Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Jagan Nath vs Income Tax Department on 20 November, 2025
1
OA No.170/00393/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00393/2023
ORDER RESERVED ON: 12.11.2025
DATE OF ORDER: 20.11.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA ..MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SANTOSH MEHRA ..MEMBER(A)
1. Jagan Nath,
S/o Ganesh Mishra,
Aged about 42 years,
Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
1st Floor, Bangalore West Commissionerate,
BMTC Building, BSK II Stage,
Bangalore-560 070.
2. Md. Masroor Alam,
S/o Md. Sharif Hussain,
Aged about 45 years,
Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
Audit I Commissionerate,
BMTC Building, BSK II Stage,
Bangalore-560 070.
3. Prakriti Bartariya,
W/o Aditya Kumar,
Aged about 40 years,
Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
O/o Commissioner of Central Tax,
1st Floor, Bangalore West Commissionerate,
BMTC Building, BSK II Stage,
Bangalore-560 070.
4. Mobassir Ekram,
S/o Md. Kalim,
Aged about 44 years,
Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
MG 5 Audit I Commissionerate,
Bangalore.
5. Narendra Prasad Singh,
S/o Jageshwar Prasad Singh,
mikash mikasha suneja
CAT Bangalore
a 2025.11.25
13:27:41
suneja +05'30'
2
OA No.170/00393/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
Aged about 48 years,
Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
Audit I, Commissionerate, BMTC Building,
Banashankari, Bangalore.
6. Harish Kumar Meena,
S/o Babulal Meena,
Aged 38 years,
Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
Audit I Commissionerate,
Bangalore.
7. Smt.Chandra Prabha,
W/o Ravindra Kumar,
Aged about 42 years,
Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
Vigilance Section, Audit | Commissionerate,
Bangalore.
8. Sudha Kant Gautam,
S/o Late Vishnu Dayal,
Aged about 48 years,
Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
Bangalore West Commissionerate,
1st Floor, BMTC Building,
BSK, Bangalore-560 070.
9. Priyadarshi Navin,
S/o Upendra Prasad Singh,
Aged about 40 years,
Working as Superintendent of Customs,
O/o Principal Commissioner of Customs,
Air Cargo Complex, Kempegowda International Airport,
Bangalore-560 300.
10. Amit Kumar,
S/o Kumareshwar Singh,
Aged about 46 years,
Working as Superintendent of Customs,
Airport and ACC, Kempegowda International Airport,
Bangalore-560 300.
11. Jagram Meena,
S/o Sarvan Ram Meena,
Aged about 41 years,
Working as Superintendent of Customs,
PAD Section,
Bangalore City Customs,
Bangalore.
mikash mikasha suneja
CAT Bangalore
a 2025.11.25
13:27:41
suneja +05'30'
3
OA No.170/00393/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
12. Anurag Pandey,
S/o Shyam Shanker Pandey,
Aged about 37 years,
Audit II Commissionerate,
JSS Tower, Near Kamakya Theatre,
Bangalore
13. Ritesh Kumar,
S/o late Om Prakash Jalan,
Aged about 38 years,
Working as Superintendent of Customs,
Airport and ACC,
Kempegowda International Airport,
Bangalore-560 300.
14. Kumar Ripendra,
S/o Bipin Bihari Tiwary,
Aged about 40 years,
Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
Audit II Commissionerate,
JSS Tower, Near Kamakya Theatre,
Bangalore.
15. Suraj Kumar Kumawat,
S/o Shiv Charan Kumawat,
Aged about 45 years,
Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
Audit II Commissionerate,
JSS Tower, Near Kamakya Theatre,
Bangalore.
16. Amarendra Singh Kajal,
S/o Jagbir Singh Kajal,
Aged about 39 years,
Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
Audit II Commissionerate,
Banashankari, Bangalore-560 070.
17. Jagdish Prasad Meena,
Sio Nathua Ram Meena,
Aged about 38 years,
Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
ND-1, Bangalore North Commissionerate,
Bangalore
18. Sanjeev Katiyar,
S/o Tilak Singh Katiyar,
mikash mikasha suneja
CAT Bangalore
a 2025.11.25
13:27:41
suneja +05'30'
4
OA No.170/00393/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
Aged about 44 years,
Working as Superintendent of Customs,
Airport and ACC,
Kempegowda International Airport,
Bangalore-560 300.
19. Anurag Panday,
S/o late Ramakant Pandey,
Aged about 38 years,
Working as Superintendent of Customs,
Bangalore City Customs, ICD,
Whitefield,
Bangalore-560 066.
20. Gyan Prakash,
S/o Brahmadeo Singh,
Aged about 39 years,
Working as Superintendent of Customs,
Airport and ACC,
Kempegowda International Airport,
Bangalore-560 300.
21. Chandra Kant,
S/o late Rajendra Prasad Singh,
Aged about 40 years,
1st Floor, Bangalore West Commissionerate,
BMTC Building, BSK II Stage,
Bangalore-560 070.
22. Vinod Kumar Pandey,
S/o Raj Kumar Pandey,
Aged about 39 years,
Working as Superintendent of Customs,
O/o Principal Commissioner,
Airport & ACC,
Bangalore-560 300.
23. Dharmendra Singh,
S/o Premveer Singh,
Aged about 37 years,
Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
O/o Principal Commissioner of Central Tax,
TTMC Building, BMTC Bus Stand Complex,
Domlur, Old Air Port Road,
Bangalore-560 071
24. Shree Krishna Singh,
S/o Ramchij Singh,
mikash mikasha suneja
CAT Bangalore
a 2025.11.25
13:27:41
suneja +05'30'
5
OA No.170/00393/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
Aged about 44 years,
Working as Superintendent of Customs,
O/o Principal Commissioner,
Airport & ACC,
Bangalore-560 300.
