CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MADRAS BENCH
OAs 310/01237/2016, 310/01454/2015, 310/01536/2016 & MAs 781/2016, 889/2016, 878/2016, 880/2016, 890/2016, 897/2016, 923/2016
Dated
10/01/2017
The
Operative Part of the order is as under:-
14. Heard both. Perused the materials placed on
record. It is not
in dispute that
the applicants were recruited as Direct Recruit (DR) Inspectors and joined the department during the
year
1985
through an examination conducted by
the SSC
for the
vacancy position pertaining to the year 1983. It is also not
in dispute that
the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of N.R. Parmar had held that the
Direct Recruits Seniority
would commence from
the date of initiation of recruitment process when the vacancies were notified by the
user department to
the recruitment agency. Now the grievance of the applicants is that the respondent department had
not revised the
seniority of the
applicants based on
the N. R. Parmar's case. For which the official respondents would submit that as per the DOPT OM dt. 04.03.2014 the principles of determination of
inter
se seniority of Direct Recruit and Promotees would be effective from 27.11.2012, the date
of Supreme Court Judgment in N.R. Parmar case.
15. On perusal it is seen that
the
para 5(h) of the DoPT OM dt. 04.03.2014 clarifies the principles of determination of inter se seniority of Direct Recruit
and Promotees is only prospective from the date
of Supreme Court Judgment. But challenging the provision of
the DOPT
OM dt. 04.03.2014, OA was filed
before the
CAT, Mumbai Bench in
OA 741
& 692/2013
wherein this Tribunal vide order dt. 06.05.2015 had held that the DOPT provision of prospective application of Apex Court Judgment in N R Parmar case has to be ignored and
the judicial principle enshrined under
the said judgment ought to be
applied retrospectively. It is clear that the order of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal had
been accepted and conceded by
the 1st and 2nd respondents before the High Court, Mumbai
in WP No. 6784/2013 vide its order dt. 22.09.2014 and had also implemented it in Mumbai
and Goa Customs Commissionerates. Now the grievance of the applicants is that if their cases are not considered for adhoc promotion to the post of
Assistant Commissioner on par with the similarly placed persons as per Judgment of
Mumbai Bench
of this Tribunal they would not only be deprived of their right of promotion but also their juniors will become senior to them.
16. Under
such circumstances, we are of the
view that the applicants are similarly situated persons as that of the applicants in OA 741 and
692
of 2013 of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal
which was confirmed by Mumbai
High Court. The mere fact that they
were recruited before 1986 could not deprive them of the applicability
of the 1986 OM of the DoPT. Had this been the correct law, the applicants' senioirty would have been
fixed in terms of the 1959 OM which might have been even more
beneficial to them. Having
applied the 1986 OM for
fixing their seniority at the
relevant time, the respondents cannot
now argue
that
the 1986 OM as interpreted by the Hon'ble
Apex Court would
have no applicability to the applicants' case. Further, the respondents cannot be oblivious of the fact that such selective application of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court might make
a 1985 direct recruit junior to a 1986 direct recruit which
cannot be
sustained by any logic
or reason. We are, therefore of the view that the relief sought by
the applicants has to be granted. Accordingly the seniority list published by the respondent department without
applying
the N.R. Parmar ratio is quashed and the respondent department is directed to draft
a seniority list following the N.R. Parmar case and also the order in OA 741 and 692/2013 of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal
which was confirmed by Mumbai
High Court, by giving seniority to the
applicants from the
date
of initiation of
recruitment process.
Also the respondents are directed to consider the names of
the applicants strictly in accordance with such revised seniority in the ensuing DPC. Accordingly
all the OAs are allowed. MAs 878/2016,
880/2016,
890/2016, 897/2016, 923/2016
filed for vacating the stay are also closed. No costs.
(R. RAMANUJAM)
(A. ARUMUGHASWAMY) Member (A) 10.01.2017 Member (J)
AS
Good decision...all politicians and torch bearer of other factions especially CESA and CENGO and Aiceia shud understand it..
ReplyDeleteAt one of time all of them wrote in favor of the said judgment now they r giving political statement and blogs...people r misinterpreting the DOPTS instructions. ...they shud understand rota quota...rotation of quota....in all seniority list this principle is missing...people were placed on the basis of date of joining..Govt as well as other parties have lost in all judial forums. ...the present judgment. .mumbai HC judgment. ..Cochin HC judgment in the matter of Mr. CHENCHURAMAN P.O OF 1996 EXAM and several others r like bitter pill 4 many...but will definately serve the purpose....Cesa instead of pursuing the matter with their own administration representing itself as torch bearer of undermining forces...learn some lesson from Delhi zone first zone to implement it in right earnest. ..Kolkota and Shillong zones which have already implemented it without hue and cry...cochin zone which gave seniority to said Mr. CHENCHURAMAN. ...lead by eg....so much of preaching...now act in right direction...
Why cant everybody understand that Parmar judgement cant be retrospective. If it is accepted with retrospective effect then it has to be implemented since 1986 in each and every central government department, PSUs and also in state governments who generally follow DOPT instructions on establishment matters. All cases of seniority right from the Gr. D class to Group A will have to be reopened and seniority re-fixed which will open a PANDORA BOX and difficult to handle. Every DPC for promotion held since 1986 has to be reviewed as per revised seniority. Who will do it and how such impractical task. Why Central Excise or Income Tax inspector think that this judgement is only for them, it is equally applicable to all cadres where ever direct and promotee quota exist. It will also create huge public expenditure in the form of arrears. So instead of crying PARMAR... PARMAR... PARMAR.. we should focus on other burning issue which should be taken care off immediately other wise there will neither PARMAR NOR else in our hand.
ReplyDeleteU r right Mr. Joshi...that it shud be all cadre. ..judicial decisions have already cleared the isuue of retro or prospective. ...don't bother about pandora boxes...just stic to ur cause....
ReplyDeleteU r right Mr. Joshi...that it shud be all cadre. ..judicial decisions have already cleared the isuue of retro or prospective. ...don't bother about pandora boxes...just stic to ur cause....
ReplyDeleteMr Joshi seems to be frustrating. Om of 1986 and Parmar order is same. Forgot parmar, seniority by 86 Om can not be denied.
ReplyDeleteRidicules comment by Mr. Gopal. There is no frustration to me. I entered the department as an LDC and now working as Inspector. I am lucky to get three promotions and I think that the direct recruit Inspectors are the most unlucky ones who joined this department and are retiring with just one promotion. But what I pointed out is that the Parmar Judgement is not only for two cadres i.e. Inspector of Income tax or Central Excise. If it is implemented then it has to be implemented in all central government departments, PSUs, State government and in all ranks where direct and promotion quota exist. I give my best wishes to Mr. Gopay Ray, who seems to be frustrating with just one promotion so far, to get at least promoted to the grade of AC at the earliest possible.
ReplyDelete