Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Hiteshkumar M Dave vs Regional Passport Office on 6 April, 2026
1 [OA NO. 512-2016]
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH
Original Application No.512 of 2016
Ahmedabad, this is the 06th day of April, 2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI JAYESH V. BHAIRAVIA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI HUMUM SINGH MEENA, MEMBER (A)
Hiteshkumar M. Dave, S/o Shri Mahipatrai D. Dave,
aged about 46 yrs, presently working as Assistant Superintendent,
Regional Passport Office, University Road,
Gulbai Tekra, Ahmedabad,
Residing at: 10-A, Shivalaya Bungalows,
Behind Government Tubewell,
Bopal, Ahmedabad 380058 ....Applicant
(By Advocate : Shri Rahul Sharma)
Vs.
1. Union of India notice to be served through the Secretary,
Ministry of External Affairs,
C.P.V. Division Cadre Cell -- II,
Patiala House Annexe, Tilak Marg,
New Delhi -- 110 001.
2. Joint Secretary and Chief Passport Officer,
Ministry of External Affairs, CPV Division,
Patiala House, Tilak Marg, New Delhi -- 110 001.
3. Sh.Ved Parkash Assistant Superintendent,
Passport Office, 14, Mall Road, Kennedy Avenue,
Amritsar -- 143 001 (Punjab)
4. Sh. Veer Singh,
Assistant Superintendent, Regional Passport Office,
HUDCO Trikoot-3, Bhikaji-Cama Place,
R.K. Puram, New Delhi -- 110066. .....Respondents
(By Advocate : Ms. Roopal R. Patel)
O R D E R
PER JAYESH V. BHAIRAVIA, MEMBER (J) By filing the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal‟s Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-
"(A) The Hon‟ble Tribunal be pleased to direct Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 to re-fix the seniority of UDC Group C, as 2026.04.07 JITENDRA 15:14:59 RAJ MEHTA +05'30' 2 [OA NO. 512-2016] existing on 01.01.2012, and declare the applicant as senior to Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 4 as on 01.01.2012;
(B) The Hon‟ble Tribunal be pleased to direct Respondent No.1 and Respondent No. 2 to promote the applicant to the rank of UDC with effect from 26.02.2004;
(C) The Hon‟ble Tribunal be pleased to direct Respondent No.1 and Respondent No. 2 to promote the applicant to the rank of Assistant Superintendent w.e.f. 09.03.2012;
(D) The Hon‟ble Tribunal be pleased to direct Respondent No.1 and Respondent No. 2 to afford all service benefits, including financial benefits, to the applicant at par with the Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 4;
(E) The Hon‟ble Tribunal may be pleased to grant any other and further reliefs, as the nature and circumstances of the present case may require and in the interest of justice."
2. The brief facts of the case as pleaded in the O.A., are as under :-
2.1 Applicant was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) through the Staff Selection Commission Clerk Grade Examination of 1993, and joined his services on 12.08.1996.
It is stated that some of the selected candidates of the same selection list had joined their service in the month of November/December, 1995. Thereafter, the applicant along with other 400 LDCs in the department, were confirmed in service vide Order of the official respondents dated 12.10.2001.
2.2 The Seniority of LDCs was prepared on the basis of on the date of joining of the LDCs and accordingly the official respondents had circulated the seniority list of LDCs on 03.03.2003 wherein, the applicant herein was assigned his seniority at S.No.154 (Annex.A/3).
2.3 In the aforesaid seniority list dated 03.03.2003 of the LDCs, the names of private respondent No.3 & 4 herein, were shown at Sl. No.145 and 153 respectively.
2.4 In the said seniority list, the LDCs, who had been promoted through Limited Departmental Examination were shown senior to the LDCs, who had been directly recruited through the Clerks‟ Grade Examination. Therefore, being aggrieved by the said action on the part of the 2026.04.07 JITENDRA 15:14:59 RAJ MEHTA +05'30' 3 [OA NO. 512-2016] respondents, the applicant herein filed an Original Application No.124 of 2007 before this Tribunal, which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide Order dated 19.01.2009, the relevant observation of the said order reads as under:-
"11. The applicant in para 3.2 of the OA has stated that his seniority was correctly assigned in 2001. Representation submitted if any on that occasion is not on record. All the persons, who qualified on the basis of special qualifying examination, were above him. The persons, who qualified in Group 'D' examination on 10.3.93 and are at Serial 272- 288 and Serial 504-514 respectively,.
12. Neither the Annex.-II of letter dated 3.7.96 is on record nor the principles on which the seniority list of 2001 & 2005 are on record. It is not possible to verify if the position in seniority list is in accordance with what is stated in impugned order.
13. We dispose off this OA by giving a direction to respondent No. 1 to reconsider the representation dated 18.8.2005 and pass a fresh order having regard to the following:
(a) Para 4 of Annex. - II of letter dated 3.7.96 sponsoring the name of applicant and two others.
(b) The policy of Government of India in regard to direct recruits as to whether the seniority is reckoned from date of examination, date of panel by UPSC/SCC or date of actual appointment.
(c) The decisions of Apex Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association vs. State or Maharashtra, AIR 1990 SC 1607 and other decisions.
(d) Whether the seniority list of 2001 was widely circulated and whether the applicant had objected ? It is laid down in K.R. Mudgal vs. R.P. Singh &Ors., 1986 (4) SCC 531, that after 3 or 4 years of appointment Government servant should be allowed to attend to his duties peacefully.
(e) Putting a representative of each group to notice and hearing such a representative."
2.5 Thereafter, in compliance of order passed this Tribunal in OA No. 124/2007 as well an order passed by CAT, Lucknow Bench in OA No. 421/2008 regarding fixation of seniority according to the merit obtained in the Clerk‟s grade examination, 1991-1993 and the candidates promoted through limited departmental examination are required to be placed below the candidates who joined through Staff Selection Commission as the result of LDE was declared after SSC, the official 2026.04.07 JITENDRA 15:14:59 RAJ MEHTA +05'30' 4 [OA NO. 512-2016] respondents vide order dated 26.11.2009 circulated a revised seniority list of LDCs by correcting All India seniority list of LDCs (Annex. A/4).
In the said revised seniority list dated 26.11.2009 the seniority of LDCs was fixed on the basis of their ranks in the recommendation list of SSC instead of their date of joining. Accordingly, the applicant was allotted seniority at Sl. No.10 while private respondent Nos.3 and 4 were placed at Sl. No.11 and 12, respectively in the said seniority list dated 26.11.2009.
2.6 Thereafter the circulation of the aforesaid seniority list of LDCs on 26.11.2009, the private respondent Nos.3 and 4 who belong to SC category, were deemed to have been promoted to the rank of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) w.e.f. 22.03.2005 and 26.02.2004 respectively, whereas, the applicant was deemed to have been promoted to the rank of UDC w.e.f. 27.11.2008 vide Order dated 07.05.2012 (Annex. A/5).
Subsequently, private respondent No. 3 Sh. Ved Prakash, was ordered to be promoted from a retrospective date as UDC w.e.f. 26.02.2004 instead of 22.03.2005, because he was senior to Sh. Veer Singh, i.e. respondent No. 4, in inter se seniority.
2.7 Meanwhile, the seniority list of UDCs was prepared on the basis of the respective dates of promotions to the rank of UDCs and accordingly the seniority list of UDCs was circulated on 01.01.2012 by the respondents (Annex. A/6). In the said seniority list of the UDCs the private respondent No.3 and 4 herein were shown at Sl.No.70 and Sl.No.67 respectively whereas, the applicant at Sl. No.138 was shown as junior to them.
2.8 The applicant stated that the issue of seniority on promotions to the post of UDC also affected two other batch mates of the applicant i.e. one Shri Sahdev Kaushik (Ranked No.1) and Smt. Vandana Sharma(Ranked No. 2), therefore, both of them jointly preferred Original Application (OA) No.510 of 2012 before Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal.
2026.04.07 JITENDRA 15:14:59 RAJ MEHTA +05'30' 5 [OA NO. 512-2016] In the said OA, the private respondent Nos.3and 4 herein were also arrayed as respondent Nos.7 and 4, respectively (Annex. A/7). It is further stated that the private respondents in the OA No. 510/2012 filed before CAT, Chandigarh Bench, were working at New Delhi, Lucknow and Jalandhar along with the applicants of the said OA . The issue of seniority and promotions, thus, spanned over different States and a Union Territory.
2.9 Vide final order dated 23.04.2014 (Annex. A/8), the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal allowed the said O.A. No.510/2012 with the following observation and directions :-
"The two applicants in the instant O.A. seek their inter se seniority in the cadre of UDC above the private respondents, who were junior to them in the feeder cadre of LDC but were promoted earlier being from the reserved category.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants relies on the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme court in Ajit Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2000 (1) SCT770], M. Nagaraj V. UOI [2007(4) SCT 664] and Suraj Bhan Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan[2011 (2) SCT 260] as well as the judgment of the Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 07.08.2012 in CWP No. 17280 of 2011(Prem Kumar Verma Vs. State of Haryana).
3. Learned counsel for the official respondents, on the other hand, relies on the Department of Personnel and Trainings OM dated 21.01.2002 on the subject: seniority of SC/ST Government servants on promotion by virtue of rule of reservation/roster (Annex.R-1).
4. We may now take note of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, wherein the aforesaid judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, besides its later judgments, were discussed and it was held in the context of the State of Haryana as under:
"In view of the above, this Court has no option and hesitation to hold that the decision of the Government of Haryana, as circulated through its instructions dated 16.03.2006(Annex. P-
8), granting accelerated seniority to the scheduled caste employees as a consequence of promotion under the reservation policy, is ultra vires as the same runs counter to the dictum in M. Nagaraj‟s case(supra) and, therefore, deserves to be quashed"
5. In the light of the above, this O.A. deserves to be allowed. The official respondents are directed to refix the inter se seniority of the applicants vis-a-vis the private respondents and modify Annex. A-4[Seniority List of Group C (UDC) in CPO as on 01.01.2012] accordingly. This should be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order."
2.10 Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order the Official respondents -
Department preferred Civil Writ Petition No.21979 of 2014 before the 2026.04.07 JITENDRA 15:14:59 RAJ MEHTA +05'30' 6 [OA NO. 512-2016] Hon‟ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and prayed for stay of the aforesaid Order of the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal. However, the Hon‟ble High Court vide Order dated 30.10.2014, directed the Official respondents - Department to give effect to the Order of the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition (Annex. A/9).
2.11 Accordingly, in the light of the Order passed by CAT, Chandigarh Bench the official respondents passed necessary orders and both the applicants of OA 510/2012 (Chandigarh Bench) were deemed to have been promoted to the rank of UDC w.e.f. 26.02.2004 with all consequential benefits.
2.12 Thereafter, the applicant herein made a representation dated 23.07.2015 (Annex. A/2) to respondent No.2 and requested that since he was also senior to the private respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein as per inter se seniority list published on 26.11.2009 and he was also entitled for promotion to the rank of UDC w.e.f. 26.02.2004, i.e., the date of promotion of respondent Nos.3 and 4 to the rank of UDC.
2.13 In the meantime, the applicants of OA No.510/2012 (Chandigarh Bench), namely, Shri Sahdev Kaushik and Smt. Vandana Sharma then filed another OA bearing No.060/00299/2015-CH before the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal praying for financial benefits at par with the financial benefits being given to respondent No.4 herein and also another private respondent, namely one Shri Ram Pujan Singh, who was then posted as an Assistant in Lucknow. The Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal allowed the said OA No.60/00299/2015-CH vide Order dated26.08.2015 (Annex. A/10) and directed the payment of all financial benefits to applicants in O.A. 060/00299/2015-CH [reported in 2015 SCC Online CAT 657]. The relevant paras of the said order read as under:-
"2. It has been stated in the OA that the applicants were appointed as LDC through Staff Selection Commission Clerk Grade Examination 1993 and they have joined as such in the month of January, 1996. Some of the selectees of the same list joined in the month of November/December, 1995 and they were confirmed vide order dated 12.10.2001 along with 400 other LDC of the Department. The 2026.04.07 JITENDRA 15:14:59 RAJ MEHTA +05'30' 7 [OA NO. 512-2016] seniority list of the LDC was circulated by the respondents on
03.03.2003 considering the date of joining as determining the seniority and the applicants were shown junior to the candidates ranked below them in the recommendation list of SSC. A number of LDC of the Department made representations to the effect that seniority should be fixed according to the recommendation list of SSC irrespective of date of joining. Ultimately, on the basis of order passed by the Lucknow and Ahmedabad Benches of the CAT, the seniority list of LDC was rectified on the basis of the recommendation list of SSC instead of the date of joining. The applicants were allotted seniority no. 1 and 2 respectively in the year 1993 batch while the private respondents who were earlier shown senior to the applicants were allotted seniority no. 4 (Rampujan Harijan), 06 (Rammehar Singh), 11 (Ved Parkash) and 12 (Veer Singh). By that time all the private respondents were promoted to the post of UDC vide orders dated 26.04.2004 and 22.03.2005 being reserved category candidates while the applicants were promoted to the post of UDC on 27.11.2008. The applicants were again shown junior to the respondents in seniority list of UDCs circulated on 01.01.2012.
3. It is further stated that the applicants then approached this Tribunal through OA No. 510/CH/2012 and vide order dated 29.04.2014, the respondents were directed to re-fix the seniority of the applicants as UDC making them senior to the private respondents (Annex. A-1). The respondent Department challenged this order through CWP No. 21979 of 2014 which stands admitted and the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to direct the respondent Department to comply with the orders passed by this Tribunal subject to outcome of the writ petition. A copy of the order dated 30.10.2014 passed by the Hon'ble High Court is annexed as Annex. A-2. During the pendency of litigation, the private respondents were promoted as Assistants (Group „B‟) on the basis of earlier seniority list wherein they were shown senior to the applicants. A copy of promotion order dated 16.03.2012 is annexed as Annex. A-3. The respondent Department re-fixed the seniority of the applicants over and above the private respondents as UDC in compliance of the orders of the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court (Annex. A-4) but neither their pay has been fixed at par with their juniors i.e. private respondents w.e.f. 27.11.2008 when the applicants were promoted as UDC nor they were promoted as Assistant from the date their juniors i.e. private respondents were promoted.
4. It is further stated that applicant no. 1 made representation seeking promotion as Assistant from the date their juniors were promoted but to no avail (Annex. A-5). The applicants are entitled to pay at par with their juniors w.e.f. 27.11.2008 i.e. from the date they came to the cadre of UDC and promotion as Assistant w.e.f. 16.03.2012 i.e. from the date their juniors were so promoted with all consequential benefits. Instead of promoting the applicants as Assistant from the date their juniors were promoted, the respondents issued a circular dated 26.12.2014 regarding conduct of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for the post of Assistant from UDC without honoring the accrued right of the applicants and thus they were being deprived of their legal right (Annex. A-6).
5. In the grounds for relief, it has been stated as follows:-
i)When the applicants were declared senior to the private respondents by this Tribunal vide Annex. A-1 and in compliance of this order, the seniority list was rectified showing the applicants senior to the private respondents as 2026.04.07 JITENDRA 15:14:59 RAJ MEHTA +05'30' 8 [OA NO. 512-2016] UDC then there is no justification not to fix the pay of the applicants at par with the private respondents w.e.f.
27.11.2008 i.e. from the date the applicants born to the cadre of UDC being senior to the private respondents as per the settled law that no junior can get more pay than his senior.
ii)Once the applicants were shown senior to the private respondents in the rectified seniority list, there is no justification not to promote the applicants as Assistants w.e.f. 16.03.2012 i.e. from the date their juniors were so promoted with all consequential benefits.
iii)Without promoting the applicants as Assistants, having accrued right of promotion from the date their juniors were promoted, the action of the respondents to conduct the departmental examination for the post of Assistants from UDC depriving the petitioners from their accrued legal right as they have already been discriminated since long.
6. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, the facts as stated in the OA have not been disputed. It has further been stated that the Department is conducting Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for 25% vacancies of Assistant (Vacancy year upto 2015-16) from amongst the UDCs as per the Recruitment Rules, 2014 to the post of Assistant in the Central Passport Organization. Due to conducting of LDCE, there is no effect on the applicants promotions. The same position has been reiterated in the affidavit filed on 31.07.2015, without affording any clarity regarding the claim of the applicants regarding their promotion from the cadre of UDC to Assistants with effect from the date their juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits.
7. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties were heard, when learned counsels reiterated the content of the OA, rejoinder and the written statement respectively.
8. We have given our careful consideration to the matter and the Central Passport Organization (Group „C‟) posts Recruitment Rules, 2004 have been seen. For the category of Assistant as per the Schedule points 11 and 12 read as follows:
9. Method of recruitment: whether by direct recruitment or by promotion or deputation or absorption and percentage of the vacancies to be filled by various methods.
75% by promotion;
25% by Limited Departmental Competitive Examination.
10. In case of recruitment by promotion or deputation or absorption grades from which promotion or deputation or absorption to be made.
Promotion:
(i) Upper Division Clerks of cadre of Central Passport Organization with eight years of regular service in their grade; or
(ii) Upper Division Clerks of the Central Passport Organization with sixteen years of combined regular service as Upper Division Clerk and Lower Division Clerk in the cadre of Central Passport Organization.
2026.04.07 JITENDRA 15:14:59 RAJ MEHTA +05'30' 9 [OA NO. 512-2016] Note: If a junior person is considered for promotion on the basis of his completing the prescribed qualifying period of service in that grade all persons senior to him in the grade shall also be considered for promotion notwithstanding that they may not have rendered the prescribed qualifying period of service in that grade but have successfully completed the prescribed period of probation.
Limited Departmental Competitive Examination:
(c)(i) Upper Division Clerks of the Central Passport Organization with eight years of regular service as Upper Division Clerk or
(ii) Upper Division Clerks of the Central Passport Organization with sixteen years of service combined regular service as Upper Division Clerk and Lower Division Clerk in the care of Central Passport Organization; and
(d) Possessing the Bachelor's Degree of a recognized university or its equivalent.
Note: In the case of persons holding the post of Upper Division Clerk on regular basis on the date of commencement of the Ministry of External Affairs, Central Passport Organization (Group „C‟ post) Recruitment Rules, 2004, the eligibility service for promotion to the post of Assistants shall be five years regular service in the feeder grade. From the same, it is clear that there is 75% quota for promotion of UDCs as Assistants and 25% of the posts are to be filled by way of LDCE. Since the applicants are claiming promotion, they have to be considered against the 75% quota in accordance with the seniority list of UDCs. The applicants are now as a result of order dated 29.04.2014 in OA No. 510/CH/2014, senior to the private respondents in the present OA who have already been promoted as Assistants. Hence the respondent Department is duty bound to refix the pay of the applicants as UDCs at par with their juniors who are drawing higher pay and to promote the applicants as Assistants provided their service record is satisfactory. In the event of their promotion as Assistants, the applicants are entitled to the consequential benefits from the date when their alleged juniors were promoted.
11. The OA is therefore allowed and the respondents are directed to ensure that action is taken regarding refixation of the pay of the applicants in the grade of UDC, promotion of the applicants as Assistants and release of consequential benefits is completed within a period of 60 days' from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order being served upon the respondents."
2.14 In compliance of aforesaid Order passed by the CAT, Chandigarh Bench, the respondents had granted all necessary financial and service benefits with retrospective upon the promotion of the applicants of O.A. No.060/00299/2015-CH effect.
2.15 It is stated by the applicant that when the occasion for the next promotion to the rank of Assistant (now rechristened as "Assistant 2026.04.07 JITENDRA 15:14:59 RAJ MEHTA +05'30' 10 [OA NO. 512-2016] Superintendent"),[Group „B‟] arose, those employees, who had completed 08 years of service as UDCs were exempted from appearing at the Departmental Examination under the existing rules (Annex.A/11). Accordingly, the Applicants of OA 510/2012-CH did not have to undergo any departmental examination and were promoted to the rank of Assistant/Assistant Superintendent, Group „B‟ w.e.f. 22.05.2015 vide promotion order dated29.06.2015 (Annex. A/12).
2.16 Subsequently, when the seniority list of Assistant Superintendents as on 01.04.2016 (Annex.A/13) was published, the Original Applicants of O.A. No.510/2012-CH were shown as deemed to have been promoted w.e.f. 09.03.2012.
2.17 Further, it is stated that in the meantime the applicant herein also successfully cleared the departmental examination held on 30.08.2015 and was promoted as Assistant/Assistant Superintendent w.e.f. 12.10.2015 (Annex.A/14).
2.18 Further it is stated that in the seniority list of Assistant Superintendents as on 01.04.2016, the applicant is shown at No.134 while the private respondents Nos.3 and 4 are shown at No.42 and 43 respectively. Further, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have received their promotion to the Assistant Superintendent rank from 09.03.2012.
2.19 By referring a consolidated chart (Annex. A/15) about the appointment / promotions of the applicant, it is stated by the applicant that since he is similarly placed officer to the applicants of OA No. 510/2012-CH filed before the Chandigarh Bench, he ought to have been granted equal benefit of promotion with retrospective effect. Hence, this OA.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of the prayer sought in this O.A. mainly submits :
3.1 That the applicant herein had joined the Central Passport Organisation (CPO) through the Clerks Grade Examination, 1993 conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) and was duly appointed based on merit and has an unblemished service record.
2026.04.07 JITENDRA 15:14:59 RAJ MEHTA +05'30' 11 [OA NO. 512-2016] 3.2 It is also submitted that the seniority list circulated as on 03.03.2003 was challenged by several employees, including the applicant, by filing OAs in the years 2007 and 2008. The grievance raised therein was that seniority ought to have been determined strictly on the basis of the merit/rank secured by the candidates in the SSC Clerks Grade Examinations held in 1991 and 1993. Pursuant to the directions issued by Lucknow and Ahmedabad Benches of this Tribunal, the seniority was revised on merit basis as reflected in Annex.A/4. Upon such revision, the applicant‟s placement was correctly fixed at Sl. No.10 in the 1993 batch seniority list. Shri Sahdev Kaushik and Smt. Vandana Sharma were shown senior to the applicant based on comparative merit, whereas Shri Ved Prakash (respondent No.3) and Shri Veer Singh (respondent No.4) were positioned at Sl. Nos.11 and 12 respectively.
3.3 It is further submitted that in the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held on 26.02.2004, the private respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein were granted promotion under the reserved quota for SC/ST candidates since they belong to reserve category. However, the applicant, though senior in merit, could not be promoted due to non-availability of vacancies in the general category quota at the relevant time. Thus, private respondents 3 and 4 secured promotion earlier solely due to reservation policy and not by virtue of seniority or merit.
3.4 It is also submitted that the accelerated promotion granted to respondent Nos.3 and 4 cannot be allowed to disturb the settled seniority position of general category candidates. The principle laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in 1996 (2) SCC 715 Ajeet Singh Januja Vs. State of Punjab (Ajeet Singh-I), squarely applies, wherein the Court held that:
"General candidates who were senior at Level 2 shall retain such seniority at Level 3, even if reserved category candidates reach Level 3 earlier due to reservation."
3.5 It is further pointed out that Shri Sahdev Kaushik and Smt. Vandana Sharma, who belong to General Category, had raised a issue about grant of correct seniority before the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal and contending that consequential seniority granted to reserved category 2026.04.07 JITENDRA 15:14:59 RAJ MEHTA +05'30' 12 [OA NO. 512-2016] employees in violation of the law declared in Ajit Singh Januja(supra) was impermissible, and that the seniority of general category officers ought to be protected at all higher levels.
3.6 It is submitted that if the applicant would have granted deemed promotion w.e.f. from 26.02.2004 as UDC he would also have been promoted to the rank of Assistant/Assistant Superintendent w.e.f. 09.03.2012 instead of 22.05.2015. Moreover, he would not have had to appear at any departmental examination for the said promotion. It is also submitted that the applicant, otherwise, has an unblemished career till date.
3.7 It is also submitted that the Official respondents had taken shelter of DoP&T‟s O.M. dated 21.01.2002, issued pursuant to the Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001, to justify the grant of consequential seniority to SC/ST candidates. However, it is submitted that the said OM cannot be invoked in a manner that nullifies judicially recognised seniority rights of general category employees or retrospectively depriving them of seniority accrued through merit.
3.8 Further, it is submitted that Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 29.04.2014 by accepting the contentions of the applicants therein had directed the official respondents to re-fix inter se seniority between the applicants therein and private respondents and modify the seniority list of Group „C‟ (UDC) cadre in CPO as on 01.01.2012. Since the Hon‟ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the pending Writ Petition filed by the respondents directed vide interim order dated 30.11.2014 that the aforesaid Tribunal‟s order dated 29.04.2014 shall be given effect subject to the final outcome of the writ petition and in compliance of it respondents have extended the benefit to the similarly placed employees, therefore, the claim of the applicant for grant of retrospective seniority and promotion ought to have been considered by the respondents.
4. Per contra, on receipt of the notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed their reply and denied the claim of the applicant.
2026.04.07 JITENDRA 15:14:59 RAJ MEHTA +05'30' 13 [OA NO. 512-2016] Learned counsel for the respondents by referring the averments in the reply mainly submitted as under :-
4.1 It is submitted that the challenge to Annexs. A/1 and A/2, is wholly misconceived, frivolous, and untenable in law and on facts and in any event the application of the applicant is hopelessly barred by limitation.
4.2 Although admittedly jurisdiction of this Tribunal is not in dispute, however, the present Original Application is ex facie beyond limitation.
The applicant seeks to agitate issues and claims arising from events which took place as far back as in 2004 and 2012. The OA thus suffers from gross delay and laches and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
4.3 The DPC held on 26.02.2004, respondent Nos.3 and 4 were promoted strictly in accordance with the reservation roster applicable to SC/ST categories. The applicant herein being a general category officer, could not be promoted as no general category vacancies were available in that DPC year, which is admitted by the applicant in the OA itself. Therefore, it is not open for the applicant to raise any grievance after a decade about grant of promotion to him as well other officers.
4.4 It is further submitted that the seniority of Shri Sahdev Kaushik and Smt. Vandana Sharma had been revised strictly in compliance with the directions of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal dated 29.04.2014 passed in OA No.510-CH of 2012. The official respondents had assailed the said Order before the Hon‟ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana by filing Writ Petition No.21979/2014 and the Hon‟ble High Court has ordered that the aforesaid Tribunal‟s order may be given effect subject to the outcome of the writ petition. Accordingly, in compliance of the order passed by Hon‟ble High Court, the respondents had prepared and published a seniority list/seniority, which is provisional in nature since the same is subject to the outcome of the pending Writ Petition.
4.5 It is also submitted that it is not disputed that the applicant was senior to the private respondents at the time of initial entry. However, by 2026.04.07 JITENDRA 15:14:59 RAJ MEHTA +05'30' 14 [OA NO. 512-2016] operation of reservation rules and the consequent statutory implementation of Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A) of the Constitution of India, the reserved category candidates were legitimately promoted earlier and, therefore, the official respondents had rightly and lawfully followed the DoP&T O.M. dated 21.01.2002, which mandates consequential seniority for SC/ST candidates promoted on the basis of reservation.
4.6 Lastly, it is urged that in view of the categorical reasons stated above, particularly, the consequential seniority was granted to the eligible employees under the 85th Constitutional Amendment and the aforesaid DoP&T‟s instructions, the applicant herein is not entitled to any reliefs sought in the present Original Application.
5. In rebuttal to the contentions of the official respondents, as noted above, learned counsel for the applicant has reiterated that the present Original Application concerns a dispute between (the then) Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) in the CPO on the question of promotion between personnel recruited in the SC/ST category on the one hand and candidates recruited in the General Category on the other hand, and the consequent seniority flowing there from.
5.1 It is reiterated that the applicant was recruited as an LDC by the SSC in 1995. respondent Nos.3 and 4 who are his batch-mates belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, were promoted to the rank of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) w.e.f. 26.02.2004 whereas the applicant received promotion only w.e.f. 27.11.2008. This position is reflected in the Seniority List as on 01.01.2012 (Annex.A/6). Learned counsel argued that the applicant too deserves promotion to the rank of UDC w.e.f. 26.02.2004 along with his batch-mates belonging to the SC community.
5.2 It is also reiterated that the Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court declined to the order passed by Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal, in OA No.510/2012-CH, wherein two other batch-mates of the applicant belonging to the General Category successfully challenged the Seniority List dated 01.01.2012 and the same was allowed vide Order dated 2026.04.07 JITENDRA 15:14:59 RAJ MEHTA +05'30' 15 [OA NO. 512-2016] 29.04.2014 (Annex.A/8). Following the filing of OA No.299/2015-CH by them, all pending dues were also granted to the said applicants qua the private respondents in OA No.510/2012-CH, included the present Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the instant OA. The said writ petition is still pending for final adjudication before Hon‟ble High Court and the interim order to implement the order passed by CAT, Chandigarh Bench is still in force.
5.3 It is also argued that similarly, the same issue again arose before the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in OA No.504/2018-MUM concerning the batch-mates of the applicant herein. Once again, the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal vide Order dated 07.02.2018 allowed the said OA, relying on the judgment of the Chandigarh Bench in OA No.510/2012- CH (supra). The said Order of Mumbai Bench was challenged by the official respondents before the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.190/201, wherein the Hon‟ble Court declined to interfere and directed that the final fate of the matter would abide by the decision of the Hon‟ble High Court Punjab & Haryana vide Order dated 30th October, 2014.
5.4 It is further argued that because of the pending litigation applicant has fallen considerably behind in successive promotions as compared to his batch-mates and at present, the cases of the applicant‟s batch mates are pending consideration before the UPSC for promotion to Group „B‟ (Gazetted) post.
5.5 In support of the claim of the applicant, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and submitted that the issue of reservation in promotion has repeatedly engaged the attention of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. For the present case, the current position of law is governed by two judgments:
(i) M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,reported in(2006) 8 SCC 212, and
(ii) Jarnail Singh & Ors. v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors., reported in(2018) 10 SCC 396.
2026.04.07 JITENDRA 15:14:59 RAJ MEHTA +05'30' 16 [OA NO. 512-2016] It is submitted that the mandatory constitutional requirement of collecting quantifiable data, as laid down in M. Nagaraj (supra) and Jarnail Singh (supra), has not been complied with by the Official respondents. Therefore, the grant of accelerated promotions to respondent Nos.3 and 4, and other SC/ST employees, is inconsistent with the constitutional framework and is liable to be set aside.
5.6 It is also argued that the official respondents have placed reliance on paragraph 4(i)(a) of the Office Memorandum dated 21.01.2002 issued by the DoP&T, which prescribes grant of accelerated promotion with consequential seniority to SC/ST candidates. However, such reliance is wholly misconceived for the following reasons:
(a) The said Office Memorandum of 21.01.2002 is a vintage, and therefore, predates the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj (supra) as well as Jarnail Singh(supra).
Both the aforesaid judgments have laid down binding constitutional pre-conditions, viz. collection of quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation, overall administrative efficiency, and adherence to the ceiling limit before reservation in promotion with consequential seniority can be extended. Accordingly, the OM cannot override or survive the constitutional limitations subsequently imposed by the Apex Court.
(b) The very same Office Memorandum was expressly considered by the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.510/2012 and the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal did not accept the said OM as a justification for granting accelerated promotion with consequential seniority. The Tribunal‟s decision was thereafter challenged before the Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Court by way of Writ Petition (supra), which declined to interfere and permitted the order to attain finality. However, the said Writ Petition is still pending for final adjudication. In such circumstances, reliance by the official respondents on the 2026.04.07 JITENDRA 15:14:59 RAJ MEHTA +05'30' 17 [OA NO. 512-2016] aforesaid Office Memorandum predating and contrary to constitutional mandates and already examined and effectively rejected in binding coordinate proceedings are unsustainable and liable to be rejected.
5.7 It is also stated that again, in OA No.504/2015 before the Mumbai Bench the batch-mates of the applicant sought the similar reliefs, the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal adopted the Chandigarh Bench view and directed that the final outcome would abide by the decision in CWP No.21979/2014 pending before the Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. When the said decision of the Mumbai Bench was challenged by way of W.P. No.190/2019, the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court dismissed the said W.P. No.190/2019 and directed implementation, similarly linking the outcome to the decision in CWP 21979/2014. Therefore, in the present case, the said order is required to be followed by treating other order passed by different benches of this Tribunal as per incuriam. In this regard he placed reliance on a judgment passed by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the cases of Secretary to the Government of Kerala, Irrigation Department & Ors., Vs. James Varghese & Ors. [reported in (2022) 9 SCC 593] and, in Sandeep Kumar Bafna Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.[ reported in (2014) 16 SCC 623].
5.8 Learned counsel has argued that by considering the grounds stated in the M.A. (for condonation of delay) and the pendency of this O.A. since year 2016, the said M.A. was allowed vide order dated 28.11.2024.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the pleadings and also the judgments on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Having perused the pleadings and heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Learned counsel for applicant in support of the prayer sought in this O.A. mainly submitted that the similarly placed officials / officers namely Mr. Sukhdev Kaushik & one Smt. Vandana Sharma appointed along with the applicant as LDC under General Quota, had approached CAT Chandigarh Bench by way of OA No. 510-CH of 2012 2026.04.07 JITENDRA 15:14:59 RAJ MEHTA +05'30' 18 [OA NO. 512-2016] and sought relief to grant them correct inter se seniority in the cadre of UDCs above the private respondents including the private respondents No. 3 and 4 herein who were junior to them in the feeder cadre of LDCs.
The CAT, Chandigarh Bench vide order dated 29.04.2014 while allowing the said O.A. referred the law laid down by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Ajeet Singh Vs. State of Punjab, M. Nagraj Vs. UOI [(2006) 8 SCC 212] and other judgments directed the official respondents to refix the inter se seniority of the applicants therein vi-a- vis the private respondents and modify impugned seniority list of Group „C‟ (UDCs) in CPO as on 01.01.2012. Therefore, the case of the applicant is also required to be considered in the light of aforesaid order passed by CAT, Chandigarh Bench.
7.1 It emerges from the record that the said order (passed by CAT, Chandigarh Bench dated 29.04.2014 was challenged by the official respondents before the Hon‟ble High Court of P&H in Civil Writ Petition No. 2179/2014. By way of interim order dated 30.10.2014 (Annex.A/9) the Hon‟ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, directed the official respondents that "the order passed by the Tribunal may be given effect subject to final outcome of the said Writ Petition."
7.2 During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the said Writ Petition i.e. CWP 21979/2014 is still pending for final adjudication before the Hon‟ble P&H High Court and as per the liberty granted vide interim order dated 30.10.2014, the respondents have given effect to the directions issued by the CAT, Chandigarh Bench dated 23.04.2014 by granting seniority and promotion to the applicants therein.
7.3 Further, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the order dated 21.08.2015 passed by the CAT, Chandigarh Bench in another OA No. 299/2015, whereby the claim of the similarly placed officers for grant of pay scale at par with the private respondents has been accepted and held that, "as a result of an order dated 29.04.2014 passed in OA No. 2026.04.07 JITENDRA 15:14:59 RAJ MEHTA +05'30' 19 [OA NO. 512-2016] 510-CH/2014 the applicants' therein are now senior to the private respondents who have already been promoted as Assistant. Hence, the respondents department is duty bound to refix the pay of the applicants therein as UDCs at par with their juniors who are drawing higher pay and promote them as Assistants provided that their service record is satisfactory and if found fit they are entitled for consequential benefits from the date when their alleged junior(s) were promoted."
Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the aforesaid directions has been implemented by the respondents and had granted pay at par in favour of the applicants of the OA 299/2015 with their juniors who were promoted to a higher post earlier to them, the applicant herein also required to be treated equally.
7.4 Further, learned counsel for the applicant would argue that by following the orders passed by CAT Chandigarh Bench (supra) and interim order passed by Hon‟ble High Court of P&H, the CAT, Mumbai Bench in identical claim as put forth by the similarly placed officers in OA No. 504/2015 (Mrs. Sunita Alurkar & Ors. &. UOI & Ors.), while disposing of the said OA vide order dated 07.02.2018 directed the official respondents to take appropriate steps in the matter of placement of the applicants therein in the seniority list published on 01.01.2012 in the cadre of UDCs subject to final outcome of the pending Writ Petition No. 21979/2014 before the Hon‟ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana.
In this regard, it is apt to mention that the aforesaid order passed by CAT, Mumbai Bench was challenged before the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court by the official respondents in Writ Petition No. 190/2019, while disposing of the said writ petition the Hon‟ble High Court vide order dated 12.02.2019 declined to interfere with the impugned order dated 07.02.2018 passed in OA No. 504/2015 by CAT, Mumbai Bench.
7.5 Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that, since the applicant herein is similarly placed to the applicants before the CAT Chandigarh Bench as well as Mumbai Bench and he is senior to the private respondents, therefore, his claim for grant of higher seniority 2026.04.07 JITENDRA 15:14:59 RAJ MEHTA +05'30' 20 [OA NO. 512-2016] in the grade of UDC and sub sequent promotion is required to be considered by treating him equally with similarly placed officers.
On the other hand, the respondents herein attempted to justify their stand on the basis of instructions contained in the OM dated 21.01.2002 issued by the DoP&T with regard to grant of seniority to SC/ST employees on promotion by virtue of rule of reservation / roster and further submitted that the settled seniority of the officers including the private respondents cannot be allowed to be disturbed at this belated stage.
So far the submission of the respondents that the already settled seniority of the employees in the cadre including of private respondents herein, cannot be disturbed at this belated stage is concerned, we find much force in the said submission put forth by them.
8. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix & discussions, we are of the opinion that the grievance of the applicant for assigning him higher seniority at par with the similarly placed officers the same is required to be considered by the competent authority in the light of the grounds stated by him in his representation as well as the subsequent developments granting an interim order/judgment in cases of similarly situated incumbents as well as the extant rules and, therefore, we dispose of this O.A. giving a liberty to the applicant to file an additional comprehensive representation before the competent authority within four weeks‟ from the date of receipt of this order and following which, the respondents shall consider and decide the same along with his earlier representation dated 23.07.2015 (Annex.A/2) expeditiously, but not later than 90 days of its receipt & intimate the decision thereon to the applicant.
9. With the foregoing reasons and directions, the O.A. is disposed of. M.A. if any is also disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Hukum Singh Meena) (Jayesh V. Bhairavia)
Member (A) Member (J)
jrm
2026.04.07
JITENDRA
15:14:59
RAJ MEHTA
+05'30'
21 [OA NO. 512-2016]
2026.04.07
JITENDRA
15:14:59
RAJ MEHTA
+05'30'