Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ms. Namrata Rai W/O Shri Anup Kumar Rai vs Union Of India & Others on 1 December, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.868/2011 Thursday, this the 1st day of December 2011 Honble Shri M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) Honble Shri Shailendra Pandey, Member (A) 1. Ms. Namrata Rai w/o Shri Anup Kumar Rai r/o H.No.7, Sarojini Vihar Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi-23 2. Shri Rahul Dev Goyal s/o Shri Ranjit Goyal r/o D-90, Shakarpur, Delhi 3. Shri Yuvraj Suman s/o Shri P C Suman r/o D-90, Shakarpur, Delhi 4. Shri Ganesh Lal Meena r/o A-6, Staff Quarters Kamla Nehru College August Kranti Marg, New Delhi ..Applicants (By Advocate: Shri M K Bhardwaj) Versus Union of India & others 1. The Secretary Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue North Block, New Delhi 2. The Chairman CBDT, Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue North Block, New Delhi 3. The Chief Commissioner Income Tax NWR, 17 E, CR Building Chandigarh ..Respondents (By Advocate: Shri K K Thakur) O R D E R (ORAL)
Shri M.L. Chauhan:
The applicants, who appeared in the examination held in the year 1999, result of which was declared in January 2002, were assigned seniority from the date of their joining in the year 2002 on the post of Income Tax Inspectors.
2. The grievance raised by the applicants in this OA is that they should be assigned seniority from the date of occurrence of vacancies and impugned orders dated 1/3.9.2010 and 5/6.10.2010 (collectively), whereby representations of the applicants for assigning seniority from earlier date have been rejected, be quashed.
3. At the outset, it may be stated that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Tribunal in Harvinder Pal Singh & others v. Union of India & others (OA-4111/2010) decided on 26.5.2011 pertaining to the same selection whereby this Tribunal after relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court as well as DOPT OM dated 3.3.2008 has held in paragraph 6 that the persons so appointed shall not get seniority of any earlier year (viz. year of vacancy/panel or year in which recruitment process is initiated) but the seniority has to be fixed on the basis of actual year of appointment in terms of the aforesaid instructions. The reasoning given by this Tribunal in Harvinder Pal Singhs case (supra) is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case.
4. However, learned counsel for applicants submits that he has challenged the judgment of this Tribunal in the aforementioned case before the High Court of Delhi by filing W.P.(C)No.6468/2011 in which notices have been issued by the High Court. However, learned counsel for the respondents submits that no stay has been granted by the High Court, as such this OA can be disposed of on the basis of judgment rendered by this Tribunal in Harvinder Pal Singhs case (supra). Since the operation of the judgment of this Tribunal has not been stayed by the High Court, we are of the view that it will be futile exercise to keep the present matter pending. In case the judgment of this Tribunal in the aforesaid case is set aside or any other order is passed by the High Court, in that eventuality, it is always open to the applicants to resort to legal remedy, as admissible in law or even the applicants can challenge this order before the High Court and the matter can be tagged with the aforesaid W.P.(C)No.6468/2011.
5. With this, the present OA is dismissed without any order as to costs.
( Shailendra Pandey ) ( M L Chauhan ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/