CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench

Harsh Kakar & Others vs Union Of India & Others

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 8 September 2020 · Citation: (2020) 09 CAT CK 0041

HON’BLE JUDGES
L. Narasimha Reddy, J · A.K. Bishnoi, Member (A)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 873 Of 2020, Miscellaneous Application No. 1098 Of 2020
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 373 words

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

1.

The applicants are working as Superintendents in the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs. It is stated that in the seniority list published on 15.12.2017, they were assigned seniority in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & others v.N.R. Parmar & others (2012) 13 SCC 340, but the respondents are not operating the same for promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Commissioner. They claim to have made various representations in this behalf.

2.

This O.A. is filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to antedate their promotion to the post of Superintendent to a date earlier to that of their juniors in the seniority list, and then to convene DPC for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner.

3.

Notice was issued to the respondents on 14.07.2020. Mr K. M. Singh, learned counsel accepted notice on behalf of the respondents. Today, we heard Mr. Yogesh Sharma, learned counsel for applicants and Mr. K. M. Singh, learned counsel for respondents, through video conferencing.

4.

The applicants were extended the benefits of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in N R Parmar's case (supra) and accordingly, the seniority list dated 15.12.2017 was published. Had the matter remained the same, no complications as such would have arisen. Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Meghachandra Singh & others v. Nigam Siro & others (Civil Appeal No.8833-8835 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.19565-19567 of 2019)) decided on 19.11.2019, has reversed the judgment in N R Parmar's case. The impact of the said judgment on the seniority list dated 15.12.2017 needs to be examined. Though the applicants made representations in this behalf, the respondents have their own difficulty in attending to it, having regard to the complications involved in it. At the same time, the matter cannot be kept pending, indefinitely.

5.

We, therefore, dispose of the OA with a direction to the respondents to pass orders on the representations submitted by the applicants within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if necessary, by obtaining opinion from the Ministry of Law.

6.

The MAs shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.