. It is submitted that the applicant's induction into the IES cadre and the filing of OA No. 329/2019 occurred during the period when the N.R. Parmar judgment was fully operative. Therefore, the Tribunal's direction to grant relief in accordance with N.R. Parmar was legally sound and unassailable. The DoPT OM dated 13.08.2021 further reinforces, rather than negates, the Tribunal's directive.
48. It is submitted that the Secretary (DEA-IES Cadre) has knowingly falsified his own affidavit filed before the Hon'ble Court and has unlawfully interfered with the binding judgment, in violation of the doctrines of res judicata and stare decisis, while preparing the impugned Final Seniority List dated 12.03.2025. The alteration of the applicant's court-settled service seniority date from 13.04.1994 to 17.02.1997 and the consequent shifting of his IES induction date from 01.01.2001 to 01.10.2013 is unsupported by any lawful reasoning. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyadhan Ghosal vs Deorajin Debi (AIR 1960 SC 941) has categorically held that once a matter is finally decided by a competent court, it cannot be reopened in subsequent proceedings.
49. It is also contended by the applicant that the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 6109/2004, the CAT in OA No. 627/2003 and OA No. 329/2019 have unequivocally upheld the applicant's claim for induction into the IES cadre with effect from 01.01.2001. The respondents have no lawful defence against these binding precedents.
50. Counsel for the respondents has also filed reply to the Amended Prayer of the OA, in terms of the directions of the Hon'ble LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:05:02 IN +05'30' 15 Tribunal dated 02.12.2025 by stating that at the stage of final arguments, the applicant filed MA No. 5152/2025 seeking amendment of the Original Application by praying for liberty to challenge the final seniority list of Indian Economic Service officers dated 12.03.2025, in addition to the draft seniority list already under challenge. The said MA was allowed by the Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 02.12.2025, with specific directions to the respondents to file their reply confined only to the issue relating to the final seniority list dated 12.03.2025.
51. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the annual publication of the seniority list of IES officers is a fundamental administrative requirement, as it ensures a transparent, updated, and legally compliant mechanism for filling vacancies through promotion and for determining inter se seniority among officers. As per the guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, a select list is prepared every year by the competent authority for the purpose of appointment of officers to higher grades on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness or merit, in accordance with the applicable service rules. The names included in the select list determine the order of seniority and eligibility for appointment to the next higher grade, and officers remain on the select list until they are appointed, thereby ensuring fairness and uniformity in career progression.
52. Counsel for the respondents submitted that each year, the seniority list of IES officers is prepared to maintain transparency and fairness in matters relating to promotion, posting, and other service LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:05:02 IN +05'30' 16 benefits. Accordingly, during the year 2025, the seniority list was prepared for the purpose of promotion of eligible IES officers to the next higher grade in the service hierarchy.
53. It is also submitted by the respondents that each year, as on the 1st of January of the vacancy year, an integrated eligibility list of feeder post holders from the participating Ministries, Departments, and Organizations is prepared for Economic Officers who have rendered at least seven years of regular service as Economic Officer or who are holding equivalent posts. The preparation of the integrated eligibility list is based entirely on the information furnished by the participating Ministries, Departments, and Organizations.
54. It is submitted that the Department of Economic Affairs had already issued a well-reasoned speaking order No. 11024/3/2019- IES dated 22.10.2021 in compliance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No. 329/2019, wherein Shri Utpal Nath (IES:
2013) was informed that his case relating to fixation of seniority had been examined in accordance with the interpretations contained in DoPT OMs dated 07.02.1986 and 03.07.1986, and was found to be correct and in order, and also in terms of DoPT OM No. 20011/1/2012-Estt.(D) dated 04.03.2014. It was further conveyed therein that cases of seniority already settled with reference to the applicable interpretations of the term "availability" as contained in DoPT OMs dated 07.02.1986 and 03.07.1986 are not required to be reopened.
LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:05:02 IN +05'30' 17
55. It is also submitted by the respondents' counsel that each year, a well-defined and consistent procedure, as stipulated in the various guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and Training from time to time, is strictly followed before preparation of the seniority list of IES officers for the purpose of appointment to higher grades in the hierarchy. The final seniority list dated 12.03.2025 has accordingly been prepared following the prescribed rules, guidelines, and procedures, and does not suffer from any illegality or procedural infirmity.
56. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the pleadings, documents placed on record.
57. The principal issue that arises for consideration is whether the respondents were legally justified in altering the applicant's subordinate cadre seniority and consequentially denying him induction into the Indian Economic Service (IES) with effect from 01.01.2001, despite the matter having been conclusively settled by a binding judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WP No. 6109/2004.
58. It is not in dispute that the applicant was recruited as a Direct Recruit SIPO against the vacancy year 1994, pursuant to the recruitment process initiated on 13.04.1994, and that the Final Seniority List of SIPOs dated 02.11.2000 was the subject matter of adjudication before the Hon'ble High Court. The judgment dated 19.04.2004 in WP No. 6109/2004 unequivocally ratified the said Final Seniority List and conclusively determined the applicant's LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:05:02 IN +05'30' 18 subordinate service seniority as commencing from 13.04.1994, while expressly laying down the inter-se seniority principle to be followed vis-à-vis promotees. The said judgment has admittedly attained finality, no appeal having been preferred by any of the parties.
59. Once a court of competent jurisdiction has finally determined a matter, the same cannot be reopened or indirectly nullified by executive action. The doctrine of res judicata and the principle of finality of litigation, as consistently reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyadhan Ghosal, Krishna Kumar, and State of UP vs. M.K. Sharma, squarely apply to the facts of the present case. The respondents, particularly the Secretary (DEA-IES Cadre), being a party to the writ proceedings, were duty-bound to implement the judgment both in letter and spirit.
60. We find merit in the applicant's argument that the order dated 22.10.2021 goes beyond what this Tribunal had permitted in OA No. 329/2019. Instead of merely examining the applicant's representation as directed, the respondents have effectively re- examined and overridden a final judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, which they had no authority to do. Once a court has finally decided an issue, an administrative authority cannot question or reverse that decision through an executive order. The reliance placed by the respondents on the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 13.08.2021 is also misplaced. The applicant's rights regarding seniority had already become final much earlier, during the period when the law laid down in the N.R. Parmar judgment was fully applicable. Even the said Office Memorandum itself clearly states that inter-se seniority LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:05:02 IN +05'30' 19 disputes arising during that earlier period are protected and should not be disturbed. Therefore, using this later instruction to take away rights that had already been settled is legally incorrect.
61. We also find that the respondents have applied executive instructions selectively. While they have relied upon certain Office Memoranda to deny relief to the applicant, they have ignored earlier Office Memoranda dated 03.03.2008 and 04.03.2014, which specifically protect seniority matters that have already been settled, especially by courts. Such selective application of rules and instructions is unfair, arbitrary, and cannot be sustained in law.
62. Significantly, DC-MSME, the sole competent authority for fixation of subordinate cadre seniority, vide its communication dated 06.09.2021, categorically reaffirmed that the applicant's vacancy year was 1994 and that the Final Seniority List dated 02.11.2000 had attained finality and was not liable to be reopened. The failure of the IES Cadre to give due weight to this authoritative communication vitiates the decision-making process. The respondents could not have assumed jurisdiction to alter the applicant's subordinate service seniority, which stood judicially settled.
63. We are also unable to accept the respondents' plea of "uniformity" based on recommendation dates of UPSC/DPC, as such an administrative construct cannot override a binding judicial pronouncement or the statutory recruitment rules. Uniformity cannot be achieved by treating unequals as equals, nor can it be invoked to deprive an officer of vested and court-settled rights. LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:05:02 IN +05'30' 20
64. In view of the settled seniority date of 13.04.1994 and the undisputed requirement of seven years' qualifying service under the IES Recruitment Rules, the applicant became eligible for induction into the IES with effect from 01.01.2001. The continued denial of such induction has resulted in manifest injustice and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
65. Consequently, we hold that the impugned speaking order dated 22.10.2021, the Draft Seniority List dated 27.02.2024, and the Final Seniority List of IES Officers dated 12.03.2025, insofar as they relate to the applicant, are legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
66. Accordingly, the OA is allowed and the respondents are directed to restore the applicant's subordinate service seniority date as 13.04.1994, grant him induction into the Indian Economic Service with effect from 01.01.2001, and refix his seniority in the IES cadre accordingly, with all consequential benefits, including notional seniority and consideration for further promotion. The exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending MA, if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/lg/
LALIT 2026.01.
30
GOSA 10:05:02
IN +05'30'