Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shalu vs Indian Council Medical Research on 16 September, 2025
1
OA 3071/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A No. 3071/2024
This the 16th day of September, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (J)
Shalu w/o Sh. Pritam Sharma
R/o VPO Madhana, District Bhiwani,
(Haryana) - 127 032.
....Applicant
Versus
1. Indian Council of Medical Research through its
Director General,
V.Ramalingaswamy Bhawan,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi - 110 029.
2. Assistant Director General (Admn.)
V.Ramalingaswamy Bhawan,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi - 110 029.
...Respondents
Advocate for Applicant: Mr. Ajesh Luthra
Advocate for Respondents: Mr. Shashwat Sharma
ORDER (ORAL)
Per Hon'ble Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (Judicial):
The challenge in the present OA is to an Order dated 25.04.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed in compliance of Tribunal's Order dated 02.03.2023 in OA No.3247/2019 to offer appointment to the applicant pursuant to statement of respondents on instructions and to consider for consequential benefits, but respondents have denied benefits of her appointment at par with batch-mates including seniority inter-
se, annual increments, pay fixation along with arrears of pay pursuant to her joining.
FACTS IN BREIF
2. Briefly stated facts [as adumbrated by the applicant and not in dispute are that the respondents/ICMR issued advertisement No.ICMRHQ/Admn.1/2018/01 and selection NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.10.08 AHUJA 14:35:41+05'30' 2 OA 3071/2024 criteria on the basis of merit list in Online test. Applicant was declared selected for the post of Upper Division Clerk (in short "UDC") as per merit vide Selection List dated 10.01.2019 (Annexure A-5). Respondents have issued offer of appointments to some of the candidates by the end of February, 2019. Subsequent thereto, the respondents put on hold the joining of remaining selected candidates without any notice. Aggrieved, the applicant filed OA No.3247/2019 and this Tribunal, vide Order dated 02.03.2023 on the statement of respondents that applicant would be offered appointment to the post of UDC within four weeks, disposed of the OA with further direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for consequential benefits as per rules and law on the subject. In compliance of the aforesaid Tribunal's order, the applicant was issued offer of appointment to the post of UDC dated 11.07.2023/01.08.2023. She joined on 17.07.2023 and vide impugned Order dated 25.04.2024, contrary to order dated 02.03.2023 in OA No.3247/2019, respondents did not grant consequential benefits at par with batch-mates including inter- se-seniority, annual increments, pay fixation, pay along with arrears with interest. Hence, this OA.
ARGUMENTS
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended and can be summarized as -
(i) The applicant along with others was declared successful in the selection in question and offer of appointments were issued by end of February, 2019. Applicant submitted willingness to join but, no fault of her, she was not allowed to join whereas candidates, who obtained lesser marks i.e. Yamini Sharma, Roshan Kumar Meena, Gaurav Ranjan, Ajit Singh, Biplob Acharjee, Sushil Kumar etc. were allowed to join, and the applicant being meritorious candidate than others, for no fault of her, was arbitrarily NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.10.08 AHUJA 14:35:41+05'30' 3 OA 3071/2024 denied the joining. The impugned action of the respondents is violative of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India.
(ii) Applicant filed OA No.3247/2019. On 02.03.2023, on the statement made by the respondents that applicant would be offered appointment to the post of UDC/Assistant within four weeks with consequential benefits, the said OA was accordingly disposed of, but the respondents passed a non-speaking impugned order dated 25.04.12024 in violation of this Tribunal's order dated 02.03.2023 in OA No.3247/2019 and illegally denied seniority batch-wise, annual increment, pay fixation and became junior to subsequent batches and the applicant was paid lesser than her batch-mates.
(iii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of C.Jayachandaran Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., (2020) 5 SCC 230 held that appellant is claiming seniority from the date the other candidates in the same selection process were appointed, but appellant was excluded on account of illegal act.
(iv) In case of Sunil & Ors. Vs. High Court of Delhi & Ors.
(2023) 18 SCC 132. Their Lordships held that the respective applicants shall be entitled to the notional seniority w.e.f. 30.01.2017 in accordance with the revised marks on re-evaluation and allowed the appeals.
