Lakshmi Swaminathan, Vice Chairman (J) - (1.) THIS case has been remitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 25.7.2001, setting aside the earlier order passed by the Tribunal dated 5.12.1994 for reconsideration and redisposal of the O.A. on merits.
(2.) The applicants in the present O.A. have impugned the seniority list issued by the respondents dated 20.8.1986 which is the seniority list of Grade-I and Grade-II officers of the Indian Economic Service (IES) as on 1.8.1986. The applicants state that they had made representations against this seniority list to which they received no reply. By Notification dated 16.3.1988, officers of IES were promoted to Non-Functional Selection Grade (NFSG) which, according to the applicants, was based on the impugned seniority list of Grade-I officers issued on 20.8.1986. According to the applicants, the wrong fixation of their seniority in the impugned seniority list had greatly prejudiced their service interests and denied them promotion to higher grades in comparison with direct recruits. The main issue raised in the O.A. relates to fixation of inter se seniority of promotees and direct recruits in Grade-I and II of IES. The applicants are promotee officers who have all retired from service after filing the O.A. Shri Gyan Prakash, applicant No. 1 who has presented the case of the applicants, has submitted that in the circumstances of the case, if the applicants succeed in the O.A. regarding revision of the seniority list in question, they should be considered for higher promotion posts and they would be satisfied to get notional fixation of pay and consequential revision of pensionary benefits on the promoted posts. Shri Gyan Prakash, applicant No. 1, has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Narender Chadha v. Union of India and Ors., 1986 SCC (L&S) 226=1986(1) SLJ 287 (SC). He also relies on the observations of the Supreme Court in A. Janardhana v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1983 SC 769=1983(1) SLJ 564 (SC) and other cases given in the list placed on record. The observations are that "When the promotee was promoted and was rendering service, the direct recruit may be a school or college going boy. He emerges from the educational institution, appears at a competitive examination and starts challenging everything that had happened during the period when he has had nothing to do with service". His main grievance is that the impugned Annexure A-1 seniority list dated 20.8.1986 has not taken into account the principles laid down in Narender Chadha's case (supra). According to him, as per the impugned seniority list of Grade-II officers, a direct recruit officer appointed on 31.7.1981 i.e., Shri I.V. Ranga Rao is shown at Serial No. 25 senior to applicant No. 7, Shri Gopal Bihari, who was appointed on promotion on 10.6.1974 and is shown at Serial No. 27. Applicant No. 1 is shown in this list at Serial No. 32 and he was promoted w.e.f. 1.5.1978. Similarly, he has also shown other examples to illustrate the point that officers who have been appointed as Grade-11 officers 5 to 6 years earlier than the direct recruit officers have been shown junior to them. The affected direct recruit officers have been impleaded as private respondents. The applicant has submitted that the same position exists in respect of Grade-I officers, for example, Respondents 19, 23 and 18 who arc direct recruit officer in Grade-I in 1983 have been placed in seniority list at Serial Nos. 23, 24 and 25 and senior to applicants 1, 4, 5 and 7, who were all promoted in 1982 but placed at serial Nos. 40 to 42 and 44, respectively. In the circumstances, the applicants have prayed that the seniority list of Grade-II and Grade-I officers of IES as on 1.8.1986 and circulated on 20.8.1986 by the impugned order may be revised by giving the promolees seniority in Grade-II from the date of selection one the direct recruits based on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Narender Chadha's case (supra). Accordingly, after revision of the impugned seniority list, the applicants should be granted promotion to NFSG and other higher posts on the basis of the revised seniority list of Grade-II officers. Shri Gyan Prakash has submitted that since all the applicants as well as the private respondents have since retired from service, such revision of seniority list as well as consequential promotions would result in their getting notional fixation of pay in the higher posts and revision of pensionary benefits. He has also fairly submitted that since the private respondents have also retired from the higher posts on being promoted on the basis of the impugned seniority list of 1986, they are not seeking that the respondents should deduct the monetary benefits from the private respondents in any way but only that they may be given the consequential monetary benefits which they had been deprived earlier.
(3.) THE applicants have contended that the direct recruitment for the aforesaid posts had not been done on regular basis by the official respondents which has led to the breakdown of the quota rota rule of 3:1 and accordingly, the inter se seniority should have been based on continuous officiation in the grade. THE relevant rules applicable to the facts in this case are the Indian Economic Service Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Rule 8 of the Rules provides for future Maintenance of the Service. Under Sub-clause (c), Clauses (i) and (ii) of this Rule, for Grade-II of IES, 75% of the vacancies of the grade were to be filled by promotion from amongst Grade-III officers who have completed not less than six years of service on a regular basis and 25% of the vacancies were to be filled by direct recruitment through the Union Public Service Commission. THE applicants submit that direct recruit officers had exceeded the 25% quota who are placed in the impugned seniority list. Similarly, according to them, the same position prevailed with regard to Grade-I officers which has led to the breakdown of the quota rota rule as the 3:1 formula has not been followed. THE details have been mentioned in Paragraph 6.8 of the O.A. In the circumstances, their contention is that having regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Narender Chadha's case (supra), the inter-se seniority list of direct recruits and promotees have to be determined from the date of their appointments as laid down in Rule 9-C of the Rules, that is in the case of direct recruits from the dates when they were recommended by the UPSC for appointment and in the case of promotee officers from the dates they were included in the select list for promotion to that grade. This, according to them, is the only correct interpretation of the Rules so that the anomolies mentioned above of an officer, for example, promoted in 1974 being placed below an officer recruited seven years later in 1981 will not arise and, hence, the impugned seniority list has to be revised according to the dates of their appointments.;