Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rajeev Kumar Chadha vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 3 January, 2024
1
OA No. 1381/2020
Item No.26/C-4
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 1381/2020
Reserved on : 30.11.2023
Pronounced on : 03.01.2024
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Rajeev Kumar Chadha
Dy.S.P., CBI (Retd.)
Age 64 years
Sub.: Promotion Group-A
S/o Late Sh. Sita Ram Chadha
R/o B-3, Gulmohar Park
Ground Floor, Front Portion
New Delhi-110049.
.. Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Sachin Chauhan)
Versus
1. Central Bureau of Investigation
Through its Director, C.B.I.
Plot No.5-B, New CBI Building
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road
New Delhi-110003.
2. The Secretary
Department of Personnel and Training
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi-110001.
3. UPSC through its Secretary
UPSC
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi-110069.
4. The Administrative Officer (Pers) CBI:HO
Plot No.5-B, New CBI Building
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road
New Delhi-110003.
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. Hanu Bhaskar for R-1, 2, and 4 and
Mr. R.V. Sinha with Mr. A.S. Singh for R-3)
2
OA No. 1381/2020
Item No.26/C-4
ORDER
Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A) The present O.A. has been filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 30.10.2019, whereby his seniority in the rank of Dy. Supdt. of Police has been fixed w.e.f. 10.05.2013, after around 4 years from the date of his superannuation, without withdrawing the previous seniority or issuing any show cause notice.
2. The brief facts and background of the case as narrated by the learned counsel for the applicant are that the applicant was appointed as direct recruit to the post of Sub-inspector with the Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) Police on 11.07.1980. Thereafter, vide an order dated 16.11.1987, he was appointed as Inspector of Police in the DSPE Division of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), ACB, New Delhi on deputation basis for a period not exceeding three years w.e.f. 21.10.1987. In the year 1992, the UPSC on behalf of DoP&T issued an advertisement to fill up the posts of Dy. Supdt. of Police in CBI on deputation/transfer basis. The applicant being eligible applied for the same and having been selected, the UPSC vide order dated 08.03.1994 recommended his name along with 16 other officers for appointment to the post of Dy. Supdt. of Police in CBI on deputation/transfer basis for a period prescribed under the Recruitment Rules. In pursuance of the same, the applicant came to being at the rolls of CBI as Dy. Supdt. of Police. Meanwhile, he got 3 OA No. 1381/2020 Item No.26/C-4 promoted as Inspector in his parent department (UP Police) w.e.f. 01.07.1997.
3. Thereafter, once again, DoP&T came out with an advertisement through UPSC on 26.08.2011 to fill up the post of Dy. Supdt. of Police in CBI, this time on deputation/absorption basis and the applicant being eligible applied for the same on 29.09.2011. The interview for the said post was conducted by the UPSC and the UPSC recommended his name for absorption to the post of Dy. Supdt. of Police in CBI vide order dated 18.12.2012. Subsequently, the DoP&T issued an order dated 10.12.2013 appointing the applicant to the post of Dy. Supdt. of Police in CBI on permanent absorption basis. Pursuant to the same, the CBI issued order dated 08.01.2014 appointing the applicant on permanent absorption basis from the date of assumption of charge to the post and, accordingly, he joined the post. In the meantime, he was promoted as Dy. Supdt. of Police in his parent department w.e.f. 10.05.2013.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in view of the said absorption, there is inter-communication between the DoP&T and CBI clarifying that the seniority of the applicant to the rank of Dy. Supdt. of Police should be protected w.e.f. 31.03.1994 itself. He claimed that in pursuance of this clarification, the CBI issued an order dated 03.12.2014 fixing the seniority of the applicant to the rank of Dy. Supdt. of Police w.e.f. 31.03.1994. This position was 4 OA No. 1381/2020 Item No.26/C-4 reiterated by the respondents in seniority lists issued subsequently. He clarified that the seniority of the applicant was fixed from the date of holding the post of Dy. Supdt. of Police on deputation basis, i.e. w.e.f. 31.03.1994. Subsequently, in the seniority list for the year 2015 also, this position was maintained and the name of the applicant appeared at Serial No.1, wherein the date of regular appointment as Dy. Supdt. of Police was mentioned as 31.03.1994. Subsequently, in the year 2016, the CBI issued a seniority list for the post of Dy. Supdt. of Police as on 01.01.2016 and again the name of the applicant appeared at Serial No.1 and the date of his regular appointment has been mentioned as 31.03.1994.
5. It is the case of the applicant that his name was not considered for promotion to the post of Addl. Supdt. of Police from the post of Dy. Supdt. of Police, even though he had been given the seniority of Dy. Supdt. of Police in CBI w.e.f. 31.03.1994, while the names of his juniors that find mention in these seniority lists, have been considered and they have also been promoted to the rank of Addl. Supdt. of Police. For his cause, the applicant preferred several representations dated 26.02.2015, 06.10.2015, 07.04.2016, 16.01.2017, 15.02.2017, 12.04.2017, 29.05.2017, 16.11.2017, 11.12.2017, 28.12.2017, 16.03.2018, 24.03.2018, 16.05.2018, 26.07.2018 and 13.08.2018 before the respondents seeking consequential benefits, in pursuance of his seniority being assigned w.e.f. 31.03.1994. As these representations were not being 5 OA No. 1381/2020 Item No.26/C-4 responded to by the respondents, the applicant was forced to approach this Tribunal by way of O.A. No.200/2019, which was disposed of by this Tribunal by directing the respondents to take a final decision on the pending representations of the applicant on the basis of DoP&T OM dated 27.03.2001. He submitted that in spite of the specific direction of this Tribunal, the respondents did not consider the said representations. Consequently, the applicant preferred a Contempt Petition No.446/2019. After filing of the said CP, the respondents rejected his representations vide the impugned order dated 30.10.2019. Being aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, the applicant has approached this Tribunal by way of the instant OA, seeking the following relief(s):
"8.1 To quash and set aside the order dated 30.10.2019 and to further direct the respondent that the seniority of the applicant be re-stored as per the seniority list of Dy. Supdt. of Police for the year 2015 and 2016 and to take the absorption of the applicant in the rank of Dy. S.P. w.e.f. 31.03.1994 with all consequential benefits including notional promotions to the rank of Addl. S.P., Supdt. of Police, Senior Supdt. of Police and further with notional fixation of salary and as a result thereof to re-fix the pension and pensionary benefits from the date of superannuation alongwith arrears.
Or/and Any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant."
Accordingly, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the grievance of the applicant is two fold, i.e.
(i) the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily changed his date of appointment as Dy. Supdt. of Police from 08.03.1994 to 10.05.2013, 6 OA No. 1381/2020 Item No.26/C-4 and (ii) incumbents who were below the applicant in the seniority list, have been promoted by the respondents, ignoring his claim. He further informed that, in the meantime, the applicant retired from service on 29.02.2016 on attaining the age of superannuation.
6. Drawing attention to the impugned order, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the DoP&T OM dated 27.03.2001 is self-explanatory and the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily changed the date of his appointment as Dy. Supdt. of Police from 08.03.1994 to 10.05.2013. The relevant para of the DoP&T OM dated 27.03.2001 is reproduced below for ready reference:-
"2. The Supreme Court has in its judgement dated December 14, 1999 in the case of Shri S.I. Rooplal & Others Vs. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi JT 1999 (9) SC 597 has held that the words "whichever is later" occurring in the Office Memorandum dated May 29, 1986 and mentioned above are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and, hence, those words have been quashed from that Memorandum. The implications of the above ruling of the Supreme Court have been examined and it has been decided to substitute the term "whichever is later" occurring in the Office Memorandum dated May 29, 1986 by the term "whichever is earlier".
7. He further submitted that on completion of five years of service as Dy. Supdt. of Police w.e.f. 08.03.1994, the applicant was entitled for consideration to be promoted to the post of Addl. Supdt. of Police. Drawing support from the letter of absorption dated 08.01.2014, he stated that the said letter clearly mentions that the applicant would be absorbed from the date of assumption of charge. Therefore, his seniority was correctly fixed initially, however, 7 OA No. 1381/2020 Item No.26/C-4 illegally changed by the respondents subsequently. He added that the applicant had participated in the selection process initiated by the DoP&T and only after attaining the merit, he was recommended for deputation/absorption, both in the years 1994 and 2014. He also stated that the DoP&T OM has incorrectly been interpreted by the respondents only to discriminate the applicant. He had also drawn support from the letter of absorption dated 08.01.2014, which reads as under:-
"On the recommendations of Union Public Service Commission, the Competent Authority is pleased to appoint Shri Rajeev Kumar Chadha, Dy.SP/UP Police presently working as Dy. SP in CBI, IPCC, New Delhi on deputation basis as Deputy Supdt. Of Police in the CBI in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500/-/- revised to PB-3 (Rs.15600-39100/- with Grade Pay Rs.5400/- on absorption basis with effect from the date of assumption of charge of the post of Dy. SP in the CBI.
