- (1.) SINCE all the three writ petitions has been decided by a common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 11.4.2005, are being disposed of by the present order.
(2.) THE facts of the case are being noticed from D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6628/2005 - Union of India & Another v. Smt. Kavita Yadav & Others. The respondent -Smt. Kavita Yadav was appointed as Income Tax Inspector by direct recruitment vide Office Memorandum dated 19.9.1990 issued by the office of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City -I, Bombay, pursuant to which she joined her services at Bombay on 4.3.1991. Due to change in circumstances, the respondent -officer made a request for inter -charge transfer from Bombay to Jaipur in terms of the inter -charge transfer circular dated 14.5.1990, and after due acceptance of her application, the officer was relieved by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City -V, Bombay, vide letter dated 30.9.1992 for Jaipur office, and in compliance thereof the officer joined at office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur and taken over charge on 4.10.1992. After the respondent joined in Rajasthan charge, seniority list of Inspectors was circulated on 1.9.1994 and thereafter a provisional seniority list was circulated on 1.9.1998 in which her name was shown below the batch of 1993 at No. 127 and the name of the officer she impleaded was at No. 114 Girraj Prasad Sharma and the fact that respondent officer joined prior to Girraj Prasad Sharma in Rajasthan charge on 4.10.1992, her grievance was that he could not be placed senior to her in terms of the scheme of Rules. Revised seniority list of Inspectors as on 1.9.1998 came to be circulated by the Department on 23.9.2002 wherein the name of the present officer was shown lower to Shri Girraj Prasad Sharma.
(3.) THAT came to be challenged by filing of Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, and after the reply was filed by the Union of India, both the counsel joined hands together and submitted before the Tribunal that the controversy which has been raised in the Original Applications, at least for the Tribunal, stands decided and is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Tribunal passed in OA No. 270/2002 (R.K. Bothra & Others v. Union of India & Others), and OA No. 293/2002 (Ranjeet Singh Rathore & Others v. Union of India & Others) and two other Original Applications which were decided by a common order by the Tribunal on 8.9.2003, and the emphasis was on para 12 of the order of the Tribunal and counsel for respondent before the Tribunal prayed to assign seniority to the officer, and since there was a unanimity between the parties, and the Tribunal also was convinced that the order passed previously in the case of Bothra dated 8.9.2003 covers the controversy which has been raised by the present officer in the Original Application. Keeping that ratio into consideration, the Original Application was decided along with other two Original Applications by a common order of the Tribunal dated 11.4.2005, and we consider it appropriate to quote para 12 of the order passed in case of Bothra and the final operative part of the order of the Tribunal, which was to be implemented by the administration in assigning seniority to the officers who were aggrieved by the seniority list dated 23.9.2002: - "12. For fixing the seniority of the persons who join on transfer from other charge on their own request, the principle is contained in the Circular dated 14.5.1990 which has been referred to above. Clause (e), (f) and (g) of the said circular are reproduced hereunder: - Clause (e) The direct recruits coming on transfers will be shown against direct recruitment quota and promotees against the promotion quota. Clause (f) The service rendered in the old charge will not be counted in the new charge for the purpose of seniority. He/she will be placed at the bottom of the list of the employees of the concerned cadre in the new charge. Seniority in the cadre in the charge to which person is transferred will start from the day that person reports for duty in that charge. However, he will not rank senior to any official who belongs to a batch selected on merit, whose inter se seniority is not regulated by date of joining. Clause (g) On transfer the transferee will forfeit all claims for promotion/confirmation in the old charge. He/she will be eligible for promotion/confirmation only in the new charge in accordance with the seniority allotted to him on transfer." Final operative part of the impugned order of the Tribunal is as under: - "In the result, this OA is allowed. The impugned seniority list dated 23.9.2002 showing the position of the applicants and the candidates who were appointed/joined in Rajasthan later than the applicants is hereby quashed. The official respondents shall revise the seniority of the applicants above such candidates in the light of the observations made in Para 12 in R.K. Bothra and three others (supra). It is further directed that on revising the seniority, if the applicants are found suitable for promotion, they should be promoted from the date their immediate junior was so promoted with all consequential benefits. This order shall be complied with within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. No costs.";