Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Karunesh Shukla vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 21 August, 2025
O.A./299/2020
(Reserved on 12.08.2025)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Original Application No.299 of 2020
st
Pronounced on this the 21 Day of August, 2025.
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J)
Karunesh Shukla Rank RL/065 aged about 42 years, S/o Shri Ramesh
Prasad Shukla Presently posted as Assistant Administrative Officer,
IVRI, Izatnagar, Bareilly, U.P.
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Virendra Singh
Versus
1. Director General (Secretary, DARE), ICAR Krishi Bhawan Dr.
Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi.
2. Secretary, ICAR Krishi Bhawan Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New
Delhi.
3. Director, ICAR-Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izzatnagar,
Bareilly.
4. Shri Himanshu Kumar, Rank RL/068 posted as Section Officer at
ICAR Head Quarter Krishi Bhawan Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi.
5. Shri Sanjay Rastogi, Rank RL/077 posted as Section Officer at
ICAR Head Quarter Krishi Bhawan Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi.
6. Shri Rajender, Rank RL/081 posted as Section Officer at ICAR
Head Quarter Krishi Bhawan Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New
Delhi.
7. Shri Ravindra Nath, Rank RL/084 posted as Section Officer at
ICAR Head Quarter Krishi Bhawan Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi.
8. Shri Satish Kumar, Rank RL/085 posted as Section Officer at
ICAR Head Quarter Krishi Bhawan Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi.
9. Shri Satyendra Kumar, Rank RL/071 posted as Assistant
Administrative Officer at IARI, New Delhi.
...Respondents
MADHU KUMARI Page 1 of 16
O.A./299/2020
By Advocate: Shri Rajneesh Sharma for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
Order sheet dated 03.02.2021 has recorded that the private
respondents have been served with notice and the same is
deemed sufficient, however, they are not represented by any
counsel.
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A) Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"(A) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order F.No.Admn.3-2/2012-Estt.I dated 09.03.2020. (Annexure No. 10 of O.A. compilation No.1).
(B) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned final combined Seniority list of Assistant Administrative Officers issued on 17.03.2020 (Annexure No.10A of O.A. compilation No.1).
(C) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to prepare combined seniority list of all the Assistants-2007 batch as applicant has also passed the same examination i.e. SSC-CGL-2004 with higher rank than the private respondents. (D) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to provide equal promotional opportunities to the applicant which has been giving to the other private respondents at ICAR Headquarter.
(E) To issue an order or direction may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(F) To award cost to the applicant."
2. Brief facts of this case are that the applicant joined the ICAR-IVRI, Izatnagar, Bareilly as Assistant on 31.03.2008 by qualifying Combined Graduate Level Exam-2004 conducted by Staff Selection Commission. In the year 2014, the ICAR Headquarter issued notification for All India Competitive Examination for Direct Recruitment to the vacant posts of Assistant in the ICAR and its research Institute and in page-3 Note-I the ICAR Headquarter specifically mentioned that all the MADHU KUMARI Page 2 of 16 O.A./299/2020 postings will be finalised by the ICAR on the basis of final merit list of the candidates notified by the ASRB. The ICAR issued the final provisional list of Assistant Administrative Officer of ICAR institutes of all over India on 02.09.2019 and as per the applicant, the discrepancy in the same is that the name of Shri Satyendra Kumar, AAO, IARI is shown at sl.no.144 but the name of the applicant is shown at sl.no. 186 though Shri Satyendra Kumar bearing Rank no.71 in SSC CGL Exam-2004 was junior to the applicant whose rank was 65 in the list of finally selected candidates of the Combined Graduate level Exam-2004. The applicant filed several representations in this regard and also approached this Tribunal through O.A./1356/2019 which was decided on 24.12.2019 with the direction to the respondent to decide the representation of the applicant dated 04.11.2019 within two months from the date of receipt of the order. Respondents then passed the impugned order dated 09.03.2020 rejecting the claim of the applicant made in his representation dated 04.11.2019. Thereafter, on 17.03.2020, the impugned final combined seniority list of Assistant Administrative Officers was published.
3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
4. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has higher merit than all the private respondents. Applicant's rank is 65, rank of private respondent nos.4,5,6,7,8,9 are 68,77,81,84,85,71 respectively. The applicant and private respondent no.9 have been posted in ICAR institutes and other private respondent nos.4 to 8 have been posted at ICAR Head Quarter. Combined seniority list of AAO (Assistant Administrative Officers) are prepared for All India ICAR institutes in which applicant's name is at serial no.176 and name of private respondent no.9 is at serial no.139. ICAR Head Quarter is maintaining a separate Seniority List of Section Officers of Head Quarter and they are being paid a higher pay scale (4800 GP). After declaration of final results of SSC-CGL-2004 the MADHU KUMARI Page 3 of 16 O.A./299/2020 ICAR has failed to ask any option from the applicant and adopted a pick and choose policy in posting. On 02.09.2019 the ICAR issued the Final Provisional list of Assistant Administrative Officers working in allied institutes of ICAR all over India. After passing the impugned order dated 09.03.2020 the respondents in a hasty manner issued the impugned Final Combined Seniority List of Assistant Administrative Officers in ICAR up to 31.03.2017 on 17.03.2020.
5. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that while passing the impugned order dated 09.03.2020, the respondents have mentioned in para-3 that the dossiers were received in the council on different dates and different regions of SSC irrespective of merit in piecemeal, therefore, as per the availability of the dossiers, the place of posting was decided. It is mentioned that respondent has concealed one fact that SSC Headquarter, at very beginning, provided the list of all 85 candidates according to their merit, to ICAR so that ICAR can maintain/sustain the seniority of these candidates while deciding their place of posting. It was obvious that dossiers had to be received from different regions so the dates of receiving the same may differ but the list of candidates as per their merit was very much made available to ICAR by SSC so that the seniority of the candidates could not be disturbed. It is also to be mentioned that it has already been accepted by the Respondent at para -10 and 11 of the impugned order dated 09.03.2020 that HQ cadre is different cadre from the Institutes and also every Institute has its own cadre different from other Institutes also HQ and Institutes have different promotional avenues. In those circumstances, deciding the place of posting without obtaining choices/options from the candidates and only on the basis of nearer to home town or home state is not only creating discrepancies among the batchmates but also clear violation of basic Principles/Laws of Seniority and Promotion, in government Service. He states that the case of Shri P.K.Ojha is entirely different from the case of applicant. Initially Shri P.K.Ojha has been given appointment at CIBA, Chennai and before joining at MADHU KUMARI Page 4 of 16 O.A./299/2020 CIBA, Chennai he requested to change his place of posting from CIBA, Chennai to NBAIM, Mau because his home place was Gaya, Bihar which is very closer to the Mau but the request of Shri P.K.Ojha has not been properly considered and he has given appointment at ICAR Head Quarter New Delhi therefore it is wrong to say that Shri P.K.Ojha made request and his place of posting has been changed, contrary to the aforesaid facts due to pick and choose policy Shri P.K.Ojha given the place of posting at ICAR, Head Quarter New Delhi. It is also wrong to say that applicant has not made any request for change of place of posting but the correct fact is that applicant represented the matter several times and when no fruitful result was found then applicant filed the O.A. No.1356 of 2019. It is thus argued that the respondents have posted the Assistant 2007-08 batch according to pick and choose policy without caring for the merit of the candidates which was sent by the SSC through their different letters.