Union Of INDIA And Others vs. Dhirendra Kumar Bhakta And Others

Facts

The petitioners, in two writ petitions, challenged an order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The CAT had quashed a seniority list dated 23.04.2018 for Inspectors/Tax Assistants, finding it contrary to the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India Vs. N.R. Parmar. The CAT also set aside Clause 5(h) of an office memorandum dated 04.03.2014 for restricting the benefit of the N.R. Parmar judgment and directed the Union of India to reframe the seniority list. The department complied by issuing a revised seniority list in May 2019, which was prior to the Supreme Court's judgment in K. Meghachandra Singh (19.11.2019). Despite compliance, the petitioners challenged the CAT's order to set aside the 2018 seniority list.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order of the Tribunal, directing the framing of seniority as per N.R. Parmar's case, could not be sustained. The reasoning was that the law laid down in N.R. Parmar's case had undergone a change due to subsequent Supreme Court judgments. Specifically, the Court emphasized that the judgment in B.S. Murthy's case (2022), being a decision of a Larger Bench, would prevail over any view taken by a Smaller Bench, especially when the Smaller Bench was not aware of the Larger Bench's decision, as was the case in Hariharan's case. Therefore, the seniority list framed in May 2019, pursuant to the Tribunal's direction, was also set aside. The Court directed the Union of India to prepare a fresh seniority list for Inspectors/Tax Assistants strictly in accordance with the law settled by the Larger Bench in B.S. Murthy's case, which dictates that seniority for direct recruits is to be considered only from the date of their appointment, not from the date the vacancy was advertised. Any promotions made based on the N.R. Parmar-based seniority list of May 2019 are to be reviewed after the fresh seniority list is prepared, with an opportunity for hearing to affected parties. The Court also noted that any future Supreme Court decision on the same issue would supersede these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, quashing the seniority list dated 23.04.2018 and directing reframing of seniority as per N.R. Parmar's case, is sustainable in light of subsequent Supreme Court judgments. Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the CAT's order was based on N.R. Parmar's case, but subsequent judgments, particularly K. Meghachandra Singh, have changed the legal position. They also relied on the principle that a Larger Bench decision prevails over a Smaller Bench decision, citing B.S. Murthy's case (2022) as a Larger Bench decision that should be followed over Hariharan's case (a Smaller Bench decision). They contended that seniority should be counted from the date of appointment, not the advertisement date. Revenue/State's contention: The respondents (Union of India and others) argued that the CAT's order was passed when N.R. Parmar's case was the prevailing law. They also highlighted that the K. Meghachandra Singh judgment stated that finalized seniority prior to its date would not be disturbed. They further argued that the seniority list framed in May 2019, in compliance with the CAT's order, was finalized before K. Meghachandra Singh's judgment.