Ratna Das vs REVENUE on 29 September 2026

ORDER

PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J):

This O.A. has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: “8.1 The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to modify the Draft seniority lists dated 01.03.2023 and 29.01.2024 and the Final seniority list dated 16.12.2024 (Annexure A5) in the grade of Inspector prepared on the basis of the decision in N. R. Parmar (supra) and the DOPT OM dated 14.03.2014' and revise and prepare the same in terms of the decision in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) i.e. on the basis of date of assumption of charge.

8.2 The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to modify the promotion orders dated 24J22024 (Annexure ,4,6) and 31.1'2.2024 (Annexure A7) by including the names of the applicants therein against and above their juniors i.e. respondent no' 6 to 18, with all consequential benefits including notional fixation of pay.

8.3 Impugned Para 7(iii) of the DOPT OM dated 13.08.2021 (Annexure A1) be set aside and quashed.

8.4 Impugned Para 5(ii) of GOI, IWo Finance, Dept. of Revenue OM dated 26.10.2021 (Annexure A2) be set aside and quashed.

8.5 Any other relief or reliefs as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper, including the cost of the case. The above prayers are made on the grounds stated in para 5 above.”

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

2. Brief facts as submitted by the applicants in the instant O.A. are that - they were granted promotion and assumed charge as Inspector on 30.04.2015 which is much prior to the date of assumption of charge by the private respondents no. 6 to 18. Seniority list in the grade of Inspector was prepared long back on 01.06.2005. After joining of the applicants as Inspector, draft seniority list as on 01.012023 was prepared on 01.03.2023 wrongly in terms of decision in UOI v. N.R Parmar [(2012) 13 SCC 3401 and not as per K. Meghachandra Singh and Ors. Vs. Ningam Siro and Ors.[(2020) 5 SCC 6891 on the basis of assumption of charge. The applicants submitted representations dated 13.03.2023, 16.08.2023, 25.09.2023 and 24.11.2023, but without considering the same, the respondents issued the impugned Final Seniority list dated 16.12.2024 without any change in their policy.

3. As per the applicants, they are against impugned Para 7(iii) of the DOPT OM dated 13.08.2021 and Para 5(ii) of GOI, M/o Finance, Dept. of Revenue OM dated 26.10.2021 which provides that direct recruits and promotees appointed/joined during the period between 27.11.2012 and

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

18.11.2019 and in which case inter se seniority could not be finalised by 18.11.2019, shall also be governed by the provisions of O.Ms dated 7.2.1986/3.7.1986 read with OM dated 4.3.2014, which is dehors and extraneous to the decision in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra), whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that only the inter-se seniority already based on N.R Parmar (supra) is protected and where seniority is to be fixed under the relevant Rules from the date of vacancy/the date of advertisement. Therefore, by way of filing this O.A., applicants pray for a direction upon the respondents to modify the Draft seniority lists dated 01.03.2023 and, 29.01.2024 and the Final seniority list dated 16.12.2024 in the grade of Inspector prepared on the basis of the decision in N.R. Parmar (supra) and the DOPT OM dated 14.03.2014, and revise and prepare the same in terms of the decision in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra). The applicants also pray for a direction upon the respondents to modify the promotion orders dated 24.12.2024 and 31.12.2024 by including the names of the applicants therein against and above their

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

juniors (respondent no. 6 to 18), with all consequential benefits including notional fixation of pay.

4. Applicants state that this Tribunal by order dated 20.02.2020 in O.A. No. 040/00215/2016 (Sri Jayanta Dey v. UOI & Ors.) even in case of draft (unfinalised) seniority list dated 23.02.2016 prepared on the basis of the decision in N. R. Parmar remanded back the matter to the department to prepare afresh seniority list in the grade of Inspector in the light of the decision in K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors.(supra), which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court and implemented by the respondent department, the applicants being similarly situated are also entitled to similar benefit. As per the applicants, it is the settled position of law that similarly situated employees cannot be treated differently. They further contends that after the judgment of K. Meghachandra Singh (supra), there is no scope for fixing seniority on the basis of N.R. Parmar and the same is to be prepared on the basis of the date of assumption of charge. Further, impugned Para 7 (iii) of the DoPT OM dated 13.08.2021 and Para 5 (ii) of GOI, M/o Finance, Dept. of Revenue OM dated 26.10.2021, giving scope

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

for fixing unfinalised seniority till 18.11.2019 in terms of OM dated 07.02.1986/03.07.1986read with OM dated 04.03.2014 i.e. as per N.R. Parmar (supra), are dehors and extraneous to the decision in K. Meghachandra Singh, hence, liable to be set aside and quashed.

5. Official respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have filed written statement and states that the seniority of the Inspector is fixed as a continuous w.e.f. the last final seniority in the grade of Inspector as on 01-06-2005 till 01-07-2024 keeping in view the Order passed by this Tribunal and subsequent Order passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Jayanta Dey & Ors. to draw seniority afresh by discarding the draft seniority as on 01-04-2015 published on 23-02-2016. Considering the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors vs Ningam Siro & Ors, there is Board's guideline which has laid down in the Minutes of Cadre Control dated 12-07-2022: while drawing the seniority of cadres, broadly, the following DoPT OMs need to be applied for the different timelines:

a. 01.03.1986 to 27.11.2012 : {DoP&T OM No. 22011/7/86-Estt(D) dated 03.07.1986, DOPT О.M.

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

No.35014/2/80-Estt.(D) dated 7.2.1986 read with OM No. 9/11/55-RPS of 1959}.

b. 27.11.2012 to 19.11.2019 : {DoP&T OM No. 20011/1/2012-Estt. (D) dated 04.03.2014}.

