- (1.) The dispute sought to be resolved in this appeal is regarding inter se seniority of the employees of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the CAT") who were recruited from time to time as per requirement but came to be absorbed on the same day in terms of S. 5 (1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Group B and C Miscellaneous Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). One set of employees claim their seniority from the date of their deputation to the aforesaid service of the CAT and the other set of employees pray for counting of the period of their service to the equivalent post held by them in their parent department, before their deputation and absorption in the service. On the application filed by respondent No. 1, the CAT accepted the former plea and directed the determination of the seniority of the employees of the CAT from the date of their deputation. Such directions were issued on the basis of the official memoranda and departmental instructions after holding that there did not exist any provision in the Rules for the purposes of determination of the seniority of persons recruited to the service by absorption on the same day. Not satisfied with the findings of the Tribunal, the appellant herein has preferred this appeal.
(2.) Most of the facts in the case are admitted. The controversy revolves upon the interpretation of the Rules. The appellant contends that Rule 5 (2) and its proviso governs the method for determining the seniority but the respondent No. 1 who has appeared in person and learned counsel appearing for the Union of India have contended that the inter se seniority of the employees of the CAT has to be determined on the basis of the official memoranda on the subject which were consolidated by the Government of India on 3/07/1986. Necessary admitted facts are that the Central Administrative Tribunal was constituted on 1-11-1985. The CAT (Staff) (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1985 came into effect on 31/10/1985. Rule 4 of the said Rules prescribed that the condition of service of the officers and other employees of the CAT in matters of pay, allowances, leave, provident fund, age of superannuation, pension and retirement benefits, medical facilities and other conditions of service were to be regulated in accordance with such rules and regulations as were, for the time being, applicable to the officers and employees belonging to Group A, B, C and D, as the case may be, of the corresponding scales of pay stationed at those places. The respondent No. 1 was in the service of Delhi High Court and sent on deputation to the CAT, Principal Bench as Court Officer on 8-1-1986. The terms of his deputation were extended from time to time in public interest. The appellant, who was holding the post of Section Officer in his parent department with effect from 31/12/1982, joined the CAT on deputation as Section Officer on 1-6-1987. The respondent No. 1 is alleged to have become entitled to hold equivalent post in his parent department on 1-8-1986. The Rules for the post of Section Officer/court Officer in CAT were notified, for the first time, on 20/09/1989. All willing and fit deputati-onists including all private parties in this appeal were absorbed in the service on 1-11-1989. The draft seniority list of Section Officers/court Officers/private Secretaries in the CAT was published on 16-11-1990. Final seniority list as on 1-11-1989 is admitted to have been published on 17-5-1994. Respondent No. 1 filed Original Application before the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal on 2-6-1995 seeking the following reliefs : "I) to quash erroneous guidelines (Ann. A-6 Collectively) issued by respondent No. 2 being contrary to statutory rules and D. O. P. T's instructions/o. Ms; Ii) to quash letter No. PB/7/12/94-Estt. I dated 24-1-1995 (Ann. A-12) issued by respondent No. 2; Iii) to direct respondents to take 26-11-85 as the date of regular appointment to the applicant in Delhi High Court as determined by the Chief Justice, Delhi High Court for all purposes; Iv) to quash all the DPC proceedings held in June, 1994 for appointment/selection to the posts of Deputy Registrar in the CAT; V) to direct the respondents to assign the applicant appropriate placement in the final seniority list of SO/co/ps above respondents Nos. 4 to 10 circulated vide letter No. 1/55/90-Estt. Dated 17-5-1994 in accordance with Rule 5 (2) of CAT (Gr. 'b', 'c' Misc. Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1989 read with DOPT consolidated OM dated 3-7-1986; Vi) to direct respondents to hold fresh/review DPCs for appointment to the posts of Deputy Registrar in the Tribunal according to CAT (Gr. 'a' posts) Recruitment Rules 1988 on the basis of appropriate placement of the applicant in the final seniority list of SO/co/ps (s) as on 1-11-1989 as prayed at (v) above; Vii) to direct the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to fill up the 50 Per Cent posts of Deputy Registrar by promotion first as envisaged in the CAT (Gr. 'a') Rules, and further absorption of deputationists be taken up only thereafter in consonance with Recruitment Rules; Viii) Any other or further orders/directions to redress the grievance of the applicant as may be deemed proper in the circumstances of the case with costs. " It was contended on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that by letter dated 9-6-1989 the CAT had called for options for absorption to the post of PAs/senior PA and Section Officer in the CAT in response to which he consented for absorption along with respondents 4 to 10. The respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 10, namely, Shri Govind Ballabh and Shri A. K. Ajmani are stated to have been absorbed with effect from 1-11-1989 vide order dated 14-12-1989 allegedly on the basis of the first DPC's recommendation while respondents 4 to 9 including the appellant, who are stated to have exercised their option for absorption after the first DPC met in November, 1989, were absorbed with effect from 1-11-1989 on the basis of subsequent DPC's recommendation made in February, 1990. He contended that he and respondents 4 to 10 were, in June, 1994, considered for selection to the post of Deputy Registrar and all of them recommended for selection but no orders for their regular appointments were issued till the date he filed the Original Application before the CAT. It was alleged that instead of finalising the tentative seniority list circulated on 16-11-1990, the CAT issued its own guidelines one after another in the years 1991, 1992 and 1993 allowing the deputationists-absorbers the benefit of service rendered by them in their parent department towards seniority allegedly contrary to DOPT's own rules and instructions on the subject which, according to him, adversely affected his rights. The second seniority list is stated to have been circulated on 25/03/1992 and the third on 14/06/1993. The final seniority list, as noted earlier, was circulated on 17/05/1994.
(3.) The Central Administrative Tribunal found that the guidelines issued by it, which were sought to be quashed, were not legal and thus not sustainable. It also noticed that the correctness of the impugned guidelines had been doubted by the CAT itself who withdrew the same vide its letter dated 5-5-1995. No party is aggrieved by such findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal.;