25. Sunil Kumar Meena,
S/o late Ratti Ram Meena,
Aged about 42 years,
Working as Superintendent of Customs,
O/o Principal Commissioner,
Airport & ACC,
Bangalore-560 300.
26. Vijay Singh Meena,
S/o Shri Kanchan Lal Meena,
Aged about 44 years,
Working as Superintendent of Customs,
Airport & ACC,
Kempegowda International Airport,
Bangalore-560 300.
27. Brijesh Beniwal,
S/o Babu Singh Beniwal,
Aged about 34 years,
Working as Superintendent of Customs,
O/o Principal Commissioner,
Airport & ACC,
Bangalore-560 300.
28. Sanjay Kumar Singh,
S/o Lakshmi Prasad Singh,
Aged about 42 years,
Working as Superintendent of Customs,
New Customs House, Mangalore Customs,
Panambur,
Mangalore-575 010.
29. Ram Avtar Meena,
S/o Mithoo Ram Meena,
Aged about 44 years,
Working as Superintendent,
O/o Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax,
Bangalore North Commissionerate,
Division No.7, 4th Floor,
Lalbagh Road,
Bangalore-560 027
mikash mikasha suneja
CAT Bangalore
a 2025.11.25
13:27:41
suneja +05'30'
6
OA No.170/00393/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
30. Gara Sharma,
S/o Shiv Dutt Sharma
Aged about 45 years,
Superintendent of Customs,
O/o Commissioner of Customs,
New Customs House,
Panambur,
Mangalore-575 010
31. Virender Kumar,
S/o Raghbir Singh,
Aged about 46 years,
Superintendent of Customs,
Mangalore International Airport,
Mangalore.
32. Muni Ram Meena,
S/o Mangi Lal Meena,
Aged about 35 years, Superintendent,
(On deputation as Assistant Director,)
Director of Logistics,
Customs & Indirect Taxes,
4th Floor, A-Wing, Khan Market,
New Delhi-110 003.
33. Istkar Khan,
S/o Irfan Khan,
Aged about 40 years,
Superintendent (presently on loan basis)
Room No.267 A, International Customs Division,
CBIC, North Block,
New Delhi-110 001
34. Deepak Dabral,
S/o Sunder Lal Dabral,
Aged about 41 years,
Superintendent of Central Tax,
On loan basis in the
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Headquarters, 7th Floor,
Drumshape Building,
D Block, IP Bhavan,
IP Estate. New Delhi-110 002.
35. Manoj Kumar,
S/o Shiv Prasad,
Aged about 39 years,
Superintendent of Customs,
mikash mikasha suneja
CAT Bangalore
a 2025.11.25
13:27:41
suneja +05'30'
7
OA No.170/00393/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
AP & ACC,
Kempegowda International Airport,
Bangalore-560 300.
36. Gaurav Kumar Sharma
S/o Rajeer Sharma,
Aged about 38 years,
Superintendent of Customs,
Airport and ACC,
Kempegowda International Airport,
Bangalore-560 300.
37. Hari Govind Jha,
S/o Maha Kant Jha
Aged about 42 years,
Working as Superintendent of Customs,
Kempegowda International Airport,
Bangalore-560 300.
38. Arun Shankar Srivastav,
S/o Sharda Nand Srivastava,
Aged about 42 years,
Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
O/o Commissioner of Central Tax,
South Commissionerate,
Bangalore
39. Kaushalendra Kishore,
S/o Vinod Kumar,
Aged about 42 years,
Working as Superintendent,
O/o Additional Commissioner of
Customs, Whitefield, Bangalore-560 066.
40. Harvinder Singh Sandhu,
S/o G.S. Sandhu,
Aged about 44 years,
Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
Appeals-I Commissionerate,
BMTC Building, Domlur,
Bangalore-560 071
41. Priya Ranjan Kumar Choudhary,
S/o Badrinath Choudhary,
Aged about 42 years,
Working as Superintendent of Customs,
CWC-CFS, ICD Bangalore City Customs,
Whitefield, Bangalore-560 066.
mikash mikasha suneja
CAT Bangalore
a 2025.11.25
13:27:41
suneja +05'30'
8
OA No.170/00393/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
42. Koushik Roy,
S/o Pradeep Roy
Aged about 39 years,
Working as Superintendent of Customs,
Airport and Air Cargo Complex,
Kempegowda International Airport,
Bangalore-560 300.
43. Syam Prasad Gera,
S/o Purna Chandra Rao,
Aged about 37 years,
Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
North West Commissionerate,
Bangalore.
44. Sudershan Kumar,
S/o Surendra Prasad Sah,
Aged about 42 years,
Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
Bangalore Audit I Commissionerate, II Floor,
BMTC Building, Banashankari,
Bangalore-560 070.
45. Nagendra Bihari Sinha,
S/o Gopal Prasad,
Aged about 46 years,
Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
North West Commissionerate,
Bangalore.
46. Sanjay Kumar,
S/o Bishwavir Prasad Singh,
Aged about 45 years,
Working as Superintendent of Central Tax,
North West Commissionerate,
Bangalore.
47. Mitreshwar Jha,
S/o Prabhakar Jha,
Aged about 39 years,
Working as Superintendent of Customs,
Airport and Air Cargo Complex,
Kempegowda International Airport,
Bangalore-560 300.
48. Krishna Kant Verma,
S/o late Gulab Chand Verma,
mikash mikasha suneja
CAT Bangalore
a 2025.11.25
13:27:41
suneja +05'30'
9
OA No.170/00393/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
Aged about 45 years,
Working as Superintendent of Customs,
Airport and Air Cargo Complex,
Kempegowda International Airport,
Bangalore-560 300.
49. Abhishek,
S/o Om Prakash Shitaliya,
Aged about 39 years,
Working as Superintendent of Customs,
Airport and Air Cargo Complex,
Bangalore-560 300.