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that at the initial stage of joining the grade pay of all the Assistant were same and therefore no question arises to make the request for change of place of posting from Bareilly to New Delhi and present anomaly arose in the year 2010- 11 when the respondents accepted the recommendations of 6th pay commission and the aforesaid recommendations have been approved by the Ministry of Finance for upgradation of the pay scale of Assistant posted at ICAR Head Quarter New Delhi ignoring the applicant and his other counterparts who were posted at different institutes of ICAR in India. The respondents have taken plea in para-4 of the impugned order dated 09.03.2020 that the applicant has been confirmed at the Institute level in pay scale applicable in the institute level therefore it is not legally sustainable to provide the pay scale at par with the ICAR Head Quarter. He contends that this argument is illegal because if the 6th pay commission has increased the pay scale of Assistant it should be increased for all the Assistants regardless of whether they are posted in Head Quarter or different institutes located in India. The respondents have discriminated MADHU KUMARI Page 5 of 16 O.A./299/2020 against the applicant by giving higher pay scale to his counterparts who have been selected in 2007-08 and given posting at the ICAR Head Quarter violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that the previous two Original Applications i.e. O.A./1356/2019 and O.A./2581/2011 sought different reliefs than this O.A. and the respondents have wrongly pleaded that the applicant has sought the same relief in this O.A. as he had sought in earlier O.As. It is further averred that keeping in view the better service conditions, financial benefits and better promotional avenues at Headquarter, the Respondent Department ought to have asked for options/preferences from the candidates and thereafter in accordance with the rank in the merit list and options given the place of posting ought to have been decided. The Recruitment Board of ICAR i.e. ASRB (Agricultural Scientists Research Board) conducted a Competitive Exam for the Direct Recruitment to the posts of Assistant in ICAR in 2011 and in 2014. The options had been asked from the selected candidates of this batch and posting was decided on the basis of final merit list and options furnished by the candidates. It means higher rankers had given first priority to join Headquarters. It was clearly mentioned in the advertisement that "Posting will be finalized by the ICAR on the basis of the final merit list of the candidates notified by the ASRB, options furnished by the candidate in the application form and availability of vacancy." But this procedure was not followed in case of Assistants -2007 batch selected through SSC-CGL-2004 which implies that ICAR took cognizance of this anomaly done with Assistants of 2007 batch and took full care and rectified its mistake at the time of deciding place of posting of Assistants-2012 and 2016 batch selected through Competitive Exam conducted by ASRB in 2011 and in 2014 respectively.
MADHU KUMARI Page 6 of 16O.A./299/2020
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has thus argued that the applicant is more meritorious candidate and higher in rank (as per merit list) than many of those candidates who are posted at ICAR Headquarter, New Delhi or than Shri Satyendra Kumar who is posted at IARI, New Delhi which is more advantageous Institute in terms of promotional avenues, due to which Shri Satyendra Kumar has been promoted to the post of Assistant Adm. Officer earlier than the applicant. If preferences were taken at the time of deciding place of posting, the applicant might have opted Headquarters or IARI, New Delhi, so that his promotion takes place earlier than the rest. When the mode of recruitment, charter of duties and training imparted in the grade and also the selection process are the same there should be no reason to discriminate, however, the same is being done in the present case. The Department, despite the several representations and reminders, has failed to correct the anomaly in seniority list of Assistant-2007 batch, failing to grant equal pay and equal promotional opportunity to the applicant at par with his counterparts.
9. Submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that the representations of all the employees including Shri Karunesh Shukla, AAO were examined in detail and totality and considered in the Council but no discrepancy was found in the seniority list and Shri Shukla was replied through Speaking order dated 09.03.2020. Shri Shukla is mentioning his higher seniority as compared to Shri Satyendra Kumar in the grade of Assistant selected through SSC CGL exam 2004. However, seniority under consideration was for the post of Assistant Administrative officer. Post of Assistant and AAOS are Institute based. Seniority in the grade of Assistant is maintained at their respective Institutes and inter-se-seniority in the grade of Assistant can not be claimed from the officials of other Institutes in that grade of other Institutes. On the basis of seniority in the grade of Assistant at one particular institute, Assistants are promoted to the grade of AAO against the available vacancy in their respective institutes. Seniority in the grade of AAO is prepared by ICAR HQ to prepare the list of MADHU KUMARI Page 7 of 16 O.A./299/2020 feeder grades of promotional post of Administrative Officer (Gr. A) post being all India Cadre. For finalizing the seniority in the grade of AAO, the same is prepared by obtaining the details of the AAO from various institutes of ICAR and same is reckoned from the date of assuming their charge in the grade of AAO and not on the basis of rank/seniority of the Assistant. Therefore, comparison of Shri Shukla with Shri Satyendra Kumar in the seniority list of AAO on the basis of rank in the grade of Assistant is not correct. In the seniority list of AAO, cadre at different institutes and ICAR Hqrs is different from ICAR institutes. Respondents belong to the cadre of Section Officer whereas Shri Shukla belongs to the cadre of AAO. Hence, respondents can not be shown in the seniority list of AAO.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that earlier judgment dated 11.01.2012 has been passed in OA/2581/2011, MA-1825/2011, MA- 3134-36/2011 by the Hon'ble CAT Principal Bench, New Delhi as well as a judgement dated 17.4.2012 has been passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 2154/2012 which was filed by the applicant along with three others, raising the same issue as agitated in the present OA. From the perusal of the aforesaid judgements it is clear that the present applicant is not entitled for the relief prayed in view of para-5 of the judgement dated 11.01.2012 quoted here as under:
"From the record available on file, it is clear that Assistant at Headquarters and Assistant at Institutes of ICAR were selected by the same examination and were having the same scale of pay. As such when some were posted to Headquarters and others to Institutes, there was no heartburning. It is only when vide orders dated 26.11.2010 the grade pay of Assistant at ICAR Headquarters was raised to Rs.4600/- whereas Assistant at Institutes were continued in the grade pay of Rs.4200/- that the problem arose. The relief being sought in this OA is for parity in grade pay for Assistants posted at Headquarters and those in Institutes of ICAR. Unfortunately, no case has been made out by the applicants for claiming the same in terms of job contents, duties and responsibilities etc. As has been clarified by the respondents, the cadre of Assistants at ICAR Headquarters has been treated as a separate cadre having different promotional avenues and based on Central MADHU KUMARI Page 8 of 16 O.A./299/2020 Secretariat pattern whereas Assistants posted at Institutes are working in subordinate offices of ICAR. The matter of giving parity to both had been referred to the Finance Ministry but has not been approved. Hence the position as it stands today is that Assistants in Institutes and Assistant in Headquarters being to different cadres. It is, therefore, evident that the LDCE, 2011 for the post of Section Officer is open only to Assistants who are posted at Headquarters and to none others. Under these circumstances, no relief can be given to the applicants. The matter has been taken up with the Ministry of Finance and not approved. As per the present position, the applicants are not eligible for the relief claimed by them. OA is accordingly dismissed. No Costs."