(v) Apoorva Pathak Vs. High Court of M.P. & Ors., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1445. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that as per the principle laid down in the judgment of Supreme Court in case of C. Jayachandaran vs. State of Kerala, (2020) 5 SCC 230 inter-se seniority must operate as per the original seniority from the date of selection in order of merits.
NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.10.08 AHUJA 14:35:41+05'30' 4 OA 3071/2024
4. Learned counsel for the respondents argued as -
(i) Provisional seniority list dated 08.08.2024 for the post of UDC published and inter-se seniority yet to be finalized and the applicant has not impleaded the necessary parties.
(ii) Applicant joined on the post of UDC on 17.07.2023 and did not work, hence principle of 'no work no pay' shall apply and selection process was delayed due to complaints received and inquiry proceedings taken up.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
5. We have heard Shri Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Shashwat Sharma, learned counsel for respondents and perused the record available on record.
THE ISSUE
6. The issue which arises for our consideration is "whether the applicant has been wrongly deprived without any fault of her for due consideration qua offer of appointment when the batch- mates were allowed to join hence, she is entitled to for all the consequential benefits including seniority, pay fixation, arrears of pay and allowances along with interest?"
THE PRINCIPLE IN SERVICE JURISPRUDENCE
7. The philosophy of Indian Constitution, as it stands evolved from precedent to precedent, has broadened the horizon of right of the employees and they have been assured and ensured protection against arbitrariness and discrimination. To appreciate the issue arising in the present OA, it will be necessary to notice the established principle in service jurisprudence that any individual cannot be made to suffer due to insufficiencies or laches on the part of administrative authorities as the principle of fairness dictates that a candidate who has successfully cleared the selection process and whose NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.10.08 AHUJA 14:35:41+05'30' 5 OA 3071/2024 appointment has been withheld solely due to administrative latches should not be placed at a disadvantage compared to his/her batch-mates.
CASE-LAW
8. Pilla Sitaram Patrudu & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1996) 8 SCC 637, Hon'ble Supreme Court was seisin with similar issue that once the appellant is found to be eligible according to the rules and appointment, delay for no fault of him, then his seniority to be fixed as per ranking in the select list. Their Lordships held as under -
"3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the inter se seniority as Assistant Engineers was left open in the order, the directions given by the Tribunal to consider the case as Executive Engineer and determine his seniority on the basis of promotion, is not valid in law. We find no force in the contention. Once he is found to be eligible according to the rules, then his seniority is required to be determined as per the procedure prescribed in the rules in vogue. It is further contended that the fifth respondent was not qualified since he had not completed 8 years of required service. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that two years' period is relaxable in the case of the reserved candidates. The inter se seniority as Assistant Executive Engineer is required to be determined; he joined service in 1981 and, therefore, he did not have the requisite service. We find no force in the contention. Since he was selected by direct recruitment, he is entitled to be appointed according to rule. His appointment was delayed for no fault of his and he came to be appointed in 1981, he is, therefore, entitled to the ranking given in the select list and appointment made accordingly. Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order."