50. Vinay Singh Shervar,
S/o Panjab Singh,
Aged about 42 years,
Working as Superintendent of Customs,
Airport and Air Cargo Complex,
Bangalore-560 300.
51. Anuj Mishra,
S/o Prem Narayan Mishra,
Aged about 40 years,
City Customs, Queen's Road,
Bangalore-560 001. .....Applicants
(By Advocate, Shri B.S. Venkatesh Kumar)
Vs.
1. Union of India represented by
Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
North Block,
New Delhi-110 001.
2. The Chairman,
Central Board of Indirect Taxes
Ministry of Finance,
North Block,
New Delhi-110 001.
3. The Principal Chief Commissioner of
Central Tax, Bengaluru (Cadre
Controlling Authority), P.B.No.5400,
Central Revenue Building,
Queen's Road,
Bangalore-560 001. .....Respondents
(By Shri S. Prakash Shetty, Senior Panel Counsel)
mikash mikasha suneja
CAT Bangalore
a 2025.11.25
13:27:41
suneja +05'30'
10
OA No.170/00393/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Santosh Mehra ......Member(A)
Through this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:
a) Call for records of the case from the respondents and on perusal
(b) Issue a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to implement the order dated 2.3.2018 in OA No.586-599/2015 in rem in respect of all the Inspectors who were recruited pursuant to Combined Graduate Level Examination 2006 and assign appropriate seniority in terms of the vacancy year and not from the date of appointment and fix the inter se seniority in terms of the rotation of quota principle;
(c) And grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit to grant to the applicants in the circumstances of the case including an order as to costs, in the interests of justice.
2. The facts in in a nutshell are as follows:
a. The applicants are essentially requesting that the relief extended in OA NUMBER 586 -
599/2015, in terms of assignment of seniority should have been extended to them also. They are aggrieved by the circular bearing number GCCO/II/34/14/2022-ESTT-O/o Pr CC-
CGST-ZONE-BENGALURU dated 23-9-2022 (Annexure- A1) and want that their seniority should be restored in consonance with the judgements of the Bangalore bench of Hon'ble CAT in the above OA, which was subsequently upheld in Karnataka High Court also.
b. The Counsel for the 51 applicants in this case points out that these applicants appeared in August 2007 in the Combined Graduate Level Examination 2006. However, they could join only in 2009, as the letters of their appointment were issued only in 2009. Their contention is that their seniority should have been fixed up in terms of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme mikash mikasha suneja CAT Bangalore a 2025.11.25 13:27:41 suneja +05'30' 11 OA No.170/00393/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Court dt. 27.11.2012 in the case of Union of India versus NR Parmar in Civil Appeal No. 7514-7515 of 2005, which was affirmed by this Hon'ble Bench of CAT, in its order dt.
02.03.2018 in OA number 586-599/ 2015, which is cited as Annexure A5.
c. The counsel for the Applicants further contends that in a matter with similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its order dt. 25.09.2019 dismissed in SLP number 4870- 4871/2018, thereby upholding the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. Likewise, the Karnataka High Court, had upheld the orders of Bangalore Bench of CAT in Writ Petition No. 19800/2019 in its order dated 18.10.2019 which is marked as Annexure 6. The Review Petition no. 27/2021 filed by the Respondents was dismissed in the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by order dated 17.12. 2021 in which the respondents were given six months time to implement the orders of Hon'ble CAT in OA number 586- 599/2015. Similar orders were passed by this Bench of Hon'ble CAT dt. 24.03.2022 in the CP No. - 82/2020.
d. The Learned Counsel for Applicats points out that in pursuance of the same Respondent issued the circular No- GCCO/II/34/14/2022-ESTT-O/o Pr CC-CGST-ZONE- BENGALURU dt. 23.09.2022 in which Para 2 indicated that the implementation will be in Personam and restricted only to the applicants in the above mentioned OAs. The counsel avers that this restriction is patently unjust, illegal and in violation of Principles of Equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3. The Counsel for the Applicants points out that the respondents have also unilaterally revised the seniority of promotees while revising the seniority of the applicants in pursuance of the directions given by the Hon'ble CAT in OA number 586-599/2015. Consequently, these applicants have become junior to the applicants in the above cited OA, which is against the initial seniority decided as per the original examination and is therefore unjust and unfair.
mikash mikasha suneja
CAT Bangalore
a 2025.11.25
13:27:41
suneja +05'30'
12
OA No.170/00393/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
4. The counsel for the applicants invites our attention to Para 17 of the Order dt. 02.03.2018 in OA No. 586-599/2015 according to which the seniority list dated 13.08.2014 was set aside and the respondents were directed to issue a fresh seniority list. As this order attained finality on the withdrawal of SLP in the Supreme Court and final directions of the Hon'ble High Court in the W.P. No. 19800/2019 (S.CAT), all the applicants in this OA also should have been given seniority in terms of the judgement of NR Parmar . He points out that this Hon'ble Tribunal did not mention in its Order in OA 586-599/2015 that it was to be implemented in personam. This Hon'ble Tribunal was very categorical in ordering that the applicants were to be assigned seniority in terms of the vacancies arising in 2006 and not from the date of appointment which happened three years later. This was in consonance with the NR Parmar judgement. He also submits that similar matrix of circumstances existed in OA No. 674-693/2014 related to Inspectors of the Income Tax Department (Annexure A10) in which also this Tribunal granted three months' time in its Order dated 16.01.2015 for implementation, in accordance with NR Parmar judgement . The counsel points out that both Income Tax and Central Excise are departments of Government of India and are governed by similar Rules, Regulations and Orders.