11. The respondents contended that at the time of posting of Assistant in 2007-08, uniform pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 was applicable for the post of Assistant both at ICAR HQ and its Institutes. Therefore, posting of Assistants on the basis of merit, as being pointed out by the applicant, was not much relevant, as pay was same both at Institutes and Headquarter. Posting any candidate far from his native place was resisted as an option, as past experience showed that candidates refused the post and resultantly, the Council's effort of filling maximum vacancies could not have been fruitful. In so far as pay scales are concerned, difference in pay scales of Assistants at the ICAR Hqrs and ICAR Institutes arose after the implementation of 6th Pay Commission in the year 2010, which provided different pay scale of PB-2 with GP Rs. 4200 for Assistants at ICAR Institutes and PB-2 with GP Rs. 4600 at ICAR HQ. These pay scales were implemented with the approval of the Ministry of Finance. Till that time (in 2010-11) all these Assistants were confirmed at their respective places of posting. Therefore, relocating these officials based on SSC CGL-2004 merit was not possible after change of pay scale at ICAR HQ and its Institutes. In the matter, it is also highlighted that during 2007-08 several posts of Assistants under DR Quota were vacant both at ICAR HQ and its Institutes. The Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board (ASRB), the recruiting body of ICAR had then refused to recruit the personnel in the grade of Assistant. Therefore Staff Selection Commission (SSC) was requested to provide dossiers of successful candidates of the CGL examination conducted by it, MADHU KUMARI Page 9 of 16 O.A./299/2020 which they were initially reluctant to, however, finally SCC provided list/dossiers of 85 candidates from different selection zones i.e. Northern Region, Delhi, Central Region, Allahabad, Eastern Region, Kolkata, North Western Region Chandigary, N-E Region Guwahati. All these regions provided dossiers of their regions to the Council on different dates. Appointment orders could not be issued merely on the basis of lists, until complete dossiers were available with the department. These dossiers were received in the Council from these regions, irrespective of merit in piecemeal. At first, dossiers were received from Northern Region, Delhi (some of the dossiers forwarded were of candidates lower in merit than the applicant) and such recommended candidates were given postings at the ICAR HQ. Later, as and when, the dossiers were received from other regions, efforts were made at that time to offer posting to candidates closer to their home town or home state as far as possible and if not available, postings at Delhi based Institutes were offered to such candidates. Changes in the place of postings were also done in a few cases based on the requests made by candidates. For example, Shri P.K. Ojha was initially offered the post at CIBA, Chennai and later he was posted at ICAR HQ, New Delhi on his request. Similarly posting of Shri Rajeev Kumar was changed from NRC-Meat, Hyderabad to NRC- Litchi. Therefore, the efforts were made to fill up all possible vacancies due to the presumption that candidates nearer to their home town/State/Delhi will not refuse the offer. Shri Karunesh Shukla was offered the posting at his home-State Uttar Pradesh (IVRI, Izzatnagar) at that time. Shri Shukla accepted the offer of appointment on the terms and conditions prescribed by the Council and joined at IVRI, Izzatnagar. No request for change in posting was made then by Shri Karunesh Shukla. Thus, there was no pick and choose policy adopted by the Council for posting of these Assistants. As and when the dossiers were received from the SSC, the vacancies were filled from the available dossiers of the recommended candidates at ICAR Hqrs. and ICAR Institutes. Due to shortage of staff in the grade of Assistants at that time, the main MADHU KUMARI Page 10 of 16 O.A./299/2020 emphasis of the Council was to fill up the vacancy as much as possible, therefore, posting were done from the dossiers received from SSC from different dates without obtaining choices/ options from the candidates.
12. The respondents admit that anomaly in the pay scale of Assistant arose after the implementation of 6th CPC through which the scale of Assistant posted at ICAR. Hqrs. became higher than those posted in ICAR Institutes. The Council always made efforts to grant uniform pay scales, however, this cannot be done by the Council at its own level. Approval of the Ministry of Finance is mandatory which denied the same. The matter of pay parity is still under consideration in consultation with the MOF. The issue of pay parity is totally different from the issue of seniority which is maintained among officials of similar cadres. The Constitution definitely provides equality, however, service conditions are governed by the Rules prescribed for each cadre. Officials of one cadre cannot claim equality from other cadres. In this case, Shri Shukla belonging to the cadre of ICAR-IVRI, Izatnagar is wrongly claiming equality with those posted in other Institutes or ICAR Hqrs. The Council has never made any discrimination to anyone. As regards different pay scales, the Council is not in a position to grant pay parity on its own. The matter is still under consideration.
12. It is stated by learned counsel for the respondents that in the O.A. No. 2581/2011, all the facts viz. Initial appointment in the grade of Assistant in 2007-08, different pay scales, seniority etc. were the same as presented by Shri Shukla now. There was one relief sought by Shri Shukla in the above mentioned OA to include the applicant's seniority in the Assistant Seniority list of ICAR Hqrs. as per rank provided by SSC. It is a known fact that cadres/hierarchy at ICAR Hqrs. and its Institutes are different. Until Shri Shukla is included in the seniority list of Assistant posted at ICAR hqrs., he cannot claim any kind of higher pay scale/hierarchy granted to those posted at ICAR Hqrs. The above MADHU KUMARI Page 11 of 16 O.A./299/2020 said OA was dismissed, therefore, the very basic ground for which he sought the relief was not accepted by the Hon'ble CAT in its judgement dated 11.01.2012. Therefore, simply saying that OA No. 2581/2011 and OA No. 1356/2019 have different relief is not correct, as basic facts are the same in both the OAs. That in reply to the contents of para-4 (23) of the original Application it is stated that there was no pick and choose policy as already explained in preceding paras. Moreover, Shri Shukla belongs to UR category and has SSC merit of 65 whereas merit of respondents shown at SI. No. 4-8 is as under :- Shri Shukla being UR Category cannot compare himself with above mentioned 05 respondents who were selected against OBC/SC category reservation. Shri Shukla has no right to plead the case on behalf of respondent no. 09. It is mentioned that after difference in pay scales in Assistant at ICAR Hqrs. and its Institutes after implementation of 6th CPC arose, ICAR started to seek options from the candidates for posting in a grade of Assistant due to the fact that on the basis of posting, pay scales of assistants can change which was not the case during 2007-08.
13. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the department's action is in violation of DoPT's basic rules of seniority and DoPT's order dated 03.07.86 and dated 04.11.92. The appointment letter of applicant dated 04.10.2007 shows in point 15 that seniority of Assistant will be governed by the relevant rules of ICAR. Chapter-6 (Seniority) of Establishment & Administration Manual of ICAR shows that "The principles of seniority as contained in DoP&T guidelines (Appendix-XI) are followed by the ICAR mutatis mutandis for the administrative staff." All the institutes of ICAR are constituent Units of ICAR, yet the applicant has to lose his seniority in comparison to his junior private respondents. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in it has been held that appointments should be in accordance to merit-cum-preference basis. It is settled law that the merit list must be sacrosanct for the purpose of seniority of Direct recruits as held in a similar case in Writ Petition (C) No. MADHU KUMARI Page 12 of 16 O.A./299/2020 9681/2009 Rajeev Kumar Mishra Vs. FCI & Others, B.S. Naruka & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. Dated 27.09.2002. The Principle Bench, CAT New Delhi has passed an order in O.A. No. 3450 of 2016 (Jitender Khanna Vs. ICAR & Others) dated 31.10.2017 in which it was held that "seniority of the candidates is to be determined on the basis of merit in the Select List, notwithstanding the different dates of joining." Recently on 01.05.2025 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Ranjith Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu SL(C)P No. 5137-38 of 2021 held that "Once an appointment to service is made based upon a competitive examination, the seniority has to be maintained on the basis of performance in the examination and not by taking into account the past service alone.' Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors vs N.R. Parmar & Ors Civil Appeal No.7514-7515 of 2005 decided on 27.11.2012 which now stands overruled by the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Meghachandra Singh versus Ningam Siro & Ors decided on 19.11.2019.
14. We have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire documents on record.
15. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant has a higher merit rank than all private respondents, with a rank of 65 yet the combined list of seniority dated 17.03.2020 does not place him as per his merit and his juniors posted at the Headquarter arrayed as respondents herein have been given higher seniority than him. The ICAR Head Quarter maintains a separate Seniority List of their Section Officers, who are paid a higher pay scale. The applicant's counsel argues that the respondents have adopted a pick and choose policy in posting, deciding the place of posting based on the availability of dossiers and not seniority even though the SSC Headquarters provided the list of all 85 candidates according to merit to ICAR to maintain their seniority. The applicant also argues that deciding the place of posting without MADHU KUMARI Page 13 of 16 O.A./299/2020 obtaining choices from candidates and based on proximity to home town or state creates discrepancies among batchmates and violates basic principles of seniority and promotion in government service. The respondents, on the other hand, argue that the seniority lists of different institutes are specific to those institutes and are also different from those who are posted at the headquarter. After the implementation of 6th Pay Commission in the year 2010, which provided a different pay scale of PB-2 with GP Rs. 4200 for Assistants at ICAR Institutes and PB-2 with GP Rs. 4600 at ICAR HQ. They argue that at the time of recruitment of the applicant in the year 2007-08, there was no pay disparity at the headquarter level and the institute level. The posts at headquarters were also filled on an urgent basis in the year when the applicant was recruited as per the availability of the dossiers and the others were posted taking into account their home towns and states. Thus, merit based seniority did not form the basis of the posting in the year 2007-08 and it was done without taking options from the candidates. The applicant also never made any request for transfer. Since the anomaly in pay has arisen after the sixth pay commission, parity has been sought by the applicant now.
16. It is a clear position that after posting at different institutes, the Assistants who were appointed through SSC CGL-2004 were promoted as Assistant Administrative Officers as per the availability of vacancies at their respective institutes. The impugned combined seniority list has been prepared for the Assistant Administrative Officers and not Assistants. The merit based seniority of the applicant as per his rank in the SSC CGL Exam-2004 can only be applied for the post of Assistant into which the candidates were inducted after qualifying the exam. After that, since the candidates have been promoted variously at different times in their respective institutes to the post of Assistant Administrative Officers, the previous seniority on the post of Assistant cannot be claimed in the combined seniority list prepared as feeder cadre for the post of Administrative Officers.
MADHU KUMARI Page 14 of 16O.A./299/2020 The applicant has placed reliance on various case laws as well as the DoPT OM and the ICAR Chapter as mentioned in para 13 of this judgement, but, the issue involved in the present O.A. is different. The applicant might have been senior as per his rank in the SSC CGL-2004 Exam to the private respondents but if the private respondents have been promoted to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer earlier than the applicant due to availability of vacancy at their respective places of posting in terms of their respective seniority, then the applicant cannot demand to be placed before them in the seniority list prepared for the post of Assistant Administrative Officers also, only because he was senior to them in the post of Assistant. Thus, the seniority claimed by the applicant has no merit in the case as the impugned combined seniority list has been prepared in terms of the place of posting and date of taking charge on the promoted post of AAO by the candidates.
17. Other arguments of the applicant regarding disparity in pay between the headquarter and the institutes and the respondents not asking option from the candidates who qualified and joined in 2007-08 unlike those who were recruited against the notification dated 2014, can find its answer in the contention of the respondents that the dossiers were given to the department for filling the vacancy during 2007-08 variously by the different regions and the posts at the headquarters were filled on the basis of urgency and availability of dossiers without taking into account the seniority of the selected candidates as there was no pay disparity at that time and the others have been placed close to their home towns and states to suit them. It is also to be noted that the applicant never made a request for transfer even later. After the pay disparity at the headquarter and institute level arose in the year 2010 as a consequence of the seventh pay commission, the candidates are now being given the option to choose their place of posting which is being done in terms of merit and options exercised. A similar issue has already been decided by the Principal bench of this Tribunal in O.A./2581/2011 and judgement MADHU KUMARI Page 15 of 16 O.A./299/2020 dated 17.04.2012 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No.2154/2012 confirming the order of above O.A. by denying the contention of the applicants in the above O.A. In view of these facts and the nature of relief claimed by the applicant in the O.A., any comment or direction with regard to the pay disparity and place of posting is also beyond the scope of this Tribunal. Thus, the present O.A. is liable to be dismissed.
18. In view of the above, the O.A. stands dismissed. All associated M.A.s also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Rajnish Kumar Rai) (Mohan Pyare)
Member (J) Member (A)
Madhu
MADHU KUMARI Page 16 of 16