[Emphasis supplied]
9. In case of Rupinderpreet Singh Vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:138559, decided on 29.10.2024. Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana was seisin with identical issue whether applicant is entitled to be treated at par with his batch-mates, who were appointed earlier to him and he could not be offered appointment due to interim order passed by the Court. Hon'ble High Court held that it is well settled in law that a party cannot be made to suffer on account of any order passed by the Court and petitioner was not at fault when he was denied the appointment and others NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.10.08 AHUJA 14:35:41+05'30' 6 OA 3071/2024 were offered appointment and his appointment is to relate back and he is entitled for all the benefits which have been granted to his batch-mates including fixation of pay, seniority etc. though on notional basis. Relevant paragraph 13 reads as -
"13. In view of the above factual position and settled principles of law, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 06.04.2023 (Annexure P-10) is set aside and quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner at par with his batch-mates, who have been appointed on the post of Sub-Station Attendant (SSA) in pursuance to the same advertisement CRA No.291 of 2017 and grant all consequential benefits of full salary w.e.f. the date of appointment, notional fixation of pay, seniority etc. to the petitioner, within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
[Emphasis supplied]
10. Dr. Afaq Ahmad Khan Vs. Union Territory of J&K vide judgment dated 26.07.2024 in WP(C) No.1855/2022, Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. Hon'ble High Court of J & K was in seisin with issue "whether the petitioner herein is entitled to his service reckoned from the date when other selectees, having faced the same selection process with the petitioner herein, were appointed and for no fault of him, he cannot be made to suffer?" on the ground that due to unreasonable delay in issuance of appointment order in his favour by the respondents-institute, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer a perpetual loss of his seniority and, as such, he cannot be deprived of his seniority vis-à-vis those selected candidates, who faced same selection process with him in terms of the Advertisement Notice dated 10.07.2015. Hon'ble High Court held as -
"10...what emerges from above is that it is well established principle in service jurisprudence that an individual cannot be made to suffer due to insufficiencies or laches on the part of the administrative authorities as the principle of fairness dictates that a candidate who has successfully cleared the selection process and whose appointment has been held solely due to the administrative laches should not be placed at a disadvantage compared to his peers. Thus, a direct recruit whose appointment is held for no fault on his part, but due to the laches on the part of the department cannot be denied retrospective effect to his appointment from the date on which other candidates having faced the same selection NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.10.08 AHUJA 14:35:41+05'30' 7 OA 3071/2024 process and such direct recruit cannot also be denied consideration for promotion merely because he does not have a requisite length of service for promotion by computing the same from the date of joining, when his appointment was required to be reckoned from the date other candidates in the same selection process were appointed..."
[Emphasis supplied]
11. In case of Anil Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. [OA No.1292/2024 (Delhi) decided on 30.01.2024] and Surender Pal & Ors. Vs Govt. of Delhi & Ors., [OA No.2358/2019 decided on 10.07.2025]. The Division Bench [Principal Bench of this Tribunal] vide orders dated 30.01.2025 and 10.07.2025 held that applicants are entitled for financial upgradations under MACP Scheme by counting their service on notional basis.
12. In similar case of Swati Sharma vs. Directorate Education, GNCTD & Ors. [OA No.3896/2023] D.B. of this Tribunal vide order dated 19.09.2025 based on law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sunil & Ors., Vs. High Court of Delhi (supra), Apoorva Pathak (supra) and C. Jayachandaran (supra) allowed the OA directing the respondents to grant benefits of seniority, annual increments and other consequential benefits including the arrears of salary w.e.f. 13.09.2019 i.e. the date when counterparts/juniors of the applicant were issued appointment letters by the respondents.
13. In case of Ms. Priyanka Rawat Vs. GNCTD & Ors, OA No.636/2023, this Division Bench vide order dated 15.05.2025 decided the similar matter. The Division Bench of this Tribunal was in seisin with the similar issue on facts and law. The respondents issued employment notice for selection to the post of Speech Therapist. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.7631/2020, Their Lordships observed that there was delay on part of the department and chances of the applicant were marred. The respondents appointed the applicant and did not grant seniority from the date of last candidate was appointed with all benefits, including pay fixation with all consequential NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.10.08 AHUJA 14:35:41+05'30' 8 OA 3071/2024 benefits including notional increment and benefits under MACP i.e. November, 2016 and treat joining date in case of applicant as 2016 instead of actual joining on 10.05.2022. This Bench allowed the OA with consequential benefits, relevant paragraphs 21 to 28 reads as -
"21. The philosophy of the Indian Constitution, as it stands evolved from precedent to precedent, has broadened the horizons of the right of the employees and they have been assured and ensured protection against arbitrariness in discrimination.
22. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India versus Ishwar Singh Khatri and Ors., 1992 Supp (3) SCC 84. The relevant paragraph(s) 7 to 9 read as under:-
"7. Therefore, in the premises we have to conclude that the Selection Board prepared the panels containing 1492 candidates as against the then available vacancies. In view of this conclusion, it goes without saying that the selected candidates have a right to get appointment. We, therefore, see no reason to disturb the judgment of the Tribunal.
8. It is made clear that the Administration shall fill up all the existing vacancies within one month from today till the panels in question are exhausted. With this direction, the appeal is disposed of. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
9. Before parting with the case we must notice one other aspect. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal and also in this Court, Delhi Administration appears to have appointed some fresh candidates. We do not want to disturb their appointments nor it is proper for Delhi Administration to disturb them. Needless, however, to state that the candidates in the panels when appointed pursuant to our order must get their seniority as per their rankings in the select panels over the persons appointed in the interregnum."
