Sri Laishram Sushilkanta Singh vs M/O FINANCE, D/O REVENUE on 16 October 2026

ORDER

PER R.S. DOGRA, MEMBER (J):

The instant OA has been filed by the applicant praying for the following relief(s):- “8.1 That the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased declare that the applicants are entitled to be placed in the seniority of Inspectors of Guwahati zone in terms of para 3.5 of OM dated 03.07.1986, the para 2(ii) of Inter-Commissionerate Transfer (ICT) policy of CBEC issued vide letter dated 27.10.2011, para 3.5 of DOPT’s OM dated 03.07.1986, and in the light of judgment of K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. Vs. Nigam Siro & Ors. (2020) 5 SCC 689, order dated 13.10.2020 passed in OA No. 2955/2019 Amit Kumar & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. Vs U.OT & Ors.) which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court and O.M No. 2011/2/2019-Estt(D) dated 13.08.2021 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, Govt. of India. 8.2 That the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to set aside/review the impugned final inter-se-seniority list of Inspectors of Guwahati Zone issued vide Circular No. GCCO/II/ (34)/2/2024-ADMNO-O/oCC-CGST-ZONE- GUWAHATI dated 16.12.2024 (ANNEXURE-A/1) so far the applicants are concerned. 8.3 That the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to place the applicants in the seniority list of Inspectors of Guwahati Zone above the respondent nos. 4 to 10 and above all the Inspectors who have joined in Guwahati zone after joining of the applicants. 8.4 Costs of the application. 8.5 Any other relief(s) to which the applicants are entitled as the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.”

2. The facts of the case are that Applicant no. 1 is serving as Inspectors in the office of Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Imphal, and applicant no. 2 is serving as Inspector, in the office of Assistant Commissioner, CG&ST, Tezpur

SOURABH KUMAR

Division. They are direct recruit Inspectors and were transferred on Inter-Commissionerate transfer (for short ICT) and joined on 05.05.20214. Applicants are aggrieved with inter-se-seniority list of Inspectors of Guwahati Zone issued vide Circular dated 16.12.2024 whereby they have been made junior to the Inspectors who had joined in the department after joining of the applicants. The impugned seniority list so far the applicants are concerned has been issued in violation of para 2(ii) of ICT policy of CBEC issued vide letter dated 27.10.2011, para 3.5 of DOPT’s OM dated 03.07.1986, law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. Vs. Nigam Siro & Ors. (2020) 5 SCC 689, order dated 13.10.2020 passed in OA No. 2955/2019 Amit Kumar & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. Vs. U.OT & Ors.) which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court and OM No. 2011/2/2019-Estt.(D) dated 13.08.2021 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, Govt. of India.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the Final inter-se Seniority List in the grade of Inspectors of Guwahati Zone is in continuation of erstwhile final seniority

SOURABH KUMAR

list of Inspectors as on 01.06.2005 updated till 01.07.2024 circulated on 16-12-2024 which has been prepared as per the extant guidelines contained in para-16 of Board's Minutes of the Cadre Control Meeting dated 12-07-2022. Also, this department is bound by the directives of the Board implementation of any decision arising out of any judicial forum relating administrative and cadre policies. Where such matter has implication throughout Central Civil Services, final instructions are devised by DoP&T in view of the final outcome of such matter. This instant matter was corresponded to Board as it involves policies vide A.32022/23/2025-Ad.IIIA I/120555/2025 dated 23-07-2025, whereby Board has directed:

(i) The policy for governing the seniority issue is very clear and available in DoPT OM dated 13.08.2021, read with OMs dated 03.07.1986 and 04.03.2014. The seniority of ICT officers is to be governed by the Board's letters dated 05.06.1998 and 27.10.2011. However, the term regularly appointed officers is required to be defined in terms of DoР&Т OM dated 04.03.2014 for the officers appointed between 27.11.2012 and 19.11.2019.

(ii) The Amit Kumar case, being against policy of the Government, was contested up to the Apex Court level and was implemented in consultation with DoPT and DoLA on in-personam basis. Further, the Board's letter dated 05-06-1998 directs that: “The transferee will not be entitled to count the service rendered by him in the former Commissionerate for the

SOURABH KUMAR

purpose of seniority in the new charge. The seniority of persons appointed on transfer basis on their own request, since their transfer is not strictly in public interest, they may be placed below all officers appointed regularly to that post/grade on the date of their appointment on transfer basis in terms of para-3.5 of Department of Personnel and Training's O.M. dated 3.7.1986. In other words, such a transferee will be junior to those regularly appointed prior to his transfer. Therefore, if some promotees have already been appointed on regular basis prior to his appointment on transfer basis he will be junior to those promotees and if as a consequence of rota-quota some of those promotees become junior to some DRs then the transferee will become junior to those DRs also notwithstanding their date of joining.”