5. The Counsel for the applicants also places reliance on Annexure A-11 and Annexure A-12, issued by the Bhubaneswar Zonal Commissionerate and Delhi Zonal Commissionerate respectively. He points out that in both Orders, the applicants there in have been bunch together and allotted seniority of 2006-2007, and promotees have been assigned seniority thereafter, which is strictly in conformity with the NR Parmar judgement. The counsel submits that the Commissionerates of Chennai, Mumbai and Gujarat have also implemented the NR Parmar's judgement on similar lines and the only exception is Karnataka, due to which the applicants have filed this OA.
6. Counsel for applicants further avers that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of NCT of Delhi versus Somvir Rana, decided on 01.09.2017 (cited as Annexure A-13), has clearly laid down that once the question in principle has been settled, mikash mikasha suneja CAT Bangalore a 2025.11.25 13:27:41 suneja +05'30' 13 OA No.170/00393/2023/CAT/BANGALORE the Government is expected to issue a Circular for uniform and consistent application to save time and resources of all concerned. He says that the principle enunciated in this judgement is completely applicable to the cases of the applicants here. He further points out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Pal Yadav versus Union of India in 1985 (2) SCC 648 (Annexure A-14) has clearly laid down that similarly situated persons should be treated similarly and they need not come to the court.
7. The Counsel for Applicants sums up that in the light of the above cited judgements of the Supreme Court and the judgement of this Hon'ble Bench in OA No. 586-599/2015 , duly upheld by the High Court of Karnataka and similar orders passed by the Commissionerates of Chennai, Mumbai, Gujarat and Bhubaneswar etc and also by the Income Tax Department , the same relief should be extended to the applicants in this case and they should be assigned appropriate seniority in terms of the vacancy year and not from the date of appointment; and their seniority should be fixed accordingly. In this regard, the counsel has also drawn our attention to the recent judgement passed by this Bench of Hon'ble CAT in OA No. 107/2023 on 29.10.25.
8. The respondents have filed their reply. According to the learned Counsel for respondents, the issue involved in this case is regarding the fixation of inter-se seniority in the grade of Inspector between the Direct Recruits and the Promotees. He points out that DOPT has clearly instructed that principles of inter se seniority discussed under para 5 of DOPT's OM dated 04.03.2014 would be effective from 27.11.2012 and also stated that the cases of seniority already settled in terms of DOPT OM dated 07.02.1986/03.07.1986 need not be re-opened.
9. The learned Counsel for respondents however admits that the Hon'ble CAT, Bangalore vide order dated 02.03.2018 has allowed the above OA filed by the applicants, directing the Respondents (Department) to revise the seniority list based on the N R Parmar Judgment with retrospective effect based on the recruitment year and not based on their joining the service; within a period of 3 months from the date of the receipt of the copy of mikash mikasha suneja CAT Bangalore a 2025.11.25 13:27:41 suneja +05'30' 14 OA No.170/00393/2023/CAT/BANGALORE the order. He also accepts that the Hon 'ble High Court of Karnataka vide order dated 18.10.2019 dismissed the Writ Petition 19800/2019 filed by the Respondents against the above CAT order in the light of order of dismissal of the SLP No. 4870-71/2018 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, filed by the Department in P. Bharathan's case.
10. The learned Counsel for respondents argues that, subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment dated 19-11-2019, in the case of K. Meghachandra Singh and others Vs Ningam Siro & others made in Civil Appeal No.8833-8835/2019, overruled the decision rendered in N.R. Parmar's case. That means the date of joining is to be reckoned, not the date of vacancy year w.e.f 19.11.2019. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 19.11.2019 has held the following:
"38. When we carefully read the judgment in N. R. Parmar (Supra), it appears to us that the referred OMs (dated 07.02.1986 and 03.07.1986) were not properly construed in the judgment. Contrary to the eventual finding, the said two OMs had made it clear that the seniority of the direct recruits be declared only from the date of appointment and not from the date of initiation of the recruitment process. But surprisingly, the judgment while referring to the illustration given in the OM in fact overlooks the effect of the said illustration. According to us, the illustration extracted in the N.R. Parmar (Supra) itself makes it clear that the vacancies which were intended for direct recruitment in a particular year (1986) which were filled in the next year (1987) could be taken into consideration only in the subsequent year's seniority list but not in the seniority list of 1986. In fact, this was indicated in the two OMs dated 07.02.1986 and 03.07.1986 and that is why the Government issued the subsequent OM on 03.03.2008 by way of clarification of the two earlier OMs.
39. At this stage, we must also emphasize that the Court in N. R. Parmar (Supra) need not have observed that the selected candidate cannot be blamed for administrative delay and the gap between the initiation of the process and appointment. Such observation is fallacious in as much as none can be identified as being a selected candidate on the date when the process of recruitment commenced. On that day, a body of persons aspiring to be appointed to the vacancy intended for direct recruits was not in existence.
The persons who might respond to an advertisement cannot have any service- related rights, not to talk of right to have their seniority counted from the date of the advertisement. In other words, only on completion of the process, the applicant morphs into a selected candidate, and, therefore, unnecessary observation was made in N. R. Parmar (Supra) to the effect that the selected candidate cannot be blamed for the administrative delay. In the same context, we may usefully refer to the ratio in Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India, mikash mikasha suneja CAT Bangalore a 2025.11.25 13:27:41 suneja +05'30' 15 OA No.170/00393/2023/CAT/BANGALORE where it was held even upon empanelment, an appointee does not acquire any right.
