Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
S Thiruvalluvar vs M/O Finance on 17 September, 2025
1 OA 59/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00059/2019
Dated, the 17th day of September, Two Thousand Twenty Five
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR.M.SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER (J)
&
HON'BLE MR.SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (A)
S. Thiruvalluvar
S/o N Sammandhan
Assistant in Debts Recovery Tribunal III-Chennai
5th th Floor, Dewa Towers,
Anna Salai, Chennai- 600 002 ... Applicant
By Advocate .. M/s.P.Ulaganathan
Vs
1.Union of India rep.by
The Secretary,
Department of Financial Services
Ministry of Finance,Jeevan Deep Building,
Parliament Street,New Delhi-110 001
2.The Registrar
Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal,
4th Floor, Indian Bank Zonal Office Building
55 Ethiraj Salai,Chennai-600 008
3.The Registrar,
Debts Recovery Tribunal III- Chennai
5th Floor, Dewa Towers,
2 OA 59/2019
Anna Salai,Chennai-600 002
4.Shri Ranjit R, Assistant
Debts Recovery Tribunal I, Ernakulam
5th Floor, KSHB Building,
Panampilly Nagar,Kochi-682036
5.Smt Molly Regi George, Assistant
Debts Recovery Tribunal I,
Ernakulam 5th Floor, KSHB Building,
Panampilly Nagar, Kochi-682036
6.Shri S Ramalingam, Assistant
On deputation with
National Company Law Tribunal,
3rd Floor, Corporate Building,
Beach Road, Chennai-600001
7.Shri V Sampath Kumar, Assistant,
4, Hayes Road, Shanthala Nagar,
Richmond Town, Bengaluru- 560025
8.Shri M Sasidharan, Assistant,
On deputation with
National Company Law Tribunal,
3rd Floor, Corporate Building,
Beach Road, Chennai-600001
9.Shri R Suresh Kumar, Assistant
Debts Recovery Tribunal II- Chennai
4th Floor, Dewa Towers,
Anna Salai, Chennai- 600 002
10.Shri S.V. Srikanth, Assistant
Debts Recovery Tribunal II- Chennai
3 OA 59/2019
4th Floor, Dewa Towers,
Anna Salai, Chennai- 600 002
11.Shri Venu P, Assistant
Debts Recovery Tribunal I,
Ernakulam 5th Floor,KSHB Building,
Panampilly Nagar, Kochi-682036
12.Shri N Visvendran, Assistant
Debts Recovery Tribunal II- Chennai
4th Floor, Dewa Towers,
Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002
13.Shri Jose Pottakkal, Assistant
Ex-Services Centre, Jawans Bhawan,
2nd & 3rd Floor, 27, Travellers Bungalow Road
Coimbatore 641 018 ... Respondents
By Advocate ... Mr.Su.Srinivasan (R1-R3)
Mr.S.Parthasarathy (R6 & R8)
4 OA 59/2019
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr.Sangam Narain Srivastava, Member(A)) The applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"a) To Call for the records on the file of Respondent No 1 in connection with the notification dated 08.06.2018 notifying Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and Debts Recovery Tribunals at Ernakulam, Chennai, Madurai, Coimbatore and Bangalore Recruitment Rules, 2018 and quash the same;
b) To call for the records on the file of Respondent No.2, in connection with the letter No. A-15/01/2018/DRAT dated 27th December, 2018 regarding the Seniority List for the posts of Stenographer Grade 1 and Assistant in DRAT/DRTs under the jurisdiction of DRAT, Chennai and quash the same insofar as it is pertaining to the seniority list of Assistants;
c) To call for the records on the file of Respondent No. 2 in connection with the Office Order No. A-15/03/2018/DRAT dated 08.01.2019 regarding the offer of appointment, by promotion, Officer, in DRT III, Chennai, to R6 and quash the same; as Section
d) To direct the respondents to fill up the vacancy in the grade of Section Officer in DRT III, Chennai, as per the provisions of the pre- amended Recruitment Rules:
e) To direct the respondents to protect the interests of the applicant who has been absorbed based on the Recruitment Rules, available in other DRTs and fix his inter-se-seniority based on the service rendered by him in the same post prior to absorption;
f) To direct the respondents not to give the benefit of seniority to the erstwhile Recovery Inspectors, who had been given the benefit of merger and change of Nomenclature as Assistant only from 08.06.2018, when the office order to that effect had been issued, and 5 OA 59/2019
g) or pass any other order or direction or grant any other relief, in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice."
2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are as follows:
2.1 The applicant, who had been working as an UDC in AFHQ Clerical Service, was appointed on deputation as Assistant in Debts Recovery Tribunal III, Chennai, w.e.f. 30.10.2006. All the DRTs established under the DRT Act, were independent units with separate Recruitment Rules with the Presiding Officer as its Head of the Department.
However, the Department of Financial Services were contemplating the amalgamation of all DRTs with DRAT region-wise, bringing them under the administrative control of DRAT. In view of this proposal, it was decided that for the posts in Group A and Group B, in DRT-III, Chennai that was established as one of the last in the State of Tamil Nadu, no Recruitment Rules were notified and it was decided by the Ministry of Finance that the existing employees could be absorbed under the Recruitment Rules available in other DRTs. Accordingly, the applicant was absorbed as an Assistant in DRT III- Chennai w.e.f. 25.4.2011, based on the Recruitment Rules for the post of Assistant that was 6 OA 59/2019 available in DRT I, Chennai, which was the parent Tribunal of all the DRTS and from that date, his lien in his parent department was also terminated.
2.2 In meanwhile, in deference to the demand of incumbents holding the isolated post of Recovery Inspector, in DRTs, by an executive order dated 08.06.2018, the respondents merged the post of Recovery Inspector with that of Assistant and changed its nomenclature also. No formal amendment to that effect was carried out in the existing Recruitment Rules.
2.3 On the very same date i.e. 08.06.2018, the first respondent issued the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and Debts Recovery Tribunals at Ernakulam, Chennai, Madurai, Coimbatore and Bangalore Recruitment Rules, 2018 that superseded all the existing Recruitment Rules in respect of various DRTs. Based on the new Recruitment Rules, the second respondent issued a common seniority list of Assistant by a letter dated 27.12.2018 and issued a letter dated 08.01.2019 to 6th respondent, who had been working as Recovery Inspector, under the pre-amended Recruitment Rules, offering him 7 OA 59/2019 promotion as Section Officer, for which the feeder grade is Assistant. The applicant is aggrieved by all the three impugned orders which are consequential in nature. He made two representations dated 31.12.2018 and 08.1.2019 but to no avail.
2.4 The applicant has raised the following grounds in the OA:
a) The impugned Recruitment Rules are purportedly notified under Section 36 of the DRT Act. Section 36 ibid empowers the Central Government, to make rules to carry out of the provisions of the Act. In other words, the Central Government is empowered under Section 36 of the DRT Act to notify the rules only to carry out the provisions of the Act and not to take away the provisions of the Act. The impugned Recruitment Rules nullifying the provisions of Section 7 and 12 cannot be notified under Section 36 of the Act without making any amendment to Section 7 and 12 of the Act.
b) The post of Recovery Inspector has has been merged with the post of Assistant and got a change of nomenclature as Assistant by way of executive order dated 08.06.2018. The post of Recovery Inspector is not Included in the impugned Recruitment Rules dated 8 OA 59/2019 08.06.2018 without making any specific mention about its merger and change of Nomenclature. Even assuming that the said merger and change of nomenclature is valid, it can take effect only from the date of order i.e., 08.06.2018. Therefore, the service rendered by the incumbents including 6th respondent, who were erstwhile Recovery Inspectors, in their respective DRT, cannot be counted from a date prior to 08.06.2018. They have to be placed en-bloc at a position below the regularly appointed Assistant prior to the amendment of the Recruitment Rules.
c) It is a trite law that vacancies that arose prior to the amendment of the Recruitment Rules have to be filled up based on the pre- amended Recruitment Rules in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Y.V. Rangaiah And Ors. vs J. Sreenivasa Rao And Ors. rendered on 24 March, reported in (1983) 3 SCC 284). The vacancies in the grade Section officer in various DRTs that are now sought to be filled up by promotion, based on the impugned seniority list of Assistants dated 27.12.2018 arose prior to the notification of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and Debts Recovery 9 OA 59/2019 Tribunals at Ernakulam, Chennai, Madurai, Coimbatore and Bangalore Recruitment Rules, 2018 dated 08.06.2018.
d) The impugned order/Recruitment Rules 2018 are in violation of the ratio of the order passed by CAT Hyderabad Bench dated 01.01.2019 in O.A. No. 748 to 750 of 2918 (Annexure A12) in as much it took away the rights of the existing employees in DRT who were absorbed as per the then Recruitment Rules exclusively for the said DRT.
Being aggrieved the applicant has filed the present OA seeking the afore said relief.
3. After notice, the official respondents have entered appearance through their counsel and filed their reply statement refuting all the averments made in the OA except those which are admitted on facts. 3.1 The respondents submitted that the cadre of Recovery Inspector, which hitherto had no promotional avenue, was merged with the cadre of Assistant as both the posts carried the same scale of pay, thereby opening up the promotional avenue of Section Officer for the Recovery Inspectors. Under the new notified Recruitment Rules of 2018 based 10 OA 59/2019 on the staff details furnished by all DRTs in its Jurisdiction, including DRT-III, Chennal, the DRAT, Chennai had issued a draft common seniority list for the post of Assistant in DRAT/DRTs under the Jurisdiction of DRAT Chennal for verification of staff details from service book and for the signature of the incumbents who appeared in the list. The respondent Tribunal had received objections against the Applicant who was shown at St. No.2 in the draft common senionty list for the post of Assistant that basically he was working as UDC in his parent office and was appointed as Assistant in DRT-III, Chennal on deputation basis w.e.f. 30.10.2006 and subsequently he got absorption as Assistant on 25.04.2011 only. The above information was not available with DRAT, Chennal at the time of circulating the draft seniority list. As per the DoP&T's O.M.No.20020/7/80-Estt. (D) dated 29.05.1986 OM.No. 20011/1/2000-Estt (D) dated 27.03.2011, a person who is initially taken and on deputation and absorbed later, his seniority in the grade in which he/she is absorbed will normally be counted from the date of absorption. If he/she has, however, been holding already (on the date of absorption) the same or equivalent 11 OA 59/2019 grade on regular basis in his/her parent department, such regular service in the grade shall also be taken into account in fixing his seniority, subject to the condition that he/she will be given seniority from
-The date he/she has been holding the post on deputation,
-The date from which he/she has been appointed on a regular basis to the same or equivalent grade in his parent department, whichever is earlier.
3.2 The respondents submitted that in the present case, Applicant was appointed as Lower Division Clerk by direct recruitment through Staff Selection Commission in Armed Forces HQ Clerical Service on 25.04.1988 and promoted as Upper Division Clerk on 29.01.1996. At the time of his selection for Assistant on deputation to DRT-III. Chennai, the Applicant was working as UDC in his parent office on permanent basis The applicant got absorption as Assistant in DRT-III, Chennai, on 25.04.2011 and hence his seniority which is fixed in the post of Assistant w.e.f. 25.04.2011 is absolutely correct as per the DoP&T guidelines vide Ο Μ.Νο. 20020/7/80-Estt. (D) dated 12 OA 59/2019 29.05.1986 and O.M.No.20011/1/2000-Estt (D) dated 27.03.2001. 3.4 It is further submitted that as per the New Rules, 2018, the eligibility criterion for promotion to the post of Section Officer is 5 years' service as an Assistant in a DRT. As per the New Rules, 2018, the nomenclature for the post of Recovery Inspector has been changed as Assistant. Although as per the New Rules, 2018, the Applicant became eligible for the post of Section Officer on 24.04.2016, the name of Respondent No.6 was placed at Sl. No. 3 in the Common Seniority List, since he was absorbed as Recovery Inspector on 01.07.2007 and treated as "Assistant", as per DoP&T guidelines. Subsequently, he has been promoted as Section Officer and posted at DRT-III, Chennai as per norms. Mere eligibility does not confer a right on a person to get promoted. Various other facts also matter, including the position in Seniority List of all those eligible for promotion. Therefore, Respondent No. 6 has been rightly promoted as Section Officer in adherence to the DOPT Guidelines and the New Rules, 2018.
3.5 Further the respondents have also filed their written submissions 13 OA 59/2019 wherein it is submitted that it is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that Courts and Tribunals should not interfere with policy decisions relating to cadre restructuring or merger unless there is manifest arbitrariness or discrimination. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that the applicant was subsequently promoted to the post of Section Officer (SO) on 01.04.2022 and has since superannuated on 30.04.2022. At this belated stage, after a lapse of nearly seven years from the date of the applicant's promotion, the settled seniority and promotion position ought not to be disturbed. It is a well-established principle that notional promotions cannot be granted post superannuation unless specifically permitted by rules or in extraordinary circumstances.
In support of their above contentions, the respondents have relied upon the following decisions:
(i) Govt. of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Brahmanandam, (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 256
(ii) State of Mysore v. P. Narasinga Rao, AIR 1962 SC 1139;
(iii) Union of India & Ors. v. Dinesh Engineering Corporation & Anr. etc., (2001) 8 SCC 491 14 OA 59/2019
(iv) P.U.Joshi & Ors. v. The Accountant General of Ahmedabad, ATJ 2003(2) SC 622
(v) Govt. of West Bengal & Others Vs Dr Amal Satpathi in SLP (C) Diary No. 43488 of 2023 judgment dated 27.11.2024 Hence they prayed for dismissal of the OA.
4. The 6th respondent has also filed his reply statement stating that Rule 7 of the Recruitment Rules of DRT-1, Chennai dated 15.11.2001 contained provision for absorption of the persons holding the posts on transfer/deputation basis in DRT-1, Chennai on the date of commencement (i.e. 15.11.2001). The absorption was admissible only to the persons holding the posts on transfer/deputation in DRT-1, Chennai as on 15.11.2001, as a one time measure, under the said Rules. The applicant has no case that he was accorded any relaxation by the competent authority for being absorbed in DRT-III, Chennai that too with effect from a date prior to 15.11.2001. In view of the same, the absorption of the applicant to the post of Assistant in DRT- III, Chennai in the absence of proper Recruitment Rules / in contravention to the provisions of the rules, itelf is per se illegal and hence cannot be regularized. Hence the applicant's continuation as 15 OA 59/2019 Assistant in DRT-III, Chennai itself is unjustified and, therefore, the applicant has no locus standi to maintain the present OA. 4.1 Even assuming otherwise, he is not eligible for seniority over the Private Respondents in view of the extant instructions and orders governing the field. While working in a lower post of UDC in his parent department the applicant on his selection joined the post of the post of Assistant in DRT-III, Chennai on deputation on 30.10.2006, and was absorbed in DRT-III, Chennai only on 25.04.2011. Prior to his absorption in DRT-III, Chennai, admittedly, the applicant was not working in an equivalent post in his parent department. Therefore, the applicant cannot find fault in fixing his seniority in the Assistant Grade from the date of his absorption in terms of the O.M. No. 20020/7/80- Estt.D dated 29.05.1986 and O.M. No.2011/1/2000-Estt (D) dated 27.03.2001 of Department of Personnel and Training. 4.2 To the contention of the applicant that the service rendered by the erstwhile Recovery Inspectors in their respective DRT cannot be counted from a date prior to 08.06.2018, it is submitted that the general principle is that the seniority should be determined on the 16 OA 59/2019 basis of the length of service in equivalent grades. The decision to merge the post of Recovery Inspector with Assistant was done by Respondent No.1 after duly considering the fact that the posts of Recovery Inspector and Assistant are of equivalent grade, carrying the same pay scale, qualifications and having similar volume of duties 4.3 In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the following decisions in his written submission:
(i) Government of Andhra Pradesh & ors. Vs. K. Brahmanandam & ors [2008 2 SCC (L&S) 256]
(ii) R.N. Nanjundappa Vs. T. Thimmiah [1972 AIR 1767]
(iii) M.P. State Coop Bank Ltd Vs. Nanuram Yadav (2007) 8 SCC 264
(iv) Rupa Rani Rakshit Vs. Jharkhand Gramin Bank [(2010) 1 SCC 345]
(v) S.P. Shivprasad Pipal Vs. Union of India & ors. [1998 SCC L&S 1263]
(vi) Reserve Bank of India Vs. N.C. Paliwal & ors. [(1976) 4 SCC 838]
(vii) P.U. Joshi & ors Vs. Accountant General Ahmedabad & ors ((2003) 2 SCC 632]
(viii) Chuba Jamir & ors Vs. The State of Nagaland & ors ((2009) 15 SCC 169]
(ix) Rupa Rani Rakshit Vs. Jharkhand Gramin Bank [(2010) 1 SCC 345] 17 OA 59/2019
(x) Director, Central Bureau of Investigation & anr. Vs.Shri D.P. Singh [JT 2009 (15) SC 232]
(xi) Kailash Chand & ors. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi & ors. ((1977) 3 SCC 271
(xii) State of U.P. & anr. Vs. SurendraNath Mishra [IT 2001(10) SC 408)
(xiii) Ajit Singh Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1999 SC 3471]
(xiv) Uday Pratap Singh & ors. Vs. State of Bihar & ors. 1995 (1) SLJ 123 (SC): 1994 Suppl. (3) SCC 451
(xv) J.T. Sulaxan Rao & anr. Vs. Union of India & others [2008 (1) SLJICAT] Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (xvi) Smt. Darshan Vs. The Secretary, D/o Women & Child Development & ors OA No. 1220/2013 dated 09.10.2014 of Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench.
5. The applicant has also filed his notes of submission stating that the post of Recovery Inspector was never a feeder grade to the post of Section Officer in DRT/DRAT in the pre-revised Recruitment Rules. The incumbents were discharging a specialized duty under the Recovery Officers in the process of recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions based on the Recovery Certificates issued by the Presiding Officer. On the other hand, the Assistants were reporting to the Assistant Registrar Registrar and their duties were general in nature in 18 OA 59/2019 assisting the Registry in the scrutiny, registration and other related functions of general nature.
5.1 The post of Recovery Officer came to be merged with the post of Assistant under impugned notification dated 08.06.2018. There is no provision in the revised Recruitment Rules dated 08.06.2018 for counting the service rendered by the Recovery Inspectors in the pre- revised RRs, for the purpose of determining inter-se-seniority in the grade of Assistant on their merger with the said post of Assistant. They were born into the cadre of Assistant only w.e.f. 08.06.2018 and became entitled to the service conditions attached to the post of Assistant from the said date.
5.2 In the absence of no specific provisions for counting their service as Recovery Inspector in the grade of Assistant, one has to fall back on the general principles of seniority. It is a trite law that on absorption in a cadre, the seniority of the incumbent will be counted from the date of absorption. However, if he has been holding the analogous post prior to his absorption, the service rendered in the analogous post will be taken into account for determining the inter-se 19 OA 59/2019 seniority. The criteria for determining analogous post is explained by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms in their OM dated 07.03.1984. The said OM dated 07.03.1984 makes it clear that it is not by the pay scale alone that the analogous nature of the post could be determined Among other things, it is the levels of the responsibility and the duties of the two posts should also be comparable. No doubt that both the posts of Recovery Inspector and Assistant carry the same scale of pay and in the same category of classification of post ie. Group B Non-Gazetted. However, the Recovery Inspector were performing a specialized duty under the Recovery Officers in the process of recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions based on the Recovery Certificates issued by the Presiding Officer. On the other hand, the Assistants were reporting to the Assistant Registrar/Registrar and their duties were general in nature in assisting the Registry in the scrutiny, registration and other related functions of general nature.
5.3 In support of his contentions, the applicant has relied upon the following decisions:-
20 OA 59/2019
(i) S I Rooplal Versus Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi dated 14.12.1999, reported in 2000 (1) SCC 644
(ii) Sushma Mutreja Versus Union of India, dated 01.08.2001, reported in 2001 (6) SCC 428
(iii) State of Karnataka & Anr. Vs. H.Ganesh Kamath dated 31.03.1983 reported in 1983 AIR 550
(iv) General Officer, Commanding-in-Chief & Anr. Vs. Dr.Subhash Chandra Yadav & Anr. Dated 25.02.1988 reported in 1988 (7) ATC 296 He also placed reliance on the extracts from RDDBFI Act, 1996 and from Administrative Tribunals Act 1985.
6. Heard M/s.P.Ulaganathan learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Su.Srinivasan, learned Senior Standing counsel for the respondents(R1-R3) and Mr.S.Parthasarathy for R6 & R8, gone through their submissions and perused the material placed on record.
7. The main contentions of the applicant are that (i) the notification dated 08.06.2018 notifying Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and Debts Recovery Tribunals at Ernakulam, Chennai, Madurai, Coimbatore and Bangalore Recruitment Rules, 2018 creating a combined cadre under the general superintendence of the 21 OA 59/2019 Chairperson, DRAT is against the legislative intent of the DRT Act to create individual cadre units. In support of the said contention, the applicant has relied upon the judgments reported in 1983 SCC (d) 401 and 1988 SCC (2) 351. (ii) Regarding equivalence of posts, the applicant's contention is that the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms OM dated 07.03.1984 makes it clear that it is not by the pay scale alone that the analogous nature of the post could be determined. Among other things, it is the levels of the responsibility and the duties of the two posts should also be comparable. Though both the posts of Recovery Inspector and Assistant carry the same scale of pay and in the same category of classification of post ie. Group B Non-Gazetted, the Recovery Inspectors were performing a specialized duty under the Recovery Officers in the process of recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions based on the Recovery Certificates issued by the Presiding Officer, whereas the Assistants were reporting to the Assistant Registrar/Registrar and their duties were general in nature in assisting the Registry in the scrutiny, registration and other related functions of 22 OA 59/2019 general nature. (iii)Regarding seniority on absorption, the applicant has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2000 (1) SCC 644 in S.I. Rooplal vs. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi, wherein the Supreme Court of India held that the prior substantive service of government employees transferred to a new department should be recognized for the purpose of determining seniority, even if the new role is deemed a fresh appointment. (iv) Regarding seniority on merger of cadre, the applicant has relied on the judgment of the Hon. Apex Court reported in 2001 (6) SCC 428 in Sushma Mutreja Vs. Union of India wherein the Hon. Apex Court observed "That apart, on first principle also when a person is brought from one cadre to other and joins a new cadre then he must be treated to be lowest in the cadre on that date.
8. The main contentions of the respondents are that (i) Recruitment Rules cannot be challenged unless there is arbitrariness, discrimination or malafide. (ii) Regarding seniority, it is contended that under merger, the preparation of common seniority list is a logical and necessary administrative step. Further relative seniority may be 23 OA 59/2019 redrawn following merger or restructuring unless any statutory rule prohibits it. To add strength to this argument they relied upon the judgment reported in [1977 (3) SCC 27]. The method of inter-se seniority adjustment is rational, non-arbitrary and followed guidelines laid down by the DOPT Oms. As per the DoP&T's O.M.No.20020/7/80- Estt. (D) dated 29.05.1986 OM.No. 20011/1/2000-Estt (D) dated 27.03.2011, seniority will be allowed only from absorption date in the Assistant cadre and since the applicant is absorbed as Assistant w.e.f 25.04.2011 he has been granted seniority from the said date whereas, R-6 is absorbed as Recovery Inspector (Assistant Cadre) on 01.07.2007 he has been granted seniority w.e.f 01.07.2007. (iii) The applicant was subsequently promoted to the post of Section Officer on 01.04.2022 and he superannuated on 30.04.2022 and hence he cannot be granted any retrospective promotion either notional or otherwise. (iv) Further settled seniority cannot be disturbed after seven years and that too after his superannuation and in support of this argument, they relied on the judgment of Hon. Apex Court in Government of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Dr.Amal Satpathi in SLP © 24 OA 59/2019 Dy.No.43488/2023 wherein it was held that notional promotions cannot be conferred after an employee has retired from service and settled service conditions should not be unsettled long after retirement.
9. We have before us six reliefs requested by the applicant, each of which are answered below after consideration of the facts, arguments and precedents.
10. The first prayer is for quashing the notification dated 08.06.2018 notifying Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and Debts Recovery Tribunals at Ernakulam, Chennai, Madurai, Coimbatore and Bangalore Recruitment Rules, 2018. This prayer cannot be granted as it is a well settled law that policy decisions of the Government should not be interfered with by the Tribunal. The Hon. Apex Court in the case of P.U.Joshi supra has reiterated that policy decisions of the Government should not to be interfered with by the Tribunal nor should the Tribunal direct the State to adopt a particular method or conditions of service, etc., by substituting its own views for that of the State. There is no indefeasible right that the terms and conditions of 25 OA 59/2019 service remain same as at the time of recruitment. Further the argument of the applicant that the Recruitment Rules are against the intent of the Legislature as the Act provided for General Superintendence of the employees with the Presiding Officer/Chairperson is not acceptable. Even though the New RRs provide for a common cadre amongst the DRTs/DRAT, the general superintendence over the employee remains with the Presiding Officer/Chairperson till the employee is with the particular DRT/DRAT. The first prayer is therefore to be answered against the applicant.
11. The fourth prayer of the applicant is to direct the respondents to fill up the vacancy in the grade of Section Officer as per the pre- amended RRs. It is settled principle that the right to consideration for promotion arises on the date of consideration and not the date of vacancy. The employer (in this case the Government) is within its right not to fill the vacancy when it arises. The Government can take the conscious decision to not fill vacancy pending amendment of Rules, unless violative of Article 14. It is now settled law that promotions are governed by the Rules in force at the time of 26 OA 59/2019 consideration and not when the vacancies arose [Ref: State of Himachal Pradesh V. Rajkumar & Others (2023) 3 SCC 773]. In this view of the matter this prayer of the applicant cannot be allowed. The Rules to be considered have to be the Rules at the time of consideration which in this case are the amended RRs that have been upheld by us supra as valid.
12. The 5th prayer of the applicant is to fix his inter-se seniority based on the service rendered by him in the same post prior to absorption in the DRT. The admitted facts are that the applicant was working in a post carrying lower pay scale in the parent department. He came as Assistant on deputation to the DRT on a higher pay scale on 31.10.2006. Subsequently, he was absorbed in the DRT on the higher pay scale on 25.04.2011 as Assistant. The applicant desires that his seniority in Assistant Grade be counted from 31.10.2006 as against from 25.04.2011 allowed to him. The said prayer cannot be granted in view of DoP&T's O.M.No.20020/7/80-Estt. (D) dated 29.05.1986 & OM.No. 20011/1/2000-Estt (D) dated 27.03.2011,wherein it is stated that a person who is initially taken on 27 OA 59/2019 deputation and absorbed later, his seniority in the grade in which he/she is absorbed will normally be counted from the date of absorption. There is but one exception to this. If the person is already holding (on the date of absorption) the same or equivalent grade on regular basis in his/her parent department, such regular service in the grade shall also be taken into account. However, the applicant in the present OA was not holding the grade of Assistant in his parent department and he was only an UDC. He is therefore not entitled to claim the seniority in the post of Assistant from the date of deputation (31.10.2006) but only from the date of absorption (25.04.2011). The prayer is therefore rejected.
13. The second prayer is to call for the records on the file of Respondent No.2, in connection with the letter No. A- 15/01/2018/DRAT dated 27th December, 2018 regarding the Seniority List for the posts of Stenographer Grade 1 and Assistant in DRAT/DRTs under the jurisdiction of DRAT, Chennai and quash the same in so far as it is pertaining to the seniority list of Assistants. The third prayer is to call for the records on the file of Respondent No. 2 in connection 28 OA 59/2019 with the Office Order No. A-15/03/2018/DRAT dated 08.01.2019 regarding the offer of appointment, by promotion, Officer, in DRT III, Chennai, to R6 and quash the same; and the sixth prayer to direct the respondents not to give the benefit of seniority to the erstwhile Recovery Inspectors, who had been given the benefit of merger and change of Nomenclature as Assistant only from 08.06.2018, when the office order to that effect had been issued, pertain to basically the same question, i.e., inter-se seniority of Recovery Inspectors and Assistants on merger of the two posts on restructuring and amendment to RRs.
14. Once there is merger of posts, inter-se seniority has to be fixed. In the present case the same has been fixed applying criterion of date of joining/absorption in the post of Assistant and Recovery Inspectors, as both posts were in the same pay scales prior to merger. The applicant is aggrieved by this and has argued that the Recovery Inspectors can be considered only from the date they were merged/designated as Assistant. It would be pertinent to mention here that due to the R-6 being absorbed on 01.07.2007 as Recovery 29 OA 59/2019 Inspector and the applicant absorbed as Assistant on 25.04.2011, R-6 was placed higher than the applicant in the seniority list prepared for Assistants after merger of posts, on the basis of date of appointment/absorption in their respective posts, as both posts carried same pay scale.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reserve Bank Of India vs N. C. Paliwal & Others on 24 August, 1976, held that the question whether seniority was to be combined across different cadre, is a matter of policy and not subject to challenge based on equality. Also retrospective implementation of the combined seniority scheme was upheld by the Hon. Apex Court. In essence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that administrative decisions related to restructuring of seniority and cadre integration was within the discretion of the Government and such decisions do not automatically infringe upon Constitutional rights unless they are proven to be arbitrary and discriminatory. In the case of K. Madhavan and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. 1987(5) SLR 725, the Hon. Supreme Court has held that if the posts are found comparable, then the rule of 30 OA 59/2019 continuous officiation should have been followed. In the absence of any instruction of seniority on merger in DOPT O.M. of 1986, the seniority should have been fixed from initial appointment, which pertains to respective grades. In the case of Pramod K. Pankaj v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2004 (2) SLJ 34 (SC) : (2004) 3 SCC 723, the Apex Court ruled that in absence of any statutory provision or rules made under proviso to Article 309 of Constitution, seniority is to be reckoned on the basis of continuous officiation for the lower post from the date of appointment. In Kulwant Kr. Soodv. State of H.P. and Anr. (2005) 10 SCC 670, the Hon. Supreme Court held that in absence of rules, seniority of an employee determined by an administrative instruction operative in the field suffers from no infirmity. In the case of Shri Kailash Chand And Ors vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi And Ors on 3 February, 1997, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the legality of the merger having been upheld earlier the logical consequence thereof in application of the well recognised rule for determination of seniority is on the basis of total length of service in the cadre.
31 OA 59/2019
16. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the inter-se seniority on merger of cadres have to be fixed. As long as such inter- se seniority is fixed on logical considerations, the Courts have no role to play in such administrative decision. The Courts can interfere only if the consideration is arbitrary. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in its decisions that in absence of Rules, continuous officiation needs to be adopted. The respondents have adopted the principle of continuous officiation to fix the inter-se seniority of the Recovery Inspectors and Assistants on merger of the two posts as they carried the same pay scales prior to the merger. The said principle of Inter-se Seniority on Merger is therefore required to be upheld as it cannot be said to be arbitrary. The 2nd prayer of the applicant is therefore required to be rejected on the basis of inter-se seniority applied by the respondents is upheld.
17. We are afraid, the decision in the case of Sushma Mutreja relied upon by the applicant does not help his case. The facts are different. In Sushma Mutreja, the settled seniority list of 1989 was redrawn in 1991 without giving any reason. Whereas in the present, 32 OA 59/2019 the inter-se seniority is to be fixed on merger of posts. Further, the inter-se seniority fixed from the date of working in the deputation post was taken from the joining on the post on deputation considering the fact that the persons shown senior to the petitioner were working as LDC when the petitioner joined on deputation as UDC. It was therefore held that the persons not born in the cadre of UDC could not rank above the persons officiating as UDC.
18. However, the petitioner in that case had joined on deputation in 1982 and the OM dated 29.05.1986 on determining of seniority on deputation and subsequent absorption in the new department was not in operation having been issued after the relevant date in Sushma Mutreja and has not been rightly considered by the Hon. Court. In the case before us, the applicant came on deputation on 30.10.2006 and absorbed on 25.04.2011. The OM of 1986 comes into play and the seniority in the new department has to be determined in accordance with the OM and has been correctly done so by the respondents considering date of absorption as the applicant was in a lower cadre in his parent department.
33 OA 59/2019
19. Relying on the decision, it has also been argued that the Recovery Inspectors were born in the cadre of Assistants only on the date of new RRs and therefore cannot be allowed seniority for past services. This cannot be accepted as the Recovery Inspectors were in service from before the RRs and in the same pay scales. They came to be Assistants as the department was restructured and the posts were merged (Recovery Inspectors & Assistants) in which case an inter-se seniority was required to be fixed. We have held that the policy of continuous officiation in the same pay scale (in absence of policy of inter-se seniority in the RRs) was not arbitrary as it was in line with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is not the case that the Recovery Inspectors have come to be Assistants due to deputation/absorption/joining on the date of merger. The Recovery Inspectors were working in the same pay scale and in the same department before the resturcturing when the posts were merged.
20. Since we have upheld the seniority list on merger, and based on this Respondent No.6 was placed higher than the applicant on the basis of continuous officiation, having been absorbed on 01.07.2007 34 OA 59/2019 as against the applicant on 25.04.2011, the promotion to Respondent No.6 to the next level in the hierarchy is upheld. The third prayer of the applicant is rejected.
21. Again, since we have upheld the basis of inter-se seniority between Recovery Inspectors and Assistants on merger, the prayer that the Recovery Inspectors be granted seniority only from the date of merger when they become Assistants cannot be accepted. Further, this would amount to doing away with past services rendered by the cadre of Recovery Inspectors in the same pay scale as the Assistants and would amount to discrimination with them. Therefore, for this reason also this prayer of the applicant is required to be rejected.
22. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the applicant has not made out a case for grant of any relief. The OA, being devoid of merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA) (M.SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER (J)
MT 17.09.2025