Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Anand Singh vs M/O Finance on 14 March, 2022
1 O.A. No.3705/2019
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.3705
3705 of 2019
Orders reserved on : 22.02.2022
Orders pronounced on : 14.3.2022
.2022
(Through Video Conferencing)
Hon'ble Mr. A.K. Bishnoi, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
1. Anand Singh
Aged about 46 years
Resident of E-66,
E 66, Nanak Pura,
Moti Bagh,
New Delhi-110021.
Delhi
2. Narendra Kumar Bharti
Son of Shri Rajendra Das
Aged about 36 years
Resident of H. No.677/7,
Govindpuri,
Kalkaji, New Delhi-19.
Delhi
3. Manoj Kumar Yadav
Son of Sh. Ishwar Singh Yadav,
Aged about 38 years,
Resident of Village - Puther,
P.O. Aminagar Ssaria,
Distt. - Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh.
4. Amar Nath Prasad
Son of Shri Dinanath Prasad
Prasad
Aged about 44 years
Resident of Flat No.71-B,
No.71
L Block, DDA Flats,
L-2
Kalkaji, New Delhi-19.
Delhi
5. Ajeet Pratap Rao,
Son of Sh. Virendra Rao
Aged about 38 years
Resident of H.N. 844, Block
Block-J,
New Delhi.
2 OA No.3705/2019
6. Praveen Kumar
Son of Sh. Puran Chand
Aged about 34 years
Resident of H.No.844, Block-J,
New Delhi.
7. Radhe Shyam
Son of Sh. Lal Mah endra Sharma
Aged about 38 years
Resident of 918/2, Street No.28,
B-Block, Sant Nagar,
Burari, Delhi-110084.
8. Shiv Prakash Tiwari,
Son of Sh. Ram Naresh Tiwari
Aged about 34 years
Resident of M1/14, 1st Floor,
Sector-83, Faridabad.
9. Ravi Kumar
Son of Shri Trillok Chand
Aged about 42 years
Resident of 113, Block M-1,
Govt. Flats, Dev Nagar,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi-11005.
10. Sujeet Kumar
Son of Lae Anandi Sharma
Aged about 37 years
Resident of WZ-5/1, Gali No.13-14,
Om Vihar-3, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059.
11. Ram Murat Patel
Son of Shri R.K. Patel
Aged about 37 years,
Resident of 506, MM-1,
Sector-4, Vaishali, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh-201010.
12. Sushil Kumar Mainwal
Son of Sh. Raj Kumar
Resident of H.No. 333/3,
F-Type, Andrews Ganj,
New Delhi.
3 OA No.3705/2019
13. Gajendra Singh
S/o Late Sh. Bishan Pal Singh
Aged about 40 years
Resident of H.No.15,
Nasirpur, Behind DDPS School,
Ghaziabad-201001, U.P.
14. Anand Kumar Singh
S.O Sh. Om Prakash Singh
Aged about 33 years
Resident of Qtr. No.841,
2nd Floor, Pushp Vihar,
Sector-5, Saket, New Delhi.
15. Dev. Shankar Singh,
S/o Sh. Bheem Bahadur Singh Thapa
Aged about 45 years
Resident of L-2/123A, LIG, DDA Flats,
Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.
16. Kamal Kumar
S/o Sh. Om Parkash
Aged about 43 years
R/o A-233, First Floor,
Vikas Puri, New Delhi.
... Applicants
(through Advocates Shri Ajesh Lurtha with Ms. Sriparna
Chatterjee)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through the Secretary
Ministry of Finance,
Rajpath Marg, E Block,
Central Secretariat,
New Delhi-110011.
2. Central Board Excise & Custom
Through the Chairman,
North Block, Central Secretariat
New Delhi-110 001.
4 OA No.3705/2019
3. The Chief Commissioner,
Central GST (Delhi Zone)
C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
4. The Secretary
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions,
Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block, New Delhi.
5. Madhurkant Tulsian,
S/o Sh. Laxmi Kant Tulsian,
Aged about 29 years
R/o B-6/342, Sector - 17, Rohini,
Delhi - 110089.
6. Sh. Ravi Dixit
Age about 31 years
S/o Sh. Rajender Singh Dixit
R/o 104, Village Mungeshpur,
Delhi-110039.
7. Sh. Vikas Malik
Age about 33 years
S/o Sh. Jai Pal Singh Malik,
R/o VPO -0 Ahulana, Tehsil - Gohana,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana -131301.
8. Shishir Yadav
Age about 34 years
S/o Sri Ram Chandra Yadav
R/o 571, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Apartment,
Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi-110018.
9. Ajit Maninder
Age about 33 years
S/o Sh. Kulwant Singh
R/o House No.21, 2nd Floor, Anmol Vatika,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018.
10. Kanhaiya Prasad
Age about 41 years
S/o Sh. Haridwar Prasad
R/o F-16B, 2nd Floor, Flat No.5,
Jawahar Park, Devli Road, New Delhi.
5 OA No.3705/2019
11. Ajit Kumar Gupta
Age about 35 years
S/o Late Sh. Anil Kumar
R/o Mohalla Kasbhara, Powayan,
District Shahjahanpur,
Uttar Pradesh-242401.
12. Anand Prasad
Age about 33 years
S/o Sh. Sant Lal Barnwal,
R/o B70/71, 2nd Floor, Gali No.11,
Gehlot Chowk, Dwarka Mor,
New Delhi-110059.
13. Jaganidhi Pokhrel
Age about 43 years
S/o Sri Ram Prasad Pokhrel
R/o Gali No.1, Hardev Nagar,
Jharoda Majra, Burari, Delhi-110084.
14. Vaibhav Kumar Deepak
Age about 33 years
S/o Sh. Anil Kumar Deepak
R/o K9, Model Town, Kanker Khera,
Meerut, UP - 220001.
15. Gaurav Singh,
Age about 31 years
S/o Late Sh. Jai Prakash Singh,
R/o H.No.5439-40, Sector-3, Faridabad.
16. Sangeeta Dalal
Age about 31 years
D/o Sh. Vijender Singh Dalal
R/o1241/31, Chhotu Ram Chowk,
Gohana Road, Sonepat.
17. Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Age about 33 years
S/o Sh. Veer Singh Yadav
R/o RZ-148/74, Gali No.10,
Sagarur East, New Delhi-110046.
6 OA No.3705/2019
18. Mohd. Wasim
Age about 33 years
S/o Md. Salim
R/o Flat No.33, A-6, Golf Link DDA Flats,
Pocket-8, Sector-23B,
Dwarka - 110075.
19. Deepak
Age about 31 years
S/o Sh. Jorawar Singh,
R/o H.No.377, Sector-23,
Sonepat, (Haryana).
20. Sumit Kumar
Age About 31 years
S/o Sh. Vedpal
R/o A-1402, Apex The Florus,
Sector-8, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad.
21. Dharmender
Age about 29 years
S/o Sh. Prithvi Singh
R/o VPO Gangarwas, Tehsil Loharu,
District Bhiwani, Haryana-127201.
22. Rishipal Singh
Age about 33 years
S/o Sh. Sukh Pal Singh,
R/o Vasant Kunj Enclave, New Delhi.
23. Sonu
Age about 34 years
s/o Sh. Munshi Ram
R/o 815, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar,
Delhi-110009.
24. Tanvi Rohilla
Age about 28 years
D/o Sh. Rajveer Singh,
R/o NBB 201, JMD Garden,
Sector-33, Gurugram.
7 OA No.3705/2019
25. Naveen Kumar
Age about 30 years
S/o Sh. Karan Singh,
R/o 219, Sector-6, Bahadurgarh,
Haryana.
26. Neeraj Jawa
Age about 32 years
S/o Sh. Nand Kishore Jawa
R/o 178,Sant Kirpal Chowk,
VPO Noorwala, Panipat.
27. Kuldeep Meena
Age about 30 years
S/o Sh. Amar Singh Meena,
R/o Village & P.O. Suroth,
Tehsil Hindaur City, Distt. Karauli,
Rajasthan.
28. Nitin Kumar
Aged about 29 years
S/o Shri Narender Kumar Singh,
R/o B-394, MIG Flats,
Shahdara, Delhi-110093.