с. 19.11.2019 onwards: {DoP&T OM No. 20011/2/2019-Estt. (D) dated 13.08.2021} will apply.

6. As per the respondents, they have no authority over DOPT but to follow instructions as being laid down by DoPT, more particularly OM dated 13-08-2021 which is the relevant Office Memorandum for implementation of the Hon'ble Apex court's decision in the matter of K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. The referred OM of the department, the decision dated 19-11- 2019 that is also effective prospectively. The referred OM dated 16-10-2021 is pertaining to the Department of Income Tax and not Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs where the applicants belong. The seniority of Inspector in this Zone is fixed exactly according to extant guidelines of Board. Further, draft seniority lists were available in the departmental website and there was a stay on seniority in the matter of Sh. Jayanta Dey & Ors after the latest draft list as on 01-04-2015 was issued on 23-02-2016. After the matter was finalized in

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

Hon'ble High Court, Gauhati on 19-12-2022, draft seniority list was issued as on 01-01-2023.

7. Official respondents further states that after issuance of the draft seniority list (updated till 01-09-2023 published on 29-01-2024), representations were invited afresh. Due to technical difficulties, the departmental website was not functional at that time, thus, the said draft list was circulated to all Commissionerates with a direction for conveying the same to all the respective officers. In the Circular dated 29-01-2024 it was explicitly mentioned: By issuance of this list the earlier list published as on

03-2023 vide GCCO/II/(34)1/2023-ADMN-O/o CC- CGSTZONE-GUWAHATI/I/1041649/2023 stands redrawn, therefore, officers who have submitted representations in that regard earlier are requested to peruse this list and submit afresh if necessary.

Thereafter, the final seniority list of the Inspectors as on 01-07- was based on the said draft list wherein the representations received in respect of the said draft seniority list were taken into consideration as mentioned in Annexure-C of the Circular dated 16- 12-2024. Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

8. It is relevant to record that notice upon the Private Respondents No. 6 to 18 was duly and legally served in accordance with the rules of business of this Tribunal. Despite receiving proper notification of the pendency of this O.A., neither the private respondents themselves nor any engaged counsel appeared before this Bench to defend their seniority placements or file a written response. Consequently, vide this Tribunal's order, the Private Respondents No. 6 to 18 have been declared ex-parte. This Tribunal has proceeded to adjudicate the matter on the basis of the available official records and the extensive oral arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned Addl. CGSC representing the official respondents.

9. We have heard Sri M. Chanda, learned counsel for the applicants and Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Addl. CGSC for the respondents and perused the documents placed by both parties.

10. The core dispute centers on the transitional limits of the judgment in K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro [(2020) 5 SCC 689], which explicitly overruled the decision in Union of

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

India v. N.R. Parmar. Under the N.R. Parmar framework, direct recruits could claim retrospective seniority tied to the year a vacancy was created or a requisition was sent, which often allowed them to leapfrog internal promotees who were already performing the duties of the post. K. Meghachandra Singh corrected this approach, establishing that seniority can only be counted from the date an officer is regularly appointed and assumes charge. The Supreme Court protected existing seniority arrangements to prevent widespread administrative disruption, stating that the decision would operate prospectively and would not disturb inter-se seniority arrangements that had already been finalized based on N.R. Parmar. However, an unfinalized list does not enjoy this protection. The distinction between a finalized list and a draft list was reviewed by this Bench in Jayanta Dey (Supra). In that case, this Bench held that if a draft list was challenged and remained unfinalized as of 18.11.2019, the respondents could not use the overruled N.R. Parmar method to finalize it later. This ruling was affirmed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court on 19.12.2022.

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

11. Para 7(iii) of the DoPT O.M. dated 13.08.2021 and Para 5(ii) of the Ministry of Finance O.M. dated 26.10.2021 attempt to extend the application of N.R. Parmar to cases where inter-se seniority could not be finalized by 18.11.2019. This direction runs counter to the specific prospective limits laid down by the Supreme Court. An administrative department cannot use an executive O.M. to revive a legal method that the judiciary has explicitly struck down, particularly for a list that is being drawn or finalized years after the law was changed.

12. The applicants assumed charge as regular Inspectors on 24.04.2015, well before the private respondents joined the cadre. Restructuring the seniority list in 2024 to place direct recruits above the applicants based on a vacancy year calculation is an incorrect application of the rules. Similarly situated employees cannot be treated differently. Consequently, the unfinalized lists and the final list dated 16.12.2024 cannot be sustained in their current form.

13. In view of the above, O.A. stands allowed. Para 7(iii) of the DoPT O.M. dated 13.08.2021 and Para 5(ii) of the Ministry of Finance O.M. dated 26.10.2021 are hereby declared

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

inapplicable to seniority arrangements that remained unfinalized as of 18.11.2019. The Final Seniority List dated 16.12.2024 (Annexure A5) and the preliminary Draft Seniority Lists dated 01.03.2023 & 29.01.2024 are quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to draw up a fresh seniority list in the grade of Inspector within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The list must be prepared in accordance with the K. Meghachandra Singh judgment (supra), basing the inter-se seniority strictly on the actual date of joining/assumption of charge. The Respondents are further directed to modify the promotion orders dated 24.12.2024 and 31.12.2024 to place the applicants at their correct positions of seniority above Private Respondents No. 6 to 18, with all consequential benefits and notional pay fixations.

14. Pending M.A., if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

(MALLIKA ARYA)

(RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)

MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

PB

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY