9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 960 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking seniority and other benefits - Appointments to the post of Member, ITAT without amending the Rules as per the Cabinet Note - specific case is that though the ACC had directed to amend the 1963 Rules, respondents were making appointments to the post of Member, ITAT - HELD THAT - The applicant ought to have been appointed by operating the wait-list. If that is done, he is entitled to be placed at the end of the list of candidates in the Select List who have joined the service. Once applicant has been appointed pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court, in his position in the waiting list , he shall be entitled for consideration of notional seniority and other consequential benefits. He shall be placed at the end of the last person appointed in the Select List. He shall be entitled for pay only from the date of his assuming charge, which the CAT has rightly granted. Petition dismissed.
Issues involved:
Challenge to orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) regarding appointments to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), consideration of notional seniority and consequential benefits for a wait-listed candidate, interpretation of directions given by the Supreme Court in a previous writ petition. Analysis: 1. Challenge to CAT orders: The Government of India and the Ministry of Law and Justice challenged the orders passed by the CAT in 2019 regarding appointments to the ITAT. The CAT had directed the consideration of cases of wait-listed candidates against vacant posts in the ITAT. This challenge was based on the contention that appointments should only be made after amending recruitment rules as suggested by the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet. 2. Consideration of notional seniority: The applicant, a wait-listed candidate for the post of Accountant Member in the ITAT, filed a writ petition seeking consideration of his notional seniority and consequential benefits from the date of the Select List in 2005. The CAT held that the applicant was eligible for seniority and directed his placement in the select position after the last person appointed in the Selection List. A subsequent application sought clarification on the placement in the list and pay fixation, which was also addressed by the CAT. 3. Interpretation of Supreme Court directions: The applicant's case had previously been decided by the Supreme Court in a writ petition where directions were given for his appointment based on his position in the wait-list. The Apex Court's order emphasized the consideration of the applicant's case within 30 days from the date of the order. The CAT, in the current judgment, interpreted this direction to mean that the applicant should be appointed by operating the wait-list and entitled to notional seniority and other benefits accordingly. 4. Legal arguments: The Additional Solicitor General argued that the applicant, appointed in 2015, was not entitled to seniority and benefits from the date of the Select List approval in 2007. Conversely, the Senior Advocate contended that the applicant, appointed as per the Supreme Court's directions against a clear vacancy, was entitled to seniority. The CAT, after considering the rival contentions and undisputed facts, held that the applicant should be granted notional seniority and placed at the end of the Select List. 5. Final decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the CAT orders, emphasizing that the applicant, appointed based on the Supreme Court's directions, should be entitled to notional seniority and other consequential benefits as per the wait-list position. The Court held that the applicant's entitlement to pay would start from the date of assuming charge, in accordance with the CAT's decision. In conclusion, the judgment clarified the entitlement of the wait-listed candidate to notional seniority and benefits based on the Supreme Court's directions and upheld the CAT's decision in this regard.
|