2. On his appointment as Deputy Supdt. Of Police in the Central Bureau of Investigation on "Absorption basis" Shri Rajiv Kumar Chadha is posted in CBI, IPCC, New Delhi."
8. Mr. Hanu Bhaskar, learned standing counsel representing respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4 vehemently opposed the O.A. By drawing our attention to the prayer sought in the O.A., which is incorporated herein above, the learned counsel submitted that prayer at 8.1 could be dissected in parts, which are as follows:-
a) quash and set aside the order dated 30.10.2019.
b) direct the respondent that the seniority of the applicant be restored as per the seniority list of Dy. Supdt. of Police for the years 2015 and 2016.8 OA No. 1381/2020
Item No.26/C-4
c) the absorption of the applicant in the rank of Dy. SP w.e.f. 31.03.1994.
d) All consequential benefits including notional promotions to the rank of Addl. SP, Supdt of police, Senior Supdt. of Police be provided.
He argued that the applicant has been performing the duties to the post of Dy. Supdt. of Police with effect from the year 1994 and superannuated in the year 2016. For almost 29 years, he has served the respondents as Dy. Supdt. of Police and never raised any grievance in this regard. It was only after his retirement that he started filing representations and agitating his grievance. He drew our attention to a chart incorporated in counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4, which reads as under:-
S.No. Various stages in his Date of event took Post held in his career progression place parent department
1. Date of joining Govt. 11.07.1980- joined Sub-Inspector Service UP Police as SI
2. Date of joining CBI 20.10.1987- as Sub-Inspector Inspector on deputation basis
3. Date of joining as DSP on 31.03.1994 Sub-Inspector deputation in CBI
4. Date of proforma 01.07.1997 Inspector promotion in his department
5. Date of proforma 10.05.2013 DSP promotion as DSP in his parent department
6. Date of absorption in CBI 09.01.2014 DSP as DSP
7. Date of Retirement 29.02.2016 He stated that at Sl.No. 4 of the chart, the applicant is stated to have been promoted to the post of Inspector in his parent department 9 OA No. 1381/2020 Item No.26/C-4 only on 01.07.1997 and on completion of five years of regular service, could he be considered for promotion to the post of Dy.
Supdt. of Police. He further stated that the respondents did not correct the seniority of the applicant by way of the impugned order, rather it is a declaration of the fact that the applicant was promoted to the post of Dy. Supdt. of Police on 10.05.2013. In fact, he was not eligible to be considered for promotion at both the stages, i.e. on 31.03.1994 or in 2014 as well. He also stated that on both the occasions, it was on account of the benevolence of the respondents for which the applicant continued with the respondents and was allowed to work as Dy. Supdt. of Police.
9. He drew our attention to order dated 14.08.2014 (page 89 of the O.A.) and argued that in the last line of the said communication, it is mentioned that the applicant was on deputation since 31.03.1994 and this communication rather confirms that the seniority of the applicant should be fixed accordingly. He further drew attention to the DOP&T OM dated 27.03.2001 placed at page No. 111 and argued that the said OM stipulates two situations, (i) where the employee was initially on deputation and absorbed later, the seniority in the grade in which he is absorbed normally to be counted from the date of absorption and (ii) if he has, however, been holding already (on the date of absorption), the same or an equivalent grade on regular basis in his parent department, such regular service in the grade shall be taken into account in fixing his 10 OA No. 1381/2020 Item No.26/C-4 seniority. Accordingly, he submitted that the applicant's case falls in the second part of the relevant paragraph of the O.M. In terms of the O.M., the respondents have correctly fixed the applicant's seniority to the post of Dy. Supdt. of Police w.e.f. 10.05.2013, i.e., when the applicant was appointed as Dy. Supdt. of Police in his parent department.
10. Controverting the averments made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned counsel for the respondents, by drawing strength from DoP&T's O.M. dated 01.03.2011 according to which the maximum period of deputation is five years which could be extended for another two years at the most and once the initial period of five years comes to an end, the person who is on deputation would be deemed to be relieved from the borrowing department, submitted that in the present case, the applicant has continued to be on deputation since 1994 till his superannuation in the year 2016, i.e., for 29 years. The applicant unauthorisedly overstayed with the CBI and he should have been repatriated to the parent department upon completion of the first five years. He emphasized that it was only due to the benevolence of the respondents that the applicant continued for such an unduly long period, which stands confirmed by the fact that the applicant never agitated his grievance and had confined him to the situation. He added that in para 2 of the DoPT's OM dated 01.03.2011, the Ministries and departments have been advised that no ex-post facto 11 OA No. 1381/2020 Item No.26/C-4 approval for regularization of overstay on deputation would be allowed. He also stated that since the applicant stayed beyond the period allowed, no ex-post facto approval would be extended in his case.
11. The learned counsel also raised the issue of limitation, emphasizing that the applicant has chosen not to approach the Tribunal at the relevant point in time and his representation itself is belated. The Applicant may have come in an earlier round of O.A., however, the question of limitation remained open and continues to be sustained. By drawing attention to the chart in the counter reply as well as the representation of the applicant with a request that he should be placed in the seniority for the post of Dy. Supdt. of Police w.e.f. 31.03.1994, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the prayer of the applicant is misplaced. He explained that at the relevant point in time, the applicant was, in fact, a Sub-Inspector in his parent department and, accordingly, he was enjoying the lien there. Being a Sub-Inspector in the parent department, he could not seek seniority to the post of Dy. Supdt. of Police in the borrowing department, i.e. CBI. It was only in the year 2013, when he was promoted to the post of Dy. Supdt. of Police in the parent department, the respondents have extended the seniority to the applicant, in terms of the OM dated 27.03.2001.
12OA No. 1381/2020 Item No.26/C-4
12. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the Full Bench judgment dated 17.08.2018 passed in O.A. No. 3314/2012 and connected OA No. 3849/2012 and submitted that the issue at stake has been extensively dealt with and put to rest by the Full Bench of this Tribunal. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"2. In OA No.101/2004 - D. S. Dagar and others Vs. Union of India and others, a Division Bench of this Tribunal, through its judgment dated 31.08.2004 took the view that the seniority of Inspectors who came to CBI on deputation must be reckoned from the date on which they got absorbed in CBI. In other words, the service rendered by them in their parent departments was held to be not relevant in that context. By that time, the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered its judgment in SI Roop Lal and another o Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi and others [(2000) 1 SCC 644]. That was a case in which a member of BSF was absorbed into Delhi Police, and in the context of determining his seniority, it was held that he was entitled to count the service rendered by him in his parent organization in the same or equivalent rank. An evaluation as to the similarity of duties in the BSF, on the one hand, and the Delhi Police, on the other, was undertaken, and it was held that such a similarity did exist as regards the duties in both organizations. The judgment in SI Roop Lal's case was referred to in D. S. Dagar's case (supra).
3. Few years later, i.e., in 2009, OA No.3245/2009 (D.M. Sharma v Union of India and others) was filed, wherein a similar issue was raised. The Division Bench, which heard this matter, decided it on 18.01.2011, following the ratio in SI Roop Lal's case. The Bench held that the personnel drawn from other organizations to CBI are entitled to count their service from the date with effect from which, they held the equivalent positions in their parent organizations. The contention that they are entitled to reckon their service only from the date of absorption in CBI, was repelled.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
22. In view of the discussion undertaken by us, we hold that the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in D. S. Dagar's case does not represent the correct legal position and that the one in D. M. sharma's case accords with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject. As a result, we dismiss the OAs. There shall be no order as to costs."13 OA No. 1381/2020
Item No.26/C-4 In the aforesaid OAs, the question as to how the inter-se seniority between the employees initially drawn on the cadre of CBI, on the one hand, and those who are taken on the deputation and absorbed later, on the other hand, was subject matter of dispute. There were two views taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal as reflected in para 2 and 3 and by the aforesaid decision, the view in OA No. 3245/2009 was upheld by the Full Bench. He stated that the import of the above judgment is that it would be the date when a person has held the equivalent position in the parent organization, from his seniority would be reckoned from. He reiterated that this was one of the reasons that the applicant has never approached the Tribunal at the relevant point in time, i.e. for 29 years, when he was on deputation; as he apprehended that in case he would agitate his grievance with respondents or any forum, he would not be absorbed by the CBI at all. Once he has already availed the benefit of being part of the CBI, he cannot be extended further benefits.
13. He further clarified that though the applicant was absorbed in CBI in the year 2014, however, since he was extended promotion in his parent department in the year 2013, his seniority to the post of Dy. Supdt. of Police was awarded since 2013. Learned counsel for the respondents, drawing attention to Para 8.1 of the prayer clause, stated that the applicant has, besides other relief, sought notional promotion to the rank of Addl. Supdt. of Police, Sr. Superintendent of Police and further. He stated that in view of the judgment 14 OA No. 1381/2020 Item No.26/C-4 rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. K.K. Vadera & Ors., 1989 Supp (2) SCC 625, no promotion could be extended to an individual after the retirement and since the applicant superannuated in the year 2016, the said relief could not be extended to him by any stretch of imagination. He clarified that in order to be eligible for consideration for promotion to the subsequent promotional post, there is a mandatory residency period required. If the case of the applicant has to be accepted, his seniority to the post of Dy. Supdt. of Police should be reckoned from 31.03.1994, however, since he has not worked on the subsequent promotional posts, the benefit of the said posts cannot be extended to the applicant for want of residency period. He cannot be given any advantage or benefit of the promotional posts in terms of pay scale or pay fixation. He again reiterated that in the present facts, the applicant was absorbed in the year 2014 and his seniority was fixed accordingly. The same was antedated with effect from 2013, from the date when he was promoted to the post of Dy. Supdt. of Police in his parent department and his residency period would be reckoned from 2013 only. In the absence of his meeting the essential conditions for any of the promotional posts, he possibly could not be promoted or considered for further promotional posts.
14. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the applicant, with respect to the question of limitation averred that the applicant approached this Tribunal in an earlier round of litigation, wherein the Tribunal 15 OA No. 1381/2020 Item No.26/C-4 disposed of the O.A., with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the applicant. The representation of the applicant has been disposed of by the respondents by way of the impugned order dated 28.10.2019 and, accordingly, the applicant approached this Tribunal within 12 months of the said order and, therefore, the instant O.A. is within the limitation.
15. Concerning the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the applicant did not agitate his grievance for 29 years, i.e. from 1994 to 2013 - when the applicant was on deputation to the post of Dy. Supdt. of Police with the CBI, the learned counsel for the applicant explained that his cause of action arose only when the applicant was absorbed by the borrowing respondent (CBI) and the same was antedated by them w.e.f. 10.05.2013, when the applicant was promoted in his parent department as Dy. Supdt. of Police. He also submitted that the O.M. dated 01.03.2011 is applicable in the case of the applicant as in the order dated 08.03.1994, whereby the applicant's case was recommended by the UPSC and his name appeared at serial No. 9, it was mentioned that the applicant was appointed to the post of Dy. Supdt. of Police in CBI on deputation/transfer basis for a period prescribed in the recruitment rules, however, there was no time limit prescribed in the said order. He further drew our attention to the Recruitment Rules annexed along with the MA No. 2552/2023, wherein in column 11, it is mentioned that the deputation is initially for 5 years, 16 OA No. 1381/2020 Item No.26/C-4 however, the same is extendable to another 5 years. He also submitted that this argument is an afterthought of the respondents and the said O.M. dated 01.03.2011 prescribes that in case there is an overstay by deputationist beyond 5 years, the liability of the concerned authority that has allowed the same, should be fixed.
16. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the Full Bench judgment dated 17.08.2018 is not applicable in the present case, which decides the issue as to whether the determination of seniority would be from the date when the person was absorbed by the borrowing department or from the date when he was regularized in the parent department. In the present case, it is a situation where the applicant came to the borrowing department, i.e. CBI, in the year 1994 and seeks regularization to the said post from the year 1994 itself. He submitted that the issue at stake primarily revolves around the interpretation of the O.M. dated 27.03.2001 and para 2 of the same would be applicable in the case of the applicant, whereas the respondents have incorrectly applied the contents of para 1 of the same.
17. Learned counsel for the applicant also drew our attention to averment made in para 5.11, wherein 7 names have been mentioned and argued that these persons have been extended benefits as claimed by the applicant, while the applicant has been discriminated. In support of his claim, he referred to the seniority 17 OA No. 1381/2020 Item No.26/C-4 list annexed at page No. 117 and prayed that for the reasons of parity, the relief extended to Shri D.M. Sharma should be extended to the applicant as well. He also submitted that in the counter reply, the respondents have chosen not to give a specific reply to the said Para and the contention of the applicant remains unrebutted by the respondents. He further argued that none of the judgments relied upon by the respondents could be taken into consideration and, lastly, he concluded that since the seniority of the applicant has been incorrectly fixed from the year 2013, the respondents are under obligation to take corrective steps and assign him seniority to the post of Dy. Supdt. of Police with effect from 1994 and, as a further corrective step, notional promotion be extended to him.
18. Mr. R.V. Sinha, learned counsel for respondent No.3 - UPSC informed that a consolidated reply has been filed denying the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and, accordingly, the law of pleadings may not be applied.
19. We have heard Mr. Sachin Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Hanu Bhaskar, learned counsel appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and Mr. R.V. Sinha, learned counsel for respondent No.3 - UPSC at length; and perused the pleadings and judgments placed on record.
20. The applicant is primarily seeking seniority from the date he is holding the post of Dy. Supdt. of Police in CBI on deputation basis 18 OA No. 1381/2020 Item No.26/C-4 w.e.f. 31.03.1994, with all consequential benefits including notional promotions to the rank of Addl. SP and Supdt. of Police. His claim is that the respondents have incorrectly applied the contents of para 1 of the O.M. dated 27.03.2001, whereas para 2 of the same would be applicable in his case. In this backdrop, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the said O.M. for ready reference:
"Subject: Seniority of persons absorbed after being on deputation.
The undersigned is directed to say that according to our Ο.Μ.No.20020/7/80-Estt(D) dated May 29, 1986 (copy enclosed) in the case of a person who is initially taken on deputation and absorbed later (i.e. where the relevant recruitment rules provide for "transfer on deputation/transfer"), his seniority in the grade in which he is absorbed will normally be counted from the date of absorption. If he has, however, been holding already (on the date of absorption) the same or equivalent grade on regular basis in his parent department, such regular service in the grade shall also be taken into account in fixing his seniority, subject to the condition that he will be given seniority from the date he has been holding the post on deputation, or the date from which he has been appointed on a regular basis to same or equivalent grade in his parent department, whichever is later.
2. The Supreme Court has in its judgement dated December 14, 1999 in the case of Shri S.I. Rooplal & Others Vs. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi JT 1999 (9) SC 597 has held that the words "whichever is later" occurring in the Office Memorandum dated May 29, 1986 and mentioned above are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and, hence, those words have been quashed from that Memorandum. The implications of the above ruling of the Supreme Court have been examined and it has been decided to substitute the term "whichever is later" occurring in the Office Memorandum dated May 29, 1986 by the term "whichever is earlier".
19OA No. 1381/2020 Item No.26/C-4
21. It is pertinent to note that the applicant joined UP Police as Sub-Inspector on 11.07.1980 and, thereafter, he was appointed as Inspector of Police in CBI on deputation on 16.11.1987 and he continued to be on deputation in CBI for about three decades and during this period, he was appointed by CBI on the next higher post, viz. Dy. Supdt. of Police, on deputation basis but until his permanent absorption as Dy. Supdt. of Police in CBI vide order dated 08.01.2014, he continued his lien in the parent department. In the meantime, he was promoted as Dy. Supdt. of Police in his parent department, i.e. U.P. Police, w.e.f. 10.05.2013. The question is, should the said period of deputation be taken into account for considering his seniority. The answer, in our opinion, has to be in the negative. It is so because the O.M., as quoted above, plainly provides that the date of absorption would be the date, from which seniority in the grade is to be reckoned. In the present case, no departure from the aforesaid position is possible as the applicant was not holding the post of Dy. Supdt. of Police or equivalent post in his parent department prior to his promotion w.e.f. 10.05.2013 and, therefore, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SI Rooplal (supra) is of no help to the applicant.
22. As a matter of fact, so long as the applicant claimed lien on the post of Sub-Inspector in U.P. Police, he could not claim any seniority in C.B.I. and after his permanently absorption in CBI on 08.01.2014, he could claim lien on that post and the earlier lien with 20 OA No. 1381/2020 Item No.26/C-4 U.P. Police would cease to exist from that date. Therefore, in our considered view, the applicant was rightly given seniority w.e.f. 10.05.2013, i.e. the date of his regular holding the post of Dy. Supdt. of Police, on account of his promotion in parent department, vide the impugned order dated 30.10.2019 and we find no infirmity in the order passed by the respondents.
23. In view of above, the present O.A. being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Pratima K. Gupta)
Member (A) Member (J)
/jyoti/