40. The Judgment in N. R. Parmar (Supra) relating to the Central Government employees cannot in our opinion, automatically apply to the Manipur State Police Officers, governed by the MPS Rules, 1965. We also feel that N.R. Parmar (Supra) had incorrectly distinguished the long standing seniority determination principles propounded in, inter-alia, J. C. Patnaik (Supra), Suraj Prakash Gupta &Ors. vs. State of J&K & Ors. and Pawan Pratap Singh &Ors. Vs. Reevan Singh &Ors(Supra). These three judgments and several others with like enunciation on the law for the determination of seniority makes it abundantly clear that under Service Jurisprudence, seniority cannot be claimed from a date when the incumbent is yet to be borne in the cadre. In our considered opinion, the law on the issue is correctly declared in J. C. Patnaik (Supra) and consequently, we disapprove the norms on assessment of inter-se seniority, suggested in N. R. Parmar (Supra). Accordingly, the decision in N.R. Parmar is overruled. However, it is made clear that this decision will not affect the inter-se seniority already based on N.R. Parmar and the same is protected. This decision will apply prospectively except where seniority is to be fixed under the relevant Rules from the date of vacancy/ the date of advertisement.
47. As earlier discussed, Rule 28 of the MPS Rules, 1965 shows that seniority in the service shall be determined based on the date of appointment to the service. In particular, Rule 28(i) of the MPS Rules, 1965 which is applicable to both promotees and direct recruits, provides that seniority shall be determined by the order in which the appointments are made to the service. If seniority under Rule 28(i) is to be determined based on the date of appointment, it cannot be said that for the purpose of Rule 28(iii), the seniority of direct recruits should be determined on the basis of the date of initiation of the recruitment process. The term "Recruitment Year" does not and cannot mean the year in which, the recruitment process is initiated or the year in which vacancy arises. The contrary declaration in N.R. Parmar in our considered opinion, is not a correct view."
11. Based on the above judgment dated 19-11-2019 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the K Meghachandra Case, the Respondents filed Review Petition No. 27/2021 in W.P No. 19800/2019 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 07.12.2021 dismissed the Review Petition stating that the judgment dated 19.11.2019 in K Meghachandra case was issued after the dismissal of WP No. 19800/2019 and hence cannot be reviewed.
mikash mikasha suneja
CAT Bangalore
a 2025.11.25
13:27:41
suneja +05'30'
16
OA No.170/00393/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
12. According to the counsel for respondents, the Respondents implemented the Hon'ble Tribunal's order dated 02.03.2018 passed in Ο.Α. 170/586-599/2015 by revising the Seniority List of Inspectors bearing File No. GCC0/11/34/ 14/ 2022- PCCO dated 23.09.2022 (Annexure A-1), in true letter and spirit.
13. The Learned Counsel for Respondent points out that after the dismissal of Review petition, the matter was consulted with DoPT and DoLA, wherein Ld. ASG opined that the issue is not fit to file SLP due to an inordinate delay (not on merit) in approaching the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence, Hon'ble CAT order dated 02.03.2018 in the case of Shri Rajiv Kumar & Ors. was implemented in personam though it was neither in line with the government's seniority policy as stipulated in DOPT's dull OM dated 04.03.2014 duly reiterated in OM dated 13.08.2021 nor with the ratio of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of K. Meghachandra. Therefore, the benefit of OA No. 586-599/2015 cannot be extended to the applicants, as the implementation of the Hon'ble CAT order in their case occurred in personam and under circumstances beyond control. Accordingly, revised Seniority List of Inspectors bearing F.No.GCCO/II/34/ 14/ 2022-PCCO dated 23.09.2022 in personam after obtaining concurrence from Board vide letter F.No.A.32022/58/2015-Ad.III.A dated 12.09.2022.
14. The Learned Counsel for Respondent admits that the respondent had earlier filed WP No.19800/2019 in the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka against the order dated 2.3.2018 of the Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No.586-599/2015. However, the Hon. High Court of Karnataka dismissed the department's WP No. 19800/2019 vide its order dated 18.10.2019 relying its judgement on the order dated 25.4.2017 of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP No.5611/2017 (P.Bharathan case) duly acknowledging the fact that WP No.5611/2017 filed in Hon'ble High Court of Madras was subject matter of SLP (C) No.4870-4871/2018 which was dismissed by Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 25.9.2019.
mikash mikasha suneja
CAT Bangalore
a 2025.11.25
13:27:41
suneja +05'30'
17
OA No.170/00393/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
15. Accordingly, other Commissionerates/zones of Delhi, Mumbai and Shillong amended seniority list of Inspectors with retrospective effect in accordance with the judgement in N.R. Parmar case.
16. The Learned Counsel for Respondents points out vide judgement by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Veena Kothawale (W.P (C) 3057/2016), dated 22.01.2018, it was held that NR Parmar judgement shall be implemented prospectively and the seniority once settled shall not be unsettled whatsoever reasons. This order dated 22.01.2018 was further upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 16.05.2018, in the matter of Shri Diwakar Singh in SLP No. 11905-11906/2018. Furthermore, in subsequent case, Nigam Siro Vs K Meghachandra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has overruled the NR Parmar judgement dated 27.11.2012.
17. The Learned Counsel for Respondents argues that from the revised instructions issued on inter-se seniority of direct recruits and promotees vide DoPT OM dated 13.8.2021 issued in pursuance to Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement dated 19.11.2019 in the K.Meghachandra case, it is clear that cases of inter-se seniority already decided in terms of DOPT OM dated 4.3.2014 shall not be disturbed i.e. old cases are not to be reopened. The OM dated 4.3.2014 itself had clearly stated that the principles of inter-se seniority would be effective from 27.11.2012 and that cases of inter-se seniority already settled may not be reopened. Hence, the case of the applicants in the present OA is clearly prior to 27.11.2012 i.e. the date of N.R.Parmar judgement, hence is not liable to be reopened.
18. We have given thoughtful consideration to the averments and arguments of the learned Counsel for the applicants and the respondents. We have also carefully gone through all the documents and records including the judgments of the Superior Court, relevant sections and clauses of the departmental rules etc, which were brought on record by the respective Counsels.
mikash mikasha suneja
CAT Bangalore
a 2025.11.25
13:27:41
suneja +05'30'
18
OA No.170/00393/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
19. Let us cite the relevant portion of the judgement of this Bench of CAT in OA No. 107/2023 dt. 29.10.2025 which is as follows:
"24. It will be useful to have a comprehensive chronological sequence of events to determine whether the respondents are correct in the interpretation of the two major judgments i.e., Union of India vs. N.R.Parmar and others reported in (2012) 13 SCC 340 and K.Meghachandra Singh and others vs. Ningam Siro and others reported in (2020) 5 SCC 689 and also the related OMs of the DOPT.
The chronological sequence of the issue are as follows:
1) 07.02.1986 - DOPT OM-General principles for determining the seniority of various categories of persons employed in Central service.
2) 03.07.1986 - DOPT OM-Seniority-Consolidated orders
3) 07.04.1998 - Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Chandra Patnaik vs. State of Orissa reported in AIR 1998 SC 1926.
4) 09.04.1999 - DOPT OM
5) 16.05.2007 - Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nani Sha &
Ors.Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors. reported in AIR 2007 SC 2356
6) 03.03.2008 - DOPT OM
7) 10.02.2011 - Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pawan Pratap Singh & Ors. vs. Reevan Singh & Ors. reported in 2011 (3) SCC 267.
8) 27.11.2012 - Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. N.R.Parmar & Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos. 7514-7515/2005
9) 21.08.2013 - Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava and anr. reported in 2014 (14) SCC 720
10) 04.03.2014 - DOPT OM regarding inter-se seniority between Direct Recruitees and Promotees.
11) 13.08.2014 - Revised Seniority list of Inspector of Central Excise
mikash mikasha suneja
CAT Bangalore
a 2025.11.25
13:27:41
suneja +05'30'
19
OA No.170/00393/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
& Customs in respect of applicants in OA No.
107/2023
12) 28.05.2015 - Applicants preferred OA No.586-599/2015 in
C.A.T, Bangalore Bench - regarding incorrect
seniority against the above seniority list.
13) 02.03.2018 - C.A.T. allowed OA No.-586-599/2015 directing the
Respondents to fix the seniority of the applicants against vacancy year 2006.
14) 18.10.2019 - Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dismissed WP No.19800/2019 (S.CAT) filed against the order dated 02.03.2018 in OA 586-599/2015.
15) 19.11.2019 - Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meghachandra Singh and others vs. Ningam Siro and others in SLP No.19565-19567/2019.
16) 13.10.2020 - Applicants preferred CP No.82/2020 before the CAT, Bangalore Bench for compliance of its order dated 02.03.2018.
17) 07.12.2021 - Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dismissed Review Petition filed by respondents in Review Petition No.27/2021.
18) 24.03.2022 - CAT, Bangalore Bench disposed of CP No.82/2020 granting six months' time to implement its order in OA No.586-599/2015.
19) 23.9.2022 - Impugned seniority list issued which is challenged in this OA No. 107/2023.
25. The contention of the Counsel for the applicant is that in OA No.586- 599/2015, the Tribunal (Bangalore Bench) has very categorically stated that the judgment of N.R.Parmar should be properly implemented. In this regard, let us briefly recapitulate the operative portions of the different judgements cited above by the counsel for the applicants.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Tribunal is its order dtd. 15.12.2015 passed in OA. No. 405/2014 vide para-16 to 21 held as follows-
"......In our words as far as this dispute is concerned the inter se seniority between the applicant and promotes with respect to vacancies of 2003 has mikash mikasha suneja CAT Bangalore a 2025.11.25 13:27:41 suneja +05'30' 20 OA No.170/00393/2023/CAT/BANGALORE to be redrawn considering their year of recruitment i.e. 2003 and not 2005 when the applicants actually joined the service "
As regard the applicability of the DoPT circular No. 20011/1/2012-Estt.(D) dated 04 march, 2014, the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 6784/2014 on 22.9.2014 has held as below-
The respondents shall place the applicants and other similarly placed direct recruits at appropriate slots in the revised seniority list according to their recruitment years.
N.R. Parmar's Judgment "33. Having interpreted the effect of the OMs dated 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986 (in paragraphs 20 and 21 hereinabove), we are satisfied, that not only the requisition but also the advertisement for direct recruitment was issued by the SSC in the recruitment year in which direct recruit vacancies had arisen. The said factual position, as confirmed by the rival parties, is common in all matters being collectively disposed of. In all these cases the advertised vacancies were filled up in the original/first examination/selection conducted for the same. None of the direct recruit Income Tax Inspectors herein can be stated to be occupying carried forward vacancies, or vacancies which came to be filled up by a "later" examination/selection process. The facts only reveal, that the examination and the selection process of direct recruits could not be completed within the recruitment year itself. For this, the modification/amendment in the manner of determining the inter-se seniority between the direct recruits and promotees, carried out through the OM dated 7.2.1986, and the compilation of the instructions pertaining to seniority in the OM dated 3.7.1986, leave no room for any doubt, that the "rotation of quotas"
principle, would be fully applicable to the direct recruits in the present controversy. The direct recruits herein will therefore have to be interspaced with promotees of the same recruitment year.
34. In view of the above, the Civil Appeals, the Transferred Case, as well as, the Transfer Case (filed by the direct recruits and the Union of India) are hereby allowed. The claim of the promotees, that the direct recruit Income Tax Inspectors, in the instant case should be assigned seniority with reference to the date of their actual appointment in the Income Tax Department is declined.
CAT Order dated 02.03.2018
16. We are inclined to agree with the stand taken by the different Benches of the Tribunal as outlined in the preceding paras for determination of inter- se seniority in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in N.R.Parmar's case. As explained earlier, we are of the view that seniority list prepared by the respondents on 13.08.2014 by taking date of appointment as the basis for assigning seniority is violative of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in N.R.Parmar's case. The same therefore, cannot be sustained and needs to be revisited.
mikash mikasha suneja
CAT Bangalore
a 2025.11.25
13:27:41
suneja +05'30'
21
OA No.170/00393/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
17. Therefore, on detailed consideration of the matter and in the light of the observation in the preceding paras, we hold that the seniority list prepared by the respondents dtd.13.08.2014 is not in accordance with the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in N.R.Parmar's case and hence the same is set aside. The respondents are directed to draw a fresh seniority list in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in N.R.Parmar's case and assigning the applicants their seniority in terms of the vacancy year i.e., 2006 and not from the date of appointment and fix the inter-se seniority in terms of the rotation of quota principle. This shall be done within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
26. In pursuance of the judgment in N.R.Parmar, the Government of India had issued the DOPT OM dated 04.03.2014, the relevant portions of the same are reproduced as below:
"5. The matter has been examined in pursuance of Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment on 27.11.2012, in Civil Appeal No. 7514-7515/2005 in the case of N.R. Parmar vs. UOI & Ors in consultation with the Department of Legal Affairs and it has been decided, that the manner of determination of inter-se- seniority of direct recruits and promotes would be as under:
a) DOPT OM No. 20011/1/2006-Estt.(D) dated 3.3.2008 is treated as nonexistent/withdrawn ob initio:
b) The rotation of quota based on the available direct recruits and promotees appointed against the vacancies of a Recruitment Year, as provided in DOPT O.M. dated 7.2.1986/3.07.1986, would continue to operate for determination of inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees;
c) The available direct recruits and promotees, for assignment of inter se seniority, would refer to the direct recruits and promotees who are appointed against the vacancies of a Recruitment Year:
d) Recruitment Year would be the year of initiating the recruitment process against a vacancy year.
e) Initiation of recruitment procent against a vacancy.yeat would be the date of sending of requisition for Alling in of vacancies to the recruiting agency in the case of direct recruits: in the case of promotees the date on whicha proposal, complete in all respects, is sent to UPSC/Chairman-DPC for convening of DPC to fill up the vacancies through promotion would be the relevant date.
f) The initiation of recruitment process for any of the modes viz. direct recruitment or promotion would be deemed to be the initiation of recruitment process for the other mode as well
g) Carry forward of vacancies against direct recruitment or promotion quota would be determined from the appointments made against the first attempt for filling up of the vacancies for a Recruitment Year:
mikash mikasha suneja CAT Bangalore a 2025.11.25 13:27:41 suneja +05'30' 22 OA No.170/00393/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
h) The above principles for determination of inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees would be effective from 27.11.2012, the date of Supreme Court Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 7514-7515/2005 in the case of N.R. Parmar Vs. UOI & Ors
i) The cases of seniority already settled with reference to the applicable interpretation of the term availability, as contained in DoPT O.M. dated 7.2.86/3.7.86 may not be reopened.
7. As the conferment of seniority would be against the Recruitment Year in which the recruitment process is initiated for filling up of the vacancies, it is incumbent upon all administrative authorities to ensure that the recruitment process is initiated during the vacancy year itself. While requisition for filling up the vacancies for direct recruitment should be sent to the recruiting agency, complete in all respects, during the vacancy year itself, the timelines specified in the Model Calendar for DPCS contained in DoPT O.M. No. 22011/9/98-Estt(D) dated 8.9.98 and the Consolidated Instructions on DPCs contained in O.M. No.22011/S/86-Estt(D) dated April 10, 1989 should be scrupulously adhered to, for filling up the vacancies against promotion quota."
27. It is also pertinent to mention here that the respondents have filed Review Petition in Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, in the light of the judgment passed in K.Meghachandra Singh vs. Ningam Siro dated 19.11.2019. Despite the fact that this judgment had overruled the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.R.Parmar and categorically stated that for determining seniority, the order of appointment would be considered and not the order of advertisement/vacancy etc. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka after due deliberations, dismissed the Review Petition 27/21 on 7/12/2021. The relevant portions of the order in Review Petition are as follows:
"ORDER This review petition is filed contending that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has decided the lis by placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS vs. N.R.PARMAR AND OTHERS reported in (2012) 13 SCC 340.
2. The basis to file this review petition is that the Apex Court in the case of K.MEGHACHANDRA SINGH AND OTHERS vs. NINGAM SIRO AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal Nos.8833-8835 of 2019 dated 19.11.2019) has held that the ratio laid down in N.R.Parmar's case is bad in law. Placing reliance on this judgment, the review petitioners are before this Court seeking review of the order.
3. On perusal of the grounds urged in the review petition, we do not find any material indicating error apparent on the face. If the petitioners are placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court which is mikash mikasha suneja CAT Bangalore a 2025.11.25 13:27:41 suneja +05'30' 23 OA No.170/00393/2023/CAT/BANGALORE subsequent to the order passed by this Court, we are not inclined to entertain the review petition, since subsequent events would not attract the ingredients enumerated under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
4. Accordingly, the review petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to agitate the matter before the appropriate forum.
5. The pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of."
28. From the above it is very obvious that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has also reiterated for the implementation of orders of the CAT passed in OA No.586-599/2015 dated 02.03.2018. In this regard, it will be beneficial to also cite the relevant portions of the Order of this Tribunal (Bangalore Bench) in C.P.No.170/82/2020 dated 24.03.2022:
"2. Shri Vishnu Bhat, learned counsel for the respondents, at the very outset, stated that aggrieved by the order dated 02.03.2018 passed by this Tribunal in Original Application No. 586-599/2015, the respondents had preferred Writ Petition No.19800/2019 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore which came to be dismissed on 18.10.2019.
3. Still aggrieved, the respondents preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the said Special Leave Petition was withdrawn by the respondents with liberty to file a Review Application before the Hon'ble High Court. Thereafter, Review Application No.27/2021 was filed before the Hon'ble High Court which was also dismissed on 07.12.2021.