Therefore, in view of the above instructions, the zonal position of the applicants is that upon their joining on Inter- Commissionerate Transfer basis from the parent Zone, they became junior to the Promotee Inspectors who got regular promotion prior to their joining in this Zone. Since, as per Board’s above clarification, the said period is governed by DoPT’s OM dated 04.03.2014 (N.R. Parmar) and those Promotee Inspectors got rota-quota seniority with the SSC CGLE 2015 & 2016 batch, thus, the applicants’ claim of seniority above SSC CGLE 2015 & 2016 batch of DR Inspector is not applicable in view of the clarification in Board’s Letter dated 05.06.1998.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that they were initially appointed as Direct Recruit Inspectors in the

SOURABH KUMAR

Department. The Applicant No. 1 initially joined on 18.10.2010 in the office of Central Excise, Siliguri Commissionerate, Siliguri and the applicant No. 2 was initially appointed as Inspector and joined on 18.04.2013 in the Central Excise, Kolkata –II Commissionerate. Thereafter, the applicants had applied for Inter-Commissionerate Transfer in terms of policy decision of the CBE&C dated 27.10.2011 (Annexure- A/5 of O.A.) for transfer in Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Shillong zone. Accordingly, the applicants on ICT were transferred to Shillong zone and they joined on 02.11.2016 and 06.02.2017 respectively. The seniority of the applicants in the cadre of Inspector is liable to fixed in terms of para 2(ii) and para 3.5 of DoP&T O.M. dated 03.07.1986. In terms of the para 3.5 of the OM, it is very much clear that applicants will be placed below all the officers appointed to the grade on the date of absorption of the applicants. The applicants joined on 02.11.2016 and 06.02.2017 as Inspector in Shillong zone; as such, the seniority of the applicants is to be fixed at the bottom of the seniority list of all the Inspectors who were working as on 05.05.2014 as Inspector in Shillong zone. In reply to para (b), it is stated that in applying the law laid down in the case of N.R. Parmar, the seniority position of the applicants can’t be

SOURABH KUMAR

fixed below any of the officers who had joined as Inspector after the joining of the applicants i.e. on 05.05.2014. The para 3.5 of DoP&T O.M. dated 03.07.1986 has laid down the Rule of assigning seniority to the applicants. In the case of N.R. Parmar (overruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. —Vs- Ningam & Ors), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the O.M. dated 03.07.1986 in connection with principle of rota-quota for fixation of seniority of officers directly recruited and promoted. In the instant case, the seniority of the applicants is liable to be governed by para 3.5 of DoP&T’s O.M. dated 03.07.1986. The Principal Bench of this Tribunal in order dated 13.10.2020 has dealt with the similar issue as in the case of instant O.A. of the applicants; as such, the order dated 13.10.2020 passed in O.A. No 2955/2019 is equally applicable to the instant O.A. Respondents in the impugned seniority list dated 16.12.2024 have violated the provisions of fixation of seniority, as laid down in para 3.5 of the O.M. dated 03.07.1986 as well as policy of the ICT dated 27.10.2011 so far the fixation of seniority of the applicants in the cadre of Inspector is concerned. Counsel also states that the O.M. dated 03.07.1986 was not properly analysed in the case of N. R. Parmar, more

SOURABH KUMAR

particularly, para 3.5 is relates to ICT. It is stated that the applicant were recruited in the year 2010 and 2013 and joined in the Siliguri Commissionerate, Siliguri and Central Excise, Kolkata-II Commissionerate. As such, the applicants cannot be placed below the SSC CGLE 2015 and 2016 Batches, rather the applicants are entitled to be placed below the appointee Inspectors who were regularly appointed and working as Inspectors as on 02.11.2016 and 06.02.2017. Applicants are the direct recruit Inspectors of 2010 and 2013 and they initially joined as Inspectors on 18.01.2010 and 18.04.2013; as such, applying the law of N.R. Parmar mechanically to push the applicants below the 2015 & 2016 direct recruit Inspectors in the seniority list is arbitrary.

5. Heard the parties, perused the records and considered the rival submissions.

6. After examining the records, it is noted that prima facie the respondents have failed to interpret the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.R. Parmar -VsUnion of India & Ors. In para (c) of the DOPT O.M. dated 04.03.2014 it has been stated that:

SOURABH KUMAR

“(c) The available direct recruits and promotes, for assignment of inter se seniority, would refer to the direct recruits and promotes who are appointed against the vacancies of a Recruitment Year. In the present case at hand, the applicants were appointed as direct recruit Inspector in the year 2010 and 2013; as such, their recruitment years are 2010 and 2013, and for the purpose of assignment of their seniority against the vacancies of a Recruitment Year, the date of joining of the applicants in Guwahati Zone i.e. as on 02.11.2016 and 06.02.2017 cannot be treated as recruitment years of the applicants as Inspector. Pursuant thereto, date of joining i.e., 02.11.2016 and 06.02.2017 cannot be applied mechanically holding the date of joining of the applicants in the present zone.