29. Alok Kumar Singh,
Aged about 29 years
S/o Sh. Anil Kumar Singh
R/o A-457, Sector-46, Noidfa UP
30. Jai Parvesh
Aged about 32 years
S/o Sh. Rajender Singh
R/o N-44, Nanak PIDV,
Najafgarh, Delhi-110043.
31. Ravi Kumar
Aged about 31 years
S/o Sh. Satbir Singh,
R/o 1837, Sector 23,
Sonipat, Haryana 131001.
8 OA No.3705/2019
32. Peshal Kashyap
Aged about 31 years
S/o Sh. Dinesh Kashyap,
R/o 31, First Floor, Block 4,
Eros Garden, Charmwood Village, Delhi.
33. Sandeep Kumar
Aged about 31 years
S/o Rajender Kumar,
R/o RZ 649, SF, Najafgarh,
Palam Colony, Delhi.
34. Dishant Goyal,
Aged about 29 years
S/o Sh. Pawan Goyal,
R/o A-6/2, Street No.5,
East Krishna Nagar, Delhi.
35. Vijay Kumar Yadav,
Aged about 28 years
S/o Sh. Natthu Singh Yadav,
R/o C-503, Uninaw Height,
Rajender Nagar Extension Delhi.
36. Anupam Kumar,
Aged about 26 years,
S/o Sh. Sugreev Kumar,
R/o E-327/13, Hari Nagar Extension,
Jaitpur Road, Badarpur, Delhi.
37. Shiv Kumar Yadav
Aged about 34 years
S/o House No.97, Kamarudin Nagar,
Nangloi, Delhi-110041.
38. Krishan Kumar
Aged about 29 years
S/o Sh. Jaya Lal
R/o P-45, Sector 14, Gurugram-122001.
9 OA No.3705/2019
39. Abhishek Sharma
Aged about 26 years
S/o Sh. S.K. Sharma,
R/o House No.327, Gali No.16,
Durgapuri Extension,
Shahadra Delhi-10093.
40. Anurag Yadav
Aged about 28 years,
S/o Sh. D.S. Yadav,
R/o 63, Nagla Moti, Furzabad UP.
41. Aman Kumar
Aged about 32 years
S/o Sh. Alok Kumar,
R/o 2129/5, Peth Paras Road,
Rohtak 123011.
42. Ramswarup Prasad
Aged about 31 years
S/o Sh. Paras Nath Singh,
R/o J-56A, SF, Gali No.2,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
43. Sumit Chahal,
Aged about 27 years
S/o Sh. Joginder Chahal,
R/o House No.304, Sector 7,
Panipat Haryana.
44. Sachin,
Aged about 28 years
S/o Sh. Satyanarain,
R/o 256/6 Patel Nagar,
Railway Road, Jhind.
... Respondents
(through Advocates Shri Y.P. Singh for official
respondents, i.e. R-1 to R-4, Shri M.K. Bhardwaj for R-5
to R-27 and Shri Amit Anand for R-28 to 44 for private
respondents)
10 OA No.3705/2019
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J) :
The present Original Application has been filed by the applicants, 16 in number, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, against inaction of the respondent nos.1 to 4 in responding to the representations made by them for redrawing of the seniority list for the post of Inspectors of GST of Delhi Zone in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide Judgment dated 19.11.2019 in Civil Appeal No.8833-38 of 2019, titled K. Meghachandra Singh and others vs. Ningam Siro and others, reported in (2020) 5 SCC 689 and the applicants are also aggrieved by the action of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 in proceedings towards promotions to the post of Superintendent in exclusion of the applicants on the basis of draft seniority list and without finalizing the seniority list of the post of Inspector under the respondent nos.1 to
3.
2. The applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:-
"8. RELIEF(S) SOUGHT:
In the light of the submissions made above, this Hon'ble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to:11 OA No.3705/2019
(a) Pass an order directing the respondents to draw the seniority list in accordance with the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Meghachandra (Supra) by not assigning antedating seniority to the direct recruits who join in the year 2016-17 on the basis of CGLE 2014 and by including the applicants herein in the seniority list especially in view of the fact that the applicants meet the eligibility criteria of two years of service and further direct the respondents to consider the applicants for promotion for the post of Superintendent;
(b) pass an order directing the respondents to dispose of the pending representations of the applicants wherein they have prayed for drawing of the seniority list after taking the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court into account.
(c) pass any other order or orders that may deem fit in the circumstances of the case."
9. INTERIM RELIEF/ORDER: IF PRAYED FOR:
Pending disposal of the Original Application the Respondents be restrained from not finalizing the draft seniority list on the basis of the Judgment of N. R. Parmar and not to hold DPC for the post of superintendent, till the seniority list in terms of the Judgment of K. Meghachandra is drawn."
3. Pursuant to notice from this Tribunal and interim order dated 24.12.2019 whereby the respondent nos.1 to 4 12 OA No.3705/2019 were directed not to hold DPCs before the short reply is submitted and the matter in respect of interim relief is considered by the Tribunal, counter reply was filed on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 4 and private respondents herein have approached for their impleadment as respondents in the array of parties and also for vacation of interim order dated 24.12.2019. Their applications for impleadment were allowed by this Tribunal, however, the interim order was not vacated. The private respondents herein in the present OA have also filed their respective replies through Shri M.K. Bhardwaj and Shri Amit Anand, learned advocates. The applicants have filed their rejoinders. Additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of official respondents and leaned counsels for the parties have also filed their written arguments.
4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties at length and we have also considered their submissions and pleadings on records carefully.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants are working as Inspectors of GST under the respondent nos.1 to 3 pursuant to their promotion as such since 1.4.2016. The applicants were 13 OA No.3705/2019 promoted to the posts of Inspector vide Establishment Order No.61/2016 (Annexure A/1) in accordance with the relevant recruitment rules dated 29.11.2002 (Annexure A/2). The applicants are aggrieved as the direct recruit Inspectors who qualified CGLE 2014 have been considered and included in the draft and tentative seniority list of Inspector of GST Delhi Zone and the applicants have been excluded from the said list although the relevant DPC was held for the posts of Inspector on 15.3.2016 and direct recruit Inspectors of CGLE 2014 Batch qualified the physical test much after the applicants joined as Inspector on 1.4.2016. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that the said tentative seniority list was prepared as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. N.R. Parmar, reported in (2012)13 SCC 340. However, before the tentative seniority list could be finalized by the respondent nos.1 to 4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has overruled its judgment in N.R. Parmar (supra) in the case of K. Meghachandra Singh (supra). As per the DOP&T OM dated 7.2.1986, a year of availability is the vacancy year in which a candidate of particular batch of selected direct recruitment or an officer of a particular batch of promotes joins the post/service. In 14 OA No.3705/2019 the present case, the applicants have joined the service as Inspectors on 1.4.2016 whereas incumbent of direct recruit category joined much later. It is further contended on behalf of the applicants that as per the Recruitment Rules (Annexure A/4) for the post of Superintendent of Central Excise, Group B gazetted, promotion is the only mode for filling up the said post. However, in the present case, the respondents without finalizing the tentative seniority list have started sending the direct recruit Inspectors (CGLE-2014), who have been placed in the said tentative seniority list of 2018 for training. It is also contended that such act of the respondents is in violation of the law on service jurisprudence to the effect that seniority is reckoned on the basis of the final seniority and once the objections have been invited and received from the persons aggrieved by the said tentative seniority list, it is in the fitness of the things that the said representations/objections are considered and disposed of before finalizing the draft/tentative seniority list. It is also contended that the applicant No.16 was promoted to the post of Inspector vide establishment order no.98/2014 vide dated 15.5.2014 and he has been included in the tentative seniority list at Serial No.979. However, in view of 15 OA No.3705/2019 the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, direct recruits cannot be given seniority from retrospective date when they were not borne in the cadre and the applicant No.16 deserves to be interpolated through rota quota at a much higher position and not at Serial No.979. The representation of this applicant at Annexure A/5 is also stated to be lying pending with the respondent nos.1 to 4.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the official respondents has vehemently opposed the OA. It is contended on behalf of the official respondents that while issuing the draft seniority list for the post of Inspector on 27.2.2018 (Annexure A/6), the representation(s) against the same were invited within 15 days. All the representations received within the prescribed time limit were disposed of in accordance with the extant rules and, therefore, the seniority list for the post of Inspector was prepared on the basis of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N.R. Parmar (supra), OMs dated 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986 of the DoP&T on 15.3.2018. This is not under challenge in the present OA and, therefore, the OA deserves to be dismissed.
16 OA No.3705/2019
7. Leaned counsel for the official respondents has not disputed that the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in N.R. Parmar (supra) has been overruled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra). However, it has been contended by him that the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) is of 19.11.2019 and in view of the law laid down therein in the said Judgment of the Apex Court, the seniority list which has been finalized on 15.3.2018 deserves to be acted upon. However, the representations received from the applicants on 9.12.2019 are not examined by the competent authorities.
8. The private respondent nos.5 to 27 in their counter reply have stated that they have joined the post of Inspector, CGST & Customs (erstwhile Inspector, Central Excise & Customs) during the period from 26.7.2012 to 4.4.2014 and the official respondents have finalized and notified the relevant seniority list for the post of Inspector, CGST & Customs in December 2017 and the said seniority list attained finality for want of any challenge thereto. It is also asserted that pursuant to draft seniority list dated 27.2.2018 issued by the official respondents, 17 OA No.3705/2019 some of these respondents as well as a few other aggrieved persons submitted their representations within the stipulated time and the said seniority list was finalised on 15.3.2018 and was also acted upon from time to time for further promotion to the post of Superintendent, CGST and Customs. In support of their such contention, they have referred to a communication received under RTI forwarding therewith a final seniority list of March 2018 (Annexure R-1) and establishment order no.178/2018 (Annexure R-2) whereby certain Inspectors were promoted, in situ, to the grade of Superintendent Group 'B' Gazetted of Central Excise, GST & Customs. These respondents have further made submissions to justify their being sent for training with an assertion that they have completed the requisite training successfully. Shri Bhardwaj, learned counsel for private respondent nos.5 to 27, has submitted that aggrieved by the interim order dated 24.12.2019, these respondents have approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by way of Writ Petition (Civil) No.13998/2019, title Madhur Kant Tulsian and others vs. Union of India and others, and the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to issue notice and had also observed that seniority of the answering respondents as 18 OA No.3705/2019 Superintendent would be subject to the outcome of the Writ Petition. It is stated by these respondents that applicants have not disclosed the fact that the draft seniority list dated 27.2.2018 has attained finality on 15.3.2018, resulting into the interim order dated 24.12.2019. It is further added by these respondents that these respondents were direct recruits of CGLE-2011- 2012 and all of them have become part and parcel of cadre much prior of joining of the original applicants and they would be entitled to have their place above these applicants. Moreover, the seniority of these respondents had attained finality in December 2017 for want of any challenge. Moreso in view of the fact that even in the present OA, the applicants have not challenged the said seniority list and have restricted their challenge to draft seniority list issued on 27.2.2018. Accordingly, these respondents have prayed for vacation of the interim order and dismissal of the present OA.
9. In the counter reply filed on behalf of private respondent nos.28 to 44, it is contended that while issuing the draft seniority list of the post of Inspector, Central Excise, GST & Customs, the objections were invited within 19 OA No.3705/2019 15 days and in OA No.1035/2018, titled Gaurav Sinha and others vs. Union of India and others, decided on 8.3.2018, the following directions were issued by this Tribunal:-
"5. In view of the above admitted facts on record, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this OA at the admission stage itself with a direction to the respondents not to hold the DPC without finalizing the seniority list after considering the objections/representations that may be filed by the concerned persons within the prescribed time."
and in compliance of the aforesaid directions of this Tribunal, the representations received by the concerned persons were disposed of as per the extant rules and, therefore, the seniority list finalized and issued on 15.3.2018 following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in N.R. Parmar (supra) is just and proper and moreover, the same is not under challenge in the present OA. Therefore, the present OA deserves to be dismissed. It is contended by these respondents also that the said final seniority list dated 15.3.2018 was uploaded on the respondents' department website and the same was available. These respondents have also filed a copy of the counter reply filed by the official respondents (Annexure 20 OA No.3705/2019 R-1) in January 2021 in OA 3292/2018, titled Prakash Singh and others vs. Union of India and others. Para 4.25 of the said counter reply in OA 3292/2018 reads as under:-
"Para 4.25 That in reply, it is submitted that the contention of the applicant is wrong, hence denied. After issuing the Draft Seniority List of Inspector on 27.02.2018, representation against the same were invited within 15 days. All representations received within the prescribed time limit were disposed in accordance with the extant rules and thereafter final seniority list of Inspectors was published on 15.03.2018."
10. In the rejoinder, it is contended by the applicants that even if the draft seniority list dated 27.2.2018 was finalised on 15.3.2018, however, the same was done on the file only and was never published or circulated as required under the law. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that in view of the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bachhittar Singh vs. The State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1963 SC 395, that a file note, which do not culminate in issuance of an order to all those concerned, do not create any right in favour of any person(s) and unless the seniority list is prepared, finalized and the same is published after finalization, the 21 OA No.3705/2019 same does not become a permanent and final document. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that in order to verify that the said seniority list dated 15.3.2018 has been published on the website of the respondents, they have searched the same and found that all their establishment orders, circular(s)/notice(s) of different years viz. 2017, 2018, 2019 were available on the website of the respondents, however, the said seniority list dated 15.3.2018 was not available. The Relevant print outs of the website of the respondents are stated to have been annexed with the rejoinder. It is also asserted that if the seniority list dated 15.3.2018 was circulated and published by the official respondents, the same was not required to be obtained through an RTI application and this very fact reflects that the same was never published or circulated and merely kept in the file and, therefore, the order given effect to on the basis of such unpublished seniority list is also invalid in the eyes of law. It is further added in the rejoinder that even after the promotion of certain batch/batches on the basis of unpublished seniority list, the applicants' claim cannot be ignored inasmuch as there inter se seniority with their counterpart(s) was not made known to them. Thus, the said seniority list dated 22 OA No.3705/2019 15.3.2018 is not final. It is further contended that this Tribunal vide its Order/Judgment dated 13.10.2020 in OA 2955/2019, titled Amit Kumar and others vs. Union of India and others, had quashed the seniority list dated 15.3.2018 to the extent it has placed the Inspectors who are appointed and joined the Delhi Zone subsequent to the date of transfer of the applicants.
11. During the course of final hearing, the official respondents were required to file a copy of the final seniority list dated 15.3.2018 stated to have been the final seniority list along with other relevant documents to show that the same was uploaded on the website of the department. In view of such order, an affidavit dated 18.10.2021 has been filed by the official respondents enclosing therewith a copy of a communication dated 15.3.2018 which reads as under:-
"C.No.II-3(78)CCA/Rev. DPC, Insp. To Suptd./2017 dated 15.03.2018 To The Principal Commissioner/Commissioner of Central Taxes, Delhi North/East/West/South/ Audit-I/Audit-I/Appeal-I/IIDelhi/GSTGurugram/ Faridabad/Rohtak Panchkula/Audit Gurugram/ Audit Panchkula/Appeal Gurugram/Appeal Panchkula/Customs (General)/ Customs, IGI Airport/Customs Air Cargo Export/Customs Air 23 OA No.3705/2019 Cargo Import/Customs ICD Export/ICD Import/Customs ICD (PPG)/Customs (Prev). The DirectorGeneral, GST/Systems/NACIN/ HRRD/Vigilance/Audit/DGRI/Safeguard/DGEP/ DGGSTI/DGPM/DGTS/DGARM.
The Commissioner-Dte of Data Management/Dte of Logistics/DLA/Settlement Commission /AAR/DPPR/ GST Council/GST Policy Wing/CBEC-Customs-V/Coordination/PAC/CX Wing/ST Division/Anti-smuggling/Legal/JS(RA) /AD-V/Customs Policy Wing/Judicial.
Sir/Madam, Sub: Publication of Final Revised Consolidated Seniority List of Inspectors (Upto 31.03.2014) and final Seniority List of Inspectors from 2006-07 upto 31.03.2015 in accordance with the provisions of DoPT OM dated 07.02.1986 and Dt. 03.07.1986, as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India - reg.
Reference is invited to this office letter C. No.II- 3(70)CCA/NRP/2016/14419 to 14474 dated 15.12.2017, vide which Final Revised Consolidated Seniority List of Inspectors (Upto 31.03.14) was published.
2. Further reference is invited to this office letter C. No. II-3(3)CCA/Seniority/Inspr./2018/Pt./3375 to 3431 dated 27.02.2018, vide which draft seniority of Inspectors from 2006-07 upto 31.03.2015 (including Sl. No.1 to 12 of the list, who were also figuring in the earlier finalized seniority list dated 15.12.2017, but were still working as Inspector) was published and representations regarding any correction in particulars/inclusion of names were invited within 15 days.
3. The representation received within prescribed time limit were examined and disposed of as per extant provisions. Accordingly, the Final Revised Consolidated Seniority List of Inspectors as per Provision of OM dated 07.02.86/03.07.86 (UPTO 31.03.14) and the draft Seniority List from 2006-07 upto 31.03.2015 have been finalized and uploaded on the official website:
Centralexciseddelhi.nic.in.
Encl.:24 OA No.3705/2019
1. Final Revised Consolidated Seniority List of Inspectors as per Provision of OM dated 07.02.86/03.07.86 (UPTO 31.03.14).
2. Final Seniority List from 2006-07 upto 31.03.2015.
Yours faithfully,
-Sd-
Assistant Commissioner (CCA) Delhi Zone, Delhi"
They have also enclosed copies of various notes in support of their claim that the draft seniority list of Inspectors of Central Excise, GST & Customs as on 15.1.2018 was approved by the competent authority on 29.1.2018 and order was also passed to upload the same. Another additional affidavit is also filed by the official respondents on 10.4.2021 and in para 2 thereof, it is asserted that the applicants have attempted to mislead by showing the wrong information that Establishment Orders/circulars/ notices of the different years viz. 2017, 2018 and 2019 were available on the website of the Department and the alleged final seniority list dated 15.3.2018 was not available. It is asserted by the official respondents that the applicants are showing the details pertaining to link http://mofapp.nic.in/dzhrm/query1/default.aspx, whereas the draft seniority list dated 27.2.2018 and final seniority list dated 15.03.2018 were published on the erstwhile 25 OA No.3705/2019 Departmental website i.e. centralexcisedelhi.nic.in. It is also asserted by the official respondents in the said affidavit that earlier website, i.e., centralexcisedelhi.nic.in was superseded by a new website in the name of GST and the erstwhile website centralexcisedelhi.nic.in was discontinued.
12. In the oral as well as written submissions, it is contended by Shri Y.P. Singh, learned counsel for the official respondents that during the pendency of the OA, Department of Personnel and Training had issued OM dated 13.8.2021 and the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue has issued an order 18.8.2021 regarding implementation of K. Meghachandra Singh (supra).
13. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that interim order passed by this Tribunal vide order dated 24.12.2019 in the instant case was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by way of Writ Petition (Civil) No.13998/2019. However, Hon'ble High Court has declined to pass any order in favour of the petitioners. Subsequently, the impleadment of the private respondents was allowed by the Tribunal, however, the aforesaid interim order was not vacated by this Tribunal. 26 OA No.3705/2019 It has further been emphasized on behalf of the applicants that the seniority list in respect of the cadre in question is not finalized unless the same is published after finalization and only after publication, the same becomes a permanent and final document. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the applicants has referred to a few judgments also and precisely it has been contended that since the seniority list dated 15.3.2018 has not been published, the same cannot be treated as a final seniority list and accordingly, the same cannot be acted upon.
14. Shri Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for private respondent nos.5 to 27 has reiterated that these private respondents had joined the post of Inspector, CGST & Customs (erstwhile Inspector, Central Excise & Customs) during the period 26.7.2012 to 4.4.2014 on the basis of their seniority CGLE-2011 and 2012 and as the applicants have admittedly joined on 1.4.2016 and, therefore, they rightly deserve to be seniors to the applicants keeping in view the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N.R. Parmar (supra) and/or that in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra). Learned counsel for these private 27 OA No.3705/2019 respondents has argued that the said seniority list dated 15.3.2018 has been acted upon by giving promotions to the eligible persons and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M. Pachiappan and others vs. S. Markandam and others, reported in (2009) 16 SCC 616, that the challenge to the seniority list on the basis of which promotions have been made cannot be accepted unless there is challenge to the promotions. It is further argued by Shri Bhardwaj that no relief can be granted beyond prayer and the parties are bound by their pleadings and prayer clause cannot be construed or dubbed as technicality, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranbir Singh vs. Executive Engineer, reported in (2011) 15 SCC 453. It is reiterated by Shri Bhardwaj that in absence of challenge to the seniority list dated 15.3.2018 in the instant OA, the applicants are not entitled to any relief against the seniority list dated 15.3.2018, under reference.
15. In the written synopsis filed on behalf of private respondent nos.28 to 44, it is contended that the seniority list dated 15.3.2018 was finalized by the official respondents in view of the directions of this Tribunal in 28 OA No.3705/2019 OA 3705/2019 and thereafter two DPCs have already taken placed on the basis of the said final seniority list and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) has provided protection in para 40 of the said judgement in respect of inter-se- seniority already based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in N.R. Parmar (supra) and the DoP&T has issued OM dated 13.8.2021 to provide clarifications in respect of implementation of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) and in view of the pleadings on record and law on the subject, the instant OA deserves to be dismissed.
16. In their respective oral/written submissions, learned counsels for the parties have reiterated their contentions made in their respective pleadings and precisely noted hereinabove.
17. From the aforesaid, it is evident that the grievance of the applicants is basically against inaction of the respondents in responding to their representations made for redrawing of the seniority list for the post of Inspectors of GST in Delhi Zone keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Meghachandra Singh 29 OA No.3705/2019 (supra). The prayer of the applicants in the present OA is also for a direction to the official respondents to redraw the seniority list in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) and for a further direction to the official respondents to dispose of their pending representations.
18. In the reply, the official respondents have claimed issuance of a final seniority list for the said post after considering the representations/objections received pursuant to an opportunity granted to the concerned person(s) vide their tentative seniority list/communication dated 27.2.2018. However, publication/issuance of the final seniority list has been disputed by the applicants in their rejoinder and also during arguments. On behalf of the official respondents not only the issuance of the final seniority list dated 15.3.2018 has been reiterated but they have also quoted the relevant website on which the said seniority list was uploaded after approval of the competent authority. The private respondent nos.28 to 44 have also brought on record a copy of a counter reply filed by the official respondents in response to notice issued by this Tribunal in OA 1035/2018 to bring on record that even 30 OA No.3705/2019 prior to filing of the present OA, it has been the stand of the official respondents that the said tentative seniority list was finalized by them after considering all the representations and final seniority list of Inspectors was published on 15.3.2018. Moreover, it is no more in dispute that many of the private respondents were in the process of consideration for further promotion. Moreover, it is stated by the official respondents in the counter reply that the aforesaid representations of the applicants are under their examination. It is also not in dispute that most of the applicants have been promoted to the post of Inspector, GST w.e.f. 1.4.2016 in view of the recommendations of the DPC held on 15.3.2016 whereas many of the private respondents belonged to the selection made on the basis of recruitment examination, i.e., CGLE-
2011-12 and to stall the promotions till final disposal of the representations of the applicants would neither be in the interest of administration nor of public at large rather the same may adversely affect the promotional avenues of the concerned person(s).
19. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the present OA can be disposed of with a 31 OA No.3705/2019 direction to the respondent nos.1 to 3 to consider the applicants' aforesaid pending representations keeping in view the relevant rules, instructions and the law on the subject and to pass an appropriate speaking order as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six weeks of receipt of a copy of this order. We order accordingly.
20. It is further ordered that any further promotion(s) to the posts of Superintendent based on the said seniority list dated 15.3.2018 shall be subject to the final decision of the respondent nos.1 to 3 on the applicants' aforesaid pending representations.
21. The OA stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending MA, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
22. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
(R.N. Singh) (A.K. Bishnoi) Member (J) Member (A) /ravi/