Seniority Case viz Merit List in CAT (Central Administrative Tribunal) Bench

Last Updated on July 13, 2020 by Satish Mishra

The present case is a case digest on topic of Seniority where law is settled the seniority has to be reckoned from the date of promotion or appointment to a service and retrospective seniority from the date of occurrence of vacancy is not permissible unless the Recruitment Rules specifically provide for it. The court ordered then his position in the gradation list will be changed accordingly and other service benefits including notional promotion to higher post from the date of promotion of his junior will be granted to him within two months after disposal of the applicant’s representation. The point of consideration here is that if a person with higher merit. Joins later than another person with lower merit, then the former will still be senior to later in view of his/her higher merit. Hence, the contention of the applicant to be senior to another candidate in the selection/merit list joining later, is not acceptable.

Also Read- Regularization Case in Punjab Haryana High Court

The seniority cannot be decided on the basis of the date of joining in view of the DOPT OM dated 3.7.1986 in which it is stipulated that for direct recruits, the relative seniority will be decided as per the merit list of the UPSC based on which they are appointed and for the promotes, the relative seniority is determined by the merit list prepared by the DPC

Also Read- Reservation in Promotion Cat Tribunal Chandigarh

Let’s have the judgment here.

Shyam Prasad Bhutia vs. UOI & Ors.

The plaintiff joined as Assistant Geologist Grade-I under the defendants on 31.7.2001 and was eligible for promotion to the post of Geologist after 3 years of service as Assistant Geologist Grade-I as per the Recruitment Rules. It was averred that though the plaintiff grew to be eligible for promoting on 9.1.2005, but he was promoted as Geologist per the recommendation of the DPC on 12.6.2008 against the vacancy for the yr 2005-06. The plaintiff, being aggrieved with the extend in promotion, had filed the OA No. 466/2009 before Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal claiming to antedate his promotion as Geologist. The stated OA was allowed. The defendants have challenged the order of the Tribunal via filing a writ petition before Hon’ble Calcutta High Court [W.P.(C) No. 7 of 2011] which was sub judice. When the count stood thus, the defendants issued the provisional gradation listing of Geologists on 22.6.2012, which used to be objected with the aid of the plaintiff via submitting a illustration dated 4.7.2012 (Annexure-A/4 of the OA).

Also Read- Voluntary Retirement Case of Bank Challenged in High Court

But the authority posted the last gradation listing on 30.11.2012 as on 1.1.2011 and 1.1.2012 (Annexure-A/5) ignoring the representation of the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted some other representation dated 4.12.2012 (Annexure-A/6) for modifying his seniority function in the final gradation list (in brief FGL). It is averred in the OA that barring thinking about the representation dated 4.12.2012, the authorities allowed advertising to the plaintiff’s juniors (private defendants) to the post of Senior Geologists on the basis of the faulty FGL, which was once disputed by the plaintiff. He submitted another representation on 6.9.2013 (Annexure-A/10) which has been rejected via the legit defendants vide order dated 27.3.2014 (Annexure-A/12) which was impugned in this OA. It was averred that the UPSC 2005 batch of Geologists have been placed above the plaintiff in the gradation list which is no longer tenable. The plaintiff was entitled for seniority and promoting to the put up of Geologists from the yr 2005-06 when the emptiness was available.

Also Read- Reservation in Promotions in Government Jobs

Counter filed by the defendants states that promotion of the plaintiff should now not be finished before than 2008 as the vacant posts had lapsed and it took some time to revive the posts. The seniority of the plaintiff and the personal defendants chosen in UPSC 2005 examination was fixed at 1:1 ratio as per the DOPT guidelines. It was in addition averred that the plaintiff’s seniority was in no way placed above the officers who are the private defendants. It was cited that the seniority 3 OA 787/2014 position of the plaintiff as on 1.1.2006 was 50 in the feeder grade which was much below the seniority of other promoted officers who are the private defendants in this OA. Counter filed by the defendants states that promoting of the plaintiff ought to no longer be accomplished before than 2008 as the vacant posts had lapsed and it took some time to revive the posts. The seniority of the plaintiff and the private defendants chosen in UPSC 2005 examination was fixed at 1:1 ratio as per the DOPT guidelines. It was similarly averred that the plaintiff’s seniority was in no way positioned above the officers who are the non-public defendants. It was cited that the seniority 3 OA 787/2014 role of the plaintiff as on 1.1.2006 was 50 in the feeder grade which was much below the seniority of other promoted officers who are the private defendants in this OA.

Also Read- Seniority Granted from the Back Date by Cat Chandigarh

Also Read- Types of Service Matters in Cat Tribunal Chandigarh

In the instances as mentioned above, they dispose of this OA with liberty to the plaintiff to post a exact illustration to the defendant No. 2, explaining the small print of his juniors, who had been assigned greater seniority in the last gradation list dated 30.11.2012 (Annexure-A/5), and the reasons and documents, if any, primarily based on which the plaintiff was claiming seniority vis-a-vis those juniors and enclosing documents in aid of his claim within ten days from the date of receipt of a reproduction of this order. On receipt of such a representation, the defendant No. 2 will think about such illustration with reference to the reasons/grounds/documents referred by way of the plaintiff in the representation and dispose of such illustration in accordance with law, by passing a speaking and reasoned order copy of which was to be despatched to the plaintiff within two months from the date of receipt of the illustration from the plaintiff as above.

Also Read- Seniority of Direct Recruits Versus Promotees in Income Tax Department

While considering such representation, the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in W.P. (C) No. 7/2011 filed by way of the legit defendants challenging the Tribunal’s order on the plaintiff’s declare for antedating the date of promotion, was additionally to be taken into account by way of the defendant No. 2 If after such consideration the plaintiff’s claim for higher seniority was discovered to be genuine, then his function in the gradation listing will be changed as a consequence and different carrier benefits which include notional advertising to greater put up from the date of merchandising of his junior will be granted to him within two months after disposal of the plaintiff’s representation.

Also Read- CAT Appeal in High Court Chandigarh Challenging Seniority

For case specific advice related to fixation of Seniority, please connect with Top/best/Expert Service Matter Expert Lawyer Advocates of (Central Administrative Tribunal) CAT Tribunal Bench Chandigarh.

This post is written by Jashanpreet.