RAJIV KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS vs ARVIND SHRIVASTAVA, SECRETARY, M/O FINANCE, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS on 2 November 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE Order Sheet Item no.: 6 C.P./17/2026 (BANGALORE) [ CONTEMPT PETITION ] In O.A./107/2023 SENIORITY With M.A./307/2026 DELETION OF PARTICULAR RESPONDENTS Along With C.P./23/2026 CONTEMPT PETITION Court No.: 1 No of Adjournment: 2 Order Dated: 02/11/2026 RAJIV KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS Vs ARVIND SHRIVASTAVA, SECRETARY, M/O FINANCE, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS

For Applicant(s) Advocate : Shri B.S. Venkatesh Kumar For Respondent(s) Advocate : Shri S. Prakash Shetty Order of The Tribunal Learned counsel for the respondents has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that:- "7. as the officers placed at Sl. Nos. 617 to 650 in the impugned seniority list dated 13.08.2014 (Copy enclosed as Annexure R2) are Direct Recruit Inspectors selected through SSC CGLE-2004, who were appointed during the years 2006 and 2007. Additionally, the officer at SI. No. 651 was transferred to the Bengaluru Zone on Inter- Commissionerate Transfer (ICT), and officers at Sl. Nos. 652, 653, 655, and 656 were allocated from the Surplus Cell, who are also SSC CGLE-2004 recruits. In terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in N.R. Parmar’s case, the applicants in the instant OA should be placed in the seniority list below Sl. No. 656, as the 2004 batch officers are senior to the applicants by virtue of their recruitment batch and date of entry into service. It is respectfully submitted that the direction of this Hon'ble Tribunal regarding placement of the applicants immediately after SI. No. 617 in the seniority list appears to warrant a closer examination by this Hon'ble Tribunal in the context of the existing seniority position of earlier batches’ officers (direct recruit Inspectors). If the impugned order is implemented in its letter and spirit, the applicants, who are Direct Recruