1999 (9) TMI 970 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of inter se seniority of employees of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) recruited from different sources and absorbed on the same day.
2. Interpretation of Rule 5(2) and its proviso of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Group B and C Miscellaneous Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1989.
3. Validity of the guidelines issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding seniority.
4. Applicability of the Official Memorandum dated 3rd July, 1986 for determining seniority.
5. Consideration of length of service in the parent department for seniority purposes.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of inter se seniority of employees of CAT:
The dispute revolves around the determination of seniority among employees recruited from different sources but absorbed on the same day in CAT. One group of employees claims seniority from the date of their deputation to CAT, while another group argues for counting their service period in equivalent posts held in their parent departments before deputation and absorption in CAT.

2. Interpretation of Rule 5(2) and its proviso:
The appellant contends that Rule 5(2) and its proviso govern the method for determining seniority. Rule 5(2) states that the seniority of officers shall be determined with reference to the dates of their regular appointment to the posts concerned. The proviso adds that the seniority of officers recruited from the same source and in the posts held by them in the parent department shall not be disturbed. The Tribunal erroneously interpreted "source" to mean different government bodies (Central/State Govt./High Court/Subordinate Courts) rather than the method of recruitment (promotion, transfer on deputation/transfer).

3. Validity of the guidelines issued by CAT:
The Central Administrative Tribunal found that the guidelines issued by it were not legal and thus not sustainable. The Tribunal itself doubted the correctness of the impugned guidelines and withdrew them. No party is aggrieved by such findings of the Tribunal.

4. Applicability of the Official Memorandum dated 3rd July, 1986:
The Tribunal referred to the Official Memorandum dated 3rd July, 1986, which prescribes that the seniority of a person initially taken on deputation and absorbed later should be counted from the date of absorption or the date from which they were appointed on a regular basis to the same or equivalent grade in their parent department, whichever is later. However, the Supreme Court held that the Rules hold the field, and the Official Memorandum must give way in determining the inter se seniority of persons recruited to the service on the same date.

5. Consideration of length of service in the parent department for seniority purposes:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the length of service in the parent department should be considered for determining seniority. It held that the seniority of officers recruited from the same source should be determined by giving them the benefit of the equivalent post held by them in their parent departments. This interpretation aligns with the general principles of service jurisprudence and avoids creating anomalies.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order. It directed the official respondents to finalize the seniority list of all employees recruited under Rule 5(1), strictly applying the provisions of Rule 5(2) and its proviso, considering the length of service in equivalent posts in their parent departments. All orders passed consequent to the Tribunal's impugned order were deemed non-est and not to be given effect. Fresh seniority lists were to be finalized within three months, and parties were permitted to hold their current posts until then. No costs were awarded.