(emphasis supplied)
23. In the case of Kushewar Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2007) 11 SCC 447 held as under:-
"13. it is settled principle of law that a man cannot be permitted to take undue and unfair advantage of his own wrong to gain favourable interpretation of law. It is sound principle that he who prevents a thing from being done shall not avail himself of the non- performance he has occasioned. To put it differently, 'a wrong doer ought not to be permitted to make a profit out of his own wrong'."
24. In the matter of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Major General Madan Lal Yadav (Retd.) [1996] 3 SCR 785, it was observed as:-
NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.10.08 AHUJA 14:35:41+05'30' 9 OA 3071/2024 "In Broom's Legal Maxims(10th Edn.) p. 191 wherein it was stated;
...it is a maxim of law, recognised and established, that no man shall take advantage of his own wrong; and this maxim, which is based on elementary principles, is fully recognised in Courts of law and of equity, and, indeed, admits of illustration from every branch of legal procedure."
25. In the case of Ravi Raj And Ors. vs. Union of India And Anr., decided on 2 May, 2022 in W.P.(C) 3408/2019. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as under:
"13. In Dinesh Kumar Kashyap and Others vs South East Central Railway and Others, (2019) 12 SCC 798 decided on 27.11.2019, the Supreme Court has held inter-alia as under:
"....6. Our country is governed by the rule of law. Arbitrariness is an anathema to the rule of law. When an employer invites applications for filling up a large number of posts, a large number of unemployed youth apply for the same. They spend time in filling the form and pay the application fees. Thereafter, they spend time to prepare for the examination. They spend time and money to travel to the place where written test is held. If they qualify the written test they have to again travel to appear for the interview and medical examination, etc. Those who are successful and declared to be passed have a reasonable expectation that they will be appointed. No doubt, as pointed out above, this is not a vested right. However, the State must give some justifiable, non-arbitrary reason for not filling up the post. When the employer is the State it is bound to act according to Article 14 of the Constitution. It cannot without any rhyme or reason decide not to fill up the post. It must give some This is a digitally signed Judgement. plausible reason for not filling up the posts. The courts would normally not question the justification but the justification must be reasonable and should not be an arbitrary, capricious or whimsical exercise of discretion vested in the State. It is in the light of these principles that we need to examine the contentions of SECR.
12. Another argument raised is that recruitment policy is an executive decision and the courts should not question the efficacy of such policy. Neither the appellants nor this Court is questioning the efficacy of the policy contained in the letter dated 2-7-2008. All that has been done is to ensure implementation of the policy by Respondent 1, especially when it has failed to give any cogent reason to justify its action of not calling for candidates from the replacement list of extra 20 per cent candidates.
14. While allowing the appeals we issue the following directions:
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.10.08
AHUJA 14:35:41+05'30'
10
OA 3071/2024
14.1. The benefit of this judgment shall only be available to those appellants who had approached CAT;
14.2. The appellants shall not be entitled to any back wages;
14.3. The appellants shall, for the purpose of seniority and fixation of pay be placed While the respondents were instructed to take a view in this regard, nothing worthwhile has been done in the last three years. 14.4. The appellants shall be entitled to notional benefits from the date of such deemed appointment only for the purposed of fixation of pay and seniority. ..."
14. The said dicta lay down the law.
(emphasis supplied)
26. In case of Director of Education and Anr. Vs. Smt. Krishna Kumari in WP (C) No. 13987/2009 vide judgment dated 21.12.2009 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Their Lordships upheld order dated 15.05.2009 passed in O.A. No. 179 of 2008 by this Tribunal and issued a direction to the petitioners to accord notional pay-fixation to TGT-from 1984 and seniority. Relevant paragraph(s) 2, 4 & 5 are extracted herein below:-
"2. The respondent was granted notional appointment and seniority as TGT with effect from 1984 on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ishwar Singh Khatri & Ors. 1993 (2) SCALE 730. The petitioners, however, sought to deny notional pay fixation to the respondent, on the ground that the Supreme Court had only talked about assigning proper seniority but had not granted the relief of notional pay fixation. This led to the filing of the aforesaid Original Application by the respondent. As aforesaid, the Original Application of the respondent has been allowed by the Learned Tribunal.
