2017 (5) TMI 828 - HC - Indian Laws

Restoration of due position in seniority list - Disturbance in seniority list - Held that - In view of the admitted position that the private respondent has already retired from service and has got all his retiral dues for which the private respondent has no grievance, for all practical purposes, nothing remains to be decided in this case - petition has become infructuous and is dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Seniority disturbance, consequential promotion, empanelment for Commissioner Grade-II, legality of Central Administrative Tribunal's order, benefits not given, infructuous petition

The judgment addressed the issue of seniority disturbance and consequential promotion of a private respondent who had joined the Indian Revenue Service. The Central Administrative Tribunal had directed the restoration of the respondent to his due position in the seniority list, with consequential benefits. The Tribunal found the respondent fit for empanelment for Commissioner Grade-II in 1989-90 or 1990-91 and directed benefits and consideration for promotion based on this finding.

The legality of the Central Administrative Tribunal's order was challenged by the petitioner, Union of India, through the Chief Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax. The petitioner argued that the order was illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of the law. However, the respondent's counsel contended that the respondent had received his due promotion, superannuated, and obtained all retiral benefits, rendering the application infructuous as there could be no recovery from his retiral benefits.

The petitioner's counsel highlighted that the benefits of the impugned order had not been granted to the respondent, indicating non-compliance. The Court acknowledged that the respondent had retired from service, received all retiral dues, and had no grievances. Consequently, the Court deemed the writ petition infructuous as there was no practical relief left to be decided in the case.

During the arguments, the petitioner's counsel raised concerns about the potential disturbance of the entire seniority list due to the impugned order. However, the Court clarified that the Tribunal's order only pertained to the seniority of the private respondent, who had already retired. Therefore, there was no basis for disturbing the seniority list at that stage. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, given the circumstances surrounding the respondent's retirement and receipt of all due benefits.