Shri Vimal Chandra Pandey vs Union Of India Through on 28 January, 2015
The learned counsel for the applicants has been at pains to emphasize that the expression in the order of seniority of that service as used in the Regulation, 1955 relates to the current seniority in the service of the cadre and not the seniority either in the entry grade or selection grade. An officer must fulfill both the requirements of eligibility criteria, i.e., minimum qualifying service and seniority in the service/cadre. The applicants in OA No.3393/2013 have submitted that the impugned list is erroneous only to the extent that some officers in JAG-II in DANICS have been shown senior to the officers who are in higher pay grade/pay band in JAG-I. Therefore, promotion or induction of officers on the basis of impugned list would be in contravention of Regulation 5(2) of the Regulations, 1955. The applicants have further relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Raj Kumar Jha versus of India [2013(200) DLT 127]. In their rejoinder application, they have referred to the reply submitted before the Chennai Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 135/2008 wherein the respondent no.1 had taken the stand that drawing of salary for eligibility shall be the basis of current seniority. The respondents, the applicants submit, cannot approbate and reprobate simultaneously, and have assailed the MHA letter dated 21.05.2013 addressed to the UPSC for the purpose of consideration of SCS officers for induction into IAS i.e. selection grade, and not as JAG-I/JAG-II as absolutely baseless and against the Regulations. In the rejoinder application, the applicants have further submitted that one SKS Yadav, one of the affected parties, has already been impleaded in the OA in a representative capacity. The applicants have also relied upon the recommendations of the 6th CPC holding that the grade pay shall be the determining factor for seniority.