3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners before us is that the respondent could not be given notional pay fixation of pay. We see no justification in the stand of the petitioners.
4. Once the respondent had been granted notional seniority from 1984, i.e. she is being treated as being in service from 1984 onwards, the said fiction has to be given its full effect, including for purposes of pay fixation. Therefore, the pay of the respondent ought to have been fixed as if she had joined in the year 1984 and on the basis that she had earned the increments, and benefitted from wage revision, which may have taken place in the meantime. She would also be entitled to benefits under the Assured Progression Scheme.
5. In our view, there is no error in the order of the Tribunal, and the same appears to be perfectly legal and justified. We may, however, clarify that the pay fixation from 1984 is only notional and that, by itself, would not entitle the respondent to seek arrears of pay for the NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.10.08 AHUJA 14:35:41+05'30' 11 OA 3071/2024 period for which she has actually not worked. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed."
(emphasis supplied)
27. In Case of Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Vs. Mohd. Vaquar Khan in WP (C ) No. 4021/2024 was decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide judgment dated 18.03.2024. The Tribunal, in OA. No. 4293 of 2018, vide order dated 16.5.2023, considered a similar O.A and set aside decision of respondents to not to operate waitlist panel and granted all consequential benefits on a notional basis with reference to his batch mates as per merit position and allowed the O.A. The DSSSB filed WP (C) 4021/2024 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Their Lordships upheld the order dated 16.5.2023 passed by this Tribunal. Relevant paragraph(s) 10 to 12 read under:-
"10. From a perusal of the aforesaid, we find that the learned Tribunal has noted that not only was the stand of the petitioners that the wait panel had expired on 07.06.2017, was contrary to their own action of operating the said list till 29.06.2018, when the candidature of the candidate at serial no.1 was cancelled, but was also discriminatory qua the respondent. The learned Tribunal, therefore, observed that the petitioners being model employer ought to have applied the same yard stick for all candidates, including the respondents.
11. In the light of the aforesaid findings of the learned Tribunal, we have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that there is no infirmity to the approach adopted by the learned Tribunal. We find that, as noted by the learned Tribunal, despite the candidate who was placed at serial nos.1 not coming forward for verification of his documents, the petitioners continued to issue notices to him till as late as 22.03.2018 and it was only on 29.06.2018 that his candidature was cancelled. In our view, once it is the petitioners' own stand that the select list and the wait list were to expire on 07.06.2017, there was no reason as to why communications were being sent to the candidate placed at serial no.1 till as late as March 2018 to furnish his documents for verification.
12. The petitioners themselves being responsible for the delay in cancellation of the candidatures of the candidates placed at serial nos.1 & 2, cannot deprive the respondent of his entitlement to be appointed to the post of PGT (RDU). It is expected from recruitment agencies, like the petitioners, to take prompt actions to fill up a post after the result of the examinations are declared. In case, the selected candidates are not able to furnish the requisite documents in time, steps should be taken to cancel their candidatures without any undue delay. Furthermore, the process for verification of the documents furnished by the selected candidates must also be carried out expeditiously so that in case they are not found to be in order, the NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.10.08 AHUJA 14:35:41+05'30' 12 OA 3071/2024 candidates placed in the waitlist can be appointed without any delay."
[emphasis supplied]
28. What comes out loud and clear from the facts of the case in hand and law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Division Bench of this Tribunal extracted herein above and the facts of the matter in the case in hand. The Respondents have already admitted the error and rectified the error occurred and wrongly deprived the applicant and the applicant had valuable right for due consideration for offer of appointment in accordance with law. The Respondents have already appointed the applicant and joined on 20.05.2022 but ought to have rectified their mistake and granted notional seniority from the date of last selected candidate and pay-fixation without arrears of pay for the period for which she actually not worked."
