9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 607 - HC - Indian LawsSetting aside the modified seniority list dated 07.10.2022 - direction to Union of India (UoI) to finalize and re-draw the seniority list of Inspectors in the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) and Custom Department in terms of the directions issued by the Apex Court in K. MEGHACHANDRA SINGH AND ORS. VERSUS NINGAM SIRO AND ORS. 2019 (11) TMI 1733 - SUPREME COURT - HELD THAT - Even though, the petitioners are correct in urging that they had joined service well before the date when the decision in K. Meghachandra was rendered, the fact remains that there is a categoric finding by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in YASH RATTAN ORS VERSUS UNION OF INDIAN AND ORS. 2021 (4) TMI 1320 - DELHI HIGH COURT that the seniority list dated 15.03.2018, which included the names of the petitioners, had not been finalized when the decision in K. Meghachandra was rendered. In the light of the aforesaid categoric findings recorded in Yash Rattan that the seniority of Inspectors had not been finalized when the decision in K. Meghachandra was rendered and was therefore required to be redrawn in accordance with the principles laid therein, the learned Tribunal was justified in directing the UoI to re- draw the seniority list as per K. Meghachandra. In fact, even the petitioners plea is accepted that in Yash Rattan, this Court was not dealing with the inter se seniority of promotees and direct recruits, nothing much turns on the same. Even though the Court was not specifically dealing with the inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees, the fact remains that the seniority list which was under consideration by the Court reflected the names of direct recruits, including the petitioners herein. Once, this Court had opined in Yash Rattan that the seniority list dated 15.03.2018 had not attained finality and was therefore required to be re-drawn as per K. Meghachandra, it is not open for the petitioners to urge that their seniority has to be fixed as per the earlier decision in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS NR. PARMAR 2012 (12) TMI 872 - SUPREME COURT . Furthermore, the decision in Yash Rattan, whereunder the seniority list was directed to be re-drawn as as per K. Meghachandra has already attained finality, having been unsuccessfully assailed before the Apex Court, both by the petitioners as also the UoI. In these circumstances, there are no infirmity with the directions issued by the learned Tribunal for re-drawing the seniority list in accordance with the principles laid down in K. Meghachandra. The writ petitions along with the pending applications are, accordingly, dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Exemptions and disposal of applications. 2. Placement of lengthy synopsis and lists of dates on record. 3. Challenge to the Tribunal's order regarding the seniority list of Inspectors in the CGST and Custom Department. 4. Applicability of the principles laid down in K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro. 5. Finalization of the seniority list and its implications on promotions. 6. The impact of previous court decisions on the current case. 7. The binding nature of the decision in Yash Rattan v. Union of India. 8. The relevance of DoPT's Office Memorandums. 9. The role of the larger bench decision in Hariharan & Ors. v. Harsh Vardhan Singh Rao & Ors. Detailed Analysis: 1. Exemptions and Disposal of Applications: The court allowed the exemptions requested in CM APPL. 31954/2024, CM APPL. 31955/2024, CM APPL. 32233/2024, CM APPL. 32234/2024, CM APPL. 32322/2024, CM APPL. 32323/2024, CM APPL. 32744/2024, and CM APPL. 32745/2024, subject to all just exceptions. These applications were subsequently disposed of. 2. Placement of Lengthy Synopsis and Lists of Dates on Record: The applications (CM APPL. 32217/2024, CM APPL. 32235/2024, CM APPL. 32324/2024, CM APPL. 32746/2024) filed by the petitioners to place lengthy synopsis and lists of dates on record were allowed, and the documents were taken on record. These applications were also disposed of. 3. Challenge to the Tribunal's Order Regarding the Seniority List: The petitions under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India challenged the order dated 02.05.2024 by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal), which set aside the modified seniority list dated 07.10.2022 and directed the Union of India (UoI) to finalize and re-draw the seniority list of Inspectors in the CGST and Custom Department as per the principles laid down in K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro. 4. Applicability of the Principles Laid Down in K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro: The Tribunal directed the seniority list to be re-drawn based on the principles in K. Meghachandra Singh, which overruled the earlier decision in N.R. Parmar. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the fact that the seniority list dated 15.03.2018 had not attained finality when K. Meghachandra Singh was decided. 5. Finalization of the Seniority List and Its Implications on Promotions: The Tribunal ordered that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for considering Inspectors for further promotions would be held only after revising the seniority list as per the directions in K. Meghachandra Singh. The revised seniority list would remain subject to the decision in Hariharan & Ors. v. Harsh Vardhan Singh Rao & Ors. 6. The Impact of Previous Court Decisions on the Current Case: The court noted that the seniority list dated 15.03.2018 had not been finalized when K. Meghachandra Singh was rendered. This finding was crucial in dismissing the petitioners' argument that their seniority had crystallized before the K. Meghachandra decision. 7. The Binding Nature of the Decision in Yash Rattan v. Union of India: The court emphasized that the decision in Yash Rattan, which directed the seniority list to be re-drawn as per K. Meghachandra Singh, had attained finality. This decision was unsuccessfully challenged before the Supreme Court, making it binding on the petitioners. 8. The Relevance of DoPT's Office Memorandums: The court acknowledged the DoPT's OMs dated 13.08.2021 and 18.08.2021, which were to be considered while re-drawing the seniority list. The petitioners argued that their seniority should be governed by the OM dated 04.03.2014, which encapsulates the principles from N.R. Parmar. 9. The Role of the Larger Bench Decision in Hariharan & Ors. v. Harsh Vardhan Singh Rao & Ors.: The Tribunal clarified that the revised seniority list would be subject to the decision in Hariharan & Ors., where the principles in K. Meghachandra Singh were referred to a larger bench. Conclusion: The court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's order directing the re-drawing of the seniority list as per K. Meghachandra Singh. The writ petitions and pending applications were dismissed, and the revised seniority list would remain subject to the decision in Hariharan & Ors.
|