4. Shri Vishnu Bhat further stated that after dismissal of the Review Application by the Hon'ble High Court, the respondents have now taken a decision in principle to implement the order dated 02.03.2018 passed by this Tribunal in Original Application No. 586-599/2015 and in order to give a meticulous compliance of the said order, six months' more time is required.
5. Prayer made by Shri Vishnu Bhat for grant of extension of six months' more time to implement this Tribunal's order, has been vehemently opposed by Shri B.S. Venkatesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. However, looking towards the veracity of the case and the controversy involved herein, we deem it appropriate to grant six months' more time to respondents to implement the order dated 02.03.2018 passed by this Tribunal."
29. The averments of the applicant are very much covered by the order of this Tribunal in OA No.586-599/2015 dated 02.03.2018 and which was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the judgements cited above. Again directions were passed by this Tribunal for compliance of the order dated mikash mikasha suneja CAT Bangalore a 2025.11.25 13:27:41 suneja +05'30' 24 OA No.170/00393/2023/CAT/BANGALORE 02.03.2018, within six months on 24 March 2022 in CP 82/202. It is also seen that the OM of DOPT dated 04.03.2014 was issued, in compliance with the judgment in N.R.Parmar. It is obvious that the fixation of the seniority of the applicants between 676 and 697 as per the Circular dated 13.08.2014 (Annexure A5) is wrong as the seniority has to be established with respect to year 2006 and not 2008 in consonance with the above cited judgements. The Additional Solicitor General, on behalf of the respondents, with the help of different documents cited above has very cogently and emphatically highlighted the distinction between the Year of Advertisement for Recruitment (2006), the Vacancy Year (2007) and the year of issue of Appointment Letters (2009). The distinction that he has brought out are essentially in consonance with the judgement of the Supreme Court (K.Meghachandra Singh and others) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 689 and the DoPT O.M. dated 04/03/2014. However, these contentions of the Additional Solicitor General/Counsel for the respondents regarding sanction to create 4647 additional posts in various grades in 2007 vide letters No.F.No.A11013/12/2007-Ad.IV dated 16.08.2007 and F.No.8/B/26/O&PM/2007 dated 19.09.2007, are not acceptable in this particular case, in the light of the judgments cited supra.
30. In fact, para 5(d) of the DoPT O.M. dated 04/03/2014 categorically it states that the "Recruitment Year would be the year of initiating the recruitment process against a Vacancy Year". However, in this particular case, the recruitment process began in 2006 whereas the Vacancy Year was 2007, creating a unique, inconsistent situation. Essentially, the above cited judgements have taken the view that the recruitment Year and the Vacancy Year would be the same, which should ordinarily and logically be the normal state of affairs.
31. In view of the above, the following orders are issued:
ORDER
1) The OA is allowed.
2) The Circular regarding revision of seniority of Inspectors vide File GCCO/II/34/14/2022-ESTT- O/o Pr CC-CGST-ZONE - BENGALURU Dated 23.09.2022 (Annexure A1) issued by 3rd Respondent, is quashed and set aside.
3) The respondents are directed to refix the seniority strictly in compliance with the directions in the order of this Tribunal in OA No. 586-599/2015 dated 02.03.2018, assigning the seniority after SI. No. 617 onwards."
20. The above matrix of facts and circumstances can be summarised as follows:
mikash mikasha suneja CAT Bangalore a 2025.11.25 13:27:41 suneja +05'30' 25 OA No.170/00393/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
a) In OA No. 586-599/2015 the Hon'ble Bench of CAT had upheld the NR Parmar judgement and directed the respondents to fix seniority of the applicants who were appointed in 2009 from 2006 which was the year of notification.
b) The above judgement was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka vide WP No.19800/2019 in the light of judgement of Madras High Court vide WP No. 5611/2017 and the SLP No. 4870-4871/2018 was also dismissed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
c) The Judgement of NR Parmar was also implemented for fixation of seniority in the Commissionerates of Bhubaneswar, Chennai, Mumbai and Gujarat of Central Excise and Custom Department as seen from Annexure A-11 and A-12.
d) The Income Tax Department have also implemented NR Parmar Judgement for fixation of seniority as per Annexure A-10.
e) Judgements of Supreme Court cited supra have reiterated that once a principle has been laid down, it should be uniformly implemented across all Government institutions in view of Right of Equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
f) The Learned Counsel for Respondent during the course of arguments in the Court also admitted that the facts and circumstances of this case are exactly similar to those of above cited OAs ( OA No.586-599/2015 and OA No. 107/2023).
g) The very emphatic and repeated assertions made by the Learned Counsel for Applicants that seniority was counted from the year of vacancy and not from the year of appointment (in consonance with the judgement of N.R. Parmar) in the Commissionerates of Bhubaneswar, Chennai, Mumbai and Gujarat of Central Excise and Custom Department and also in the Income Tax Department were not denied by the Learned Counsel for Respondent.
mikash mikasha suneja CAT Bangalore a 2025.11.25 13:27:41 suneja +05'30' 26 OA No.170/00393/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
21. In view of the above, the OA is liable to succeed. Hence, it is ordered that:-
ORDER
1) The OA is allowed.
2) The Respondents are directed to implement the orders of this Hon'ble Bench of CAT in OA No. 586-599/2015 dated 02.03.2018 in rem in respect of all the Inspectors who were recruited thorough Combined Graduate Level Examination 2006 and assign them an appropriate seniority in terms of the vacancy year strictly as per the judgement laid down in NR Parmar case.
3) No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SANTOSH MEHRA) (JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
kr
mikash mikasha suneja
CAT Bangalore
a 2025.11.25
13:27:41
suneja +05'30'