[Emphasis supplied]
14. Now reverting to the case in our hand. Admittedly, the applicant was declared successful for appointment to the post of UDC and the respondents issued Final Result dated 10.01.2019 (Annexure A-5). The applicant's name finds placed at serial no.22 [page 40 of the OA] based on selection criteria/merit. Undisputed facts that respondents also issued offer of appointment to some of the candidates from Selection List dated 10.01.2019 (Annexure A-5) at the end of February 2019 and juniors to the applicant and less meritorious have already been issued offer of appointment who joined on 06.03.2019 i.e. Ajit Singh at serial no.82 in the select list) whereas the applicant, who was placed at serial no.22 in the same merit list/selection list dated 10.01.2019 (Annexure A-5), the respondents have not issued offer of appointment to the applicant in year 2019.
15. Applicant has stated in para 4.12 of the OA and not denied by the respondents that many candidates like Ajit Singh etc., who have obtained lesser merit than applicant, have already been provided with offer of appointment and joined in year 2019, whereas, for no fault of the applicant, she had been denied the offer of appointment. Respondents have forced the applicant to file OA No.3247/2019 Sachin Kumar and four ors. Vs. ICMR & Anr., decided vide Order dated 02.03.2023 and the same has attained finality. Order dated 02.03.2023 reads as -
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.10.08
AHUJA 14:35:41+05'30'
13
OA 3071/2024
"At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents on instructions from his client, fairly states that all the five applicants in the present OA would be offered appointment to the post of UDC/Assistant within the next four weeks' time. Learned counsel for the applicants states that, as a natural corollary, the consequential benefits should also flow out of this, in accordance with law.
2. In view of the contention of learned counsel for the applicants, the respondents are hereby directed to consider the claim for consequential benefits strictly as per rules and laws on the subject. The said exercise shall be completed within four weeks from the date of appointment of the applicants.
3. The OA is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
4. No order as to costs."
[Emphasis supplied]
16. Respondents have issued the impugned Order dated 25.04.2024 in compliance of Tribunal's Order dated 02.03.2023, which has attained finality, passed in OA No.3247/2019 titled Sachin Kumar & Ors. Vs. ICMR & Anr. The impugned Order dated 25.04.2024 reads as -
"OFFICE MEMORANDUM Sub: Representation dated 06th October, 2023 - regarding.
Reference Representation dated 06th October, 2023, it is to inform that in compliance of the directions passed by the Hon'ble CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi vide Order dated 02nd March, 2023 in OA No.3247 of 2019 (Sachin Kumar & Ors.-vs-Indian Council of Medical Research & Another), wherein Shalu is Applicant No.4, Offer of Appointment was issued vide ICMR's Letter No.6-2(23)/2018-Admn.I dated 11.07.2023. Shalu joined ICMR on 17th July, 2023. The consequential benefits shall be provided accordingly as per rules. The Representation dated 06th October, 2023 submitted by Shalu has been considered and rejected on merits."
[Emphasis supplied]
17. The impugned Order dated 25.04.2024 is not couched with any reasoning and it is the counter-affidavit which reveals action of the respondents that due to some complaints about selection, the respondents withheld offer of appointments. Admittedly, no reasons have been assigned in the impugned Order itself and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan reported in NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA 2025.10.08 AHUJA 14:35:41+05'30' 14 OA 3071/2024 (2010) 9 SCC 496, held that "even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties must speak." On face of record, it reveals that the impugned Order is non-speaking and deserves to be quashed.
18. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors. Vs. Hirak Ghosh & Ors. [(2002) 4 SCC 2]. Their Lordships held -
"Administrative ipse-dixit cannot infiltrate on to an arena which stands covered by judicial orders"
[Emphasis supplied]
19. We have passed order dated 02.03.2023 in OA No.3247/2019 (supra) and already extracted hereinabove, directing the respondents to consider claim of the applicant for consequential benefits. The Courts orders are to be observed in its observance rather than its breach, but it is unfortunate that the litigatious spirit-of-respondents and the instrumentalities of the Union have not been minimized even to the slightest extent and applicant has been made to suffer for no fault of her own.
20. Applicant was duly selected based on merit position whereas less-meritorious have been appointed in the year 2019 i.e. Mr. Ajit Singh and the applicant was offered appointed after delay of about three years vide offer of appointment dated 11.07.2023 and she joined on 17.07.2023. Admittedly, the delay is on the part of the respondents and there is no fault of the applicant. Applicant has been assigned seniority based on joining on 17.07.2023. In light of well settled preposition of law, extracted hereinabove in the preceding paragraphs, the applicant is not at fault when respondents granted appointment to other less meritorious in year 2019. Therefore, applicant's appointment is to relate back and she is entitled for all the benefits which have been granted to her batch-mates, including fixation of pay, seniority etc. though on notional basis.
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.10.08
AHUJA 14:35:41+05'30'
15
OA 3071/2024
21. Learned counsel for the applicant vociferously contended that applicant is not seeking relief against any particular individual and in G.M. South Central Railway, Secundrabad Vs. A.V.R. Siddanti (1974) 4 SCC 335, Hon'ble Supreme Court repelled the contention that writ petitioners did not implead about 120 employees, who were likely to be affected. In this case also, since the applicant is challenging the decision on the ground of arbitrariness and violative of Article 14 & 16 (1) of Constitution of India, necessary parties are official respondents against whom the relief is being sought and no relief is claimed against any individual. In case of A. Janardhana Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1983) 32 SCC 601, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that failure to implead would not disentitle the appellant to claim relief.
22. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that inter-se seniority is yet to be finalized and the present OA suffers from defect of non-joinder of necessary party as the affected employees need to be impleaded in order to give them an opportunity of hearing. Applicant was offered provisional appointment vide letter dated 11.07.2023 and she duly joined on the post on 17.07.2023. Hence, without rendering actual services on the post of UDC by the applicant, grant of consequential benefits would set a bad precedent in law.
23. So far as the submissions of learned counsel for the respondents on delay and laches are concerned, it is not disputed by Mr. Shashwat Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents that the applicant participated in the same selection process and she was excluded for no fault of her own. The delay and latches were on the part of the respondents and the applicant cannot be made to suffer due to delay and latches on the part of respondents. We do not find any force in the contentions of the respondents as similar contention has been rejected in identical issue and similar facts by Hon'ble High Court of J & K in case of Dr. Afaq Ahmad Khan (supra).
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.10.08
AHUJA 14:35:41+05'30'
16
OA 3071/2024
24. The issue involved in the present OA is also covered by the Order dated 15.05.2025 passed in the case of Ms. Priyanka Rawat (supra) and in case of Swati Sharma (supra) decided on 19.09.2025, and these cases are no different than the case in our hands.
25. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sub-Inspector Roop Lal & Anr. Vs. Lt. Governor & Ors. (2010) 1 SCC 644. Their Lordships held that Tribunal is bound by the precedent of a coordinate Bench of the Tribunal. This Tribunal, while deciding identical matter in similar terms in case of Ms. Priyanka Rawat (supra) has decided the legal issue as involved in the present OA, and we are bound by the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the present OA deserves to be allowed.
CONCLUSION
26. We have already analyzed in detail the issue and decided in favour of the applicant and against the respondents. Applicant has been wrongly deprived and not considered for appointment in accordance with rules and what emerges from the above that it is well settled principles in service jurisprudence that applicant cannot be made to suffer due to the fault of the respondents.
27. As a sequitur of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, we find impugned order dated 25.04.2024 (Annexure A-1) issued by the respondents is not tenable in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed and set-aside.
28. As a result of quashment of the impugned Order dated 25.04.2024, we hereby direct the respondents to grant notional seniority, notional fixation of pay, annual increment to the applicant and take into consideration the notional service for computing the qualifying service for granting MACP benefits.
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.10.08
AHUJA 14:35:41+05'30'
17
OA 3071/2024
Applicant shall be deemed to be appointed on the date on which the other selectees and is entitled for the relief as per the ranking given in the select list.
29. The applicant, however, shall be entitled to all other service benefits, but by itself would not be entitled to seek arrears of pay for the period for which she has not actually worked.
30. Respondents are directed to complete the exercise, as ordained above, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the Order passed today.
31. Accordingly, the OA is allowed in the above indicated terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
32 As a sequel thereof, pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Ajay Pratap Singh) (Sanjeeva Kumar)
Member (J) Member (A)
/na/
NARESH NARESH
KUMAR KUMAR AHUJA
2025.10.08
AHUJA 14:35:41+05'30'