7. This aspect of the matter has already been dealt by the CAT, Principal Bench in the order dated 13.10.2020 in O.A. No. 2955/2019, whereby the Tribunal had observed and directed as follows:– “6. One just cannot understand as to how the Inspectors appointed in the year 2016 can be placed above those who were appointed in the year 2011 and came on transfer, to Delhi zone in the year 2014. Assuming that the vacancies are deemed to have been arisen in the year 2014, the occasion to apply the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.R. Parmar case would arise only in the context of fixation of the inter se seniority between the promotes on the one hand and the direct recruits on the other hand. The applicants are direct recruits of a particular

SOURABH KUMAR

recruitment year. On transfer to Delhi zone, the applicants have no doubt have to take the seniority after the direct recruit Inspectors of the year 2014 by operation of the principle that whoever comes on transfer to other zone must have take the last place in the seniority in the zone, to which he comes on transfer. The distinction between a direct recruit on the one hand and the promotee on the other hand, hardly applicants becomes remain as relevant in such cases. The direct recruits and the judgement in N.R.Parmar’s case would have no impact upon them.”

“7. Once an officer comes on transfer to different’ zone, he would no doubt take the bottom place in the seniority. However, once he is assigned a place, anybody who comes to be appointed in that zone after such transfer has necessarily take place in the seniority, after him. There was absolutely no basis or justification to place the Inspectors who were appointed in the year 2016, above the applicants in the Delhi zone.” “8. Even where the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.R.Parmar’s case is made applicable, the situation has undergone substantial change with the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meghachandra’s case. While declaring the judgement in N.R.Parmar’s case does not represent the correct legal position, their Lordships proceeded to add that no person can have any place or claim vis-a-vis any post, before his actual appointment. Viewed from any angle, the seniority list, in so far as it has placed the Inspectors who are appointed subsequent to the date of joining of the applicants in the Delhi zone cannot be countenanced. Thereafter, the order dated 13.10.2020 passed in O.A. No. 2955/2019 was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 3576/2021. The Hon’ble High Court vide judgment dated 09.04.2021 has considered the fixation of seniority of the ICT transferee Inspectors in terms of O.M. dated 04.03.2014, which was prepared in terms of the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.O.I. & Ors -Vs- N.R. Parmar & Ors.

SOURABH KUMAR

Hon’ble Delhi High Court after considering the similar submissions as made in the written statement of the instant O.A. has held that: “18. Therefore, in our view CAT has correctly applied the dicta in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) case in the present case and has proceeded to quash the seniority list to the extent it placed the petitioners above the .private respondents. The fact that the CAT decision would impact the inter se seniority between the promotees and direct recruits (petitioners), is not subject matter of the present petition, and therefore, need not be examined. It is also an admitted position that in the present case requisitions for the appointment of the petitioners were sent to SSC the recruiting authority on 11th February, 2015, after the private respondents had already joined the Delhi Commissionerate. Therefore, even in terms of OM dated 4th March, 2014, the petitioners cannot be placed above the private respondents.” Ultimately, the W.P. was dismissed. The judgment and order dated 09.04.2021 passed in W.P. (C) No. 3576/2021 by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi was carried by the Union of India before the Hon’ble Supreme Court through SLP(C) No. 3519/2022. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 20.05.2022 dismissed the SLP. As such, the contention of the respondents in the written statement has already been adjudicated by the Hon’ble CAT, Principal Bench, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the same argument of the respondents on the basis of judgement in the

SOURABH KUMAR

case N.R.Parmar and O.M. dated 04.03.2014 have been ignored.

8. We are of the considered opinion that the issue involves in this case is no more res integra as the same has already been dealt with by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, which was subsequently upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court. Now, there is an attempt by the respondents to reopen/reagitate on the issue of fixation seniority of Inspectors who have come to different zone by applying ICT although the issue has attained finality. The case of the applicants is also fortified by placing reliance on order dated 02.05.2024 passed in O.A. No. 399/2022 and batch cases. The order dated 02.05.2024 of the Principal Bench was challenged by the Union of India before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court through W.P. (C) No. 7674/2024. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide judgement dated 28.05.2024 dismissed the W.P. (C) No. 7674/2024 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court also dismissed the SLP filed by the Union of India. Thereafter, the Principal Chief Commissioner of CGST (Delhi Zone) vide order No. 72/2025 dated 10.08.2025 has complied with the order dated 02.05.2024 passed in O.A. No. 399/2022 and promoted the Inspectors to the grade of Superintendent Gr, ‘B’. On this score,

SOURABH KUMAR

the present applicants’ cases is squarely covered by the said judgements rendered by the CAT, Principal Bench and thus, the applicants are also entitled for the similar benefits.

9. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, this petition accepts merit. The instant OA is allowed with the following direction to the respondents:–

(a) Impugned Final Inter-se-seniority list of Inspectors of Guwahati Zone issued vide Circular dated 16.12.2024(Annexure-A/1) qua applicants is quashed and set aside being unjust and arbitrary.

(b) Respondents are directed to review impugned Seniority List of Inspectors of Guwahati Zone issued vide Circular dated 16.12.2024 and thereafter, place the applicants above the Respondent Nos. 4 to 10 and also above all the Inspectors who were appointed and had joined the Guwahati Zone subsequent to the date of joining of the applicants.

(c) Consequential benefits, if any, may also be granted to the applicant.

(d) The above exercise shall be completed within a period of two months’ from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

10. Pending M.A.(s), if any, also stand disposed of. No costs.

(MALLIKA ARYA) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

/SK/

SOURABH KUMAR