Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The Original Application has been filed by the present applicants under Section 19 of the C.A.T. Act., 1985 seeking the following relief:

(i) To declare the action of respondents in not fixing the seniority of applicants in the grade of Meteorologist-A (erstwhile Assistant Meteorologist Grade-II) by applying catch-up rule' and direct the respondents to fix the seniority of applicants as Meteorologist-A (erstwhile Assistant Meteorologist Grade-11) vis-à-vis their juniors by applying „catch-

up rule‟.

(ii) To quash and set aside the impugned order dated 01.05.2023 (A-1) as well as seniority list dated 10.08.2023 (A-1A) and direct the respondents to redraw the same by applying 'catch-up rule' and grant all consequential benefits to the applicants.

(iii) To direct the respondents to grant seniority to the applicants in the grade or Meteorologist-A (erstwhile Assistant Meteorologist Grade-II) by applying catch-up rule' as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of B.K.Pavitra & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 09.02.2017 as well as Maheshinder Singh Dhindsa Vs. UOI, OA No. 060/00254/2017 and consider the claim of applicants for further promotion as per the new seniority list with all consequential benefits.

3. On admission of the OA, notices were issued to the respondents and they have filed their counter affidavit to which the applicant has also filed rejoinder to the same.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant has tendered the following grounds in support of relief sought by the applicant during the course of the arguments:

Item No. 46 (C-4) 4.1. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that as per the Recruitment Rules for the post of Meteorologist -A, the applicants being senior were entitled to be considered for promotion prior to their juniors irrespective of their category, however, the respondents promoted their juniors on 27.03.2017 to the post of Meteorologist -A by giving benefit of reservation to them, which is in violation of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, whereas the respondents promoted the applicants as Meteorologist-A on 30.09.2022.
4.2. Learned counsel for the applicants relying upon various judicial pronouncements of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court such as in the case of M. Nagraj & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

2006 (8) SCC 212 decided on 19.10.2006, Jarnail Singh and ors. vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta and Others, 2018 (4) SCT 445 decided on 26.09.2018, S. Panneer Selvam and others versus Govt. of Tamil Nadu and others, (2015) 1 SCC 292 decided on 27.08.2015, etc. as also of the Hon‟ble High Court and this Tribunal, submits that the respondents have acted in an unconstitutional and arbitrary manner by not fixing the seniority of the applicants as Item No. 46 (C-4) Meteorologist -A by applying „catch-up-rule‟. Further, he argues that the respondents have not carried out the requisite exercise by collecting the quantifiable data in terms of the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in M. Nagraj (supra) as well as Jarnail Singh (supra) and, therefore, the respondents were required to follow the „catch-up-rule‟ while fixing seniority of the applicants vis-à-vis their juniors who were promoted as Meteorologist -A by giving them the benefit of reservation at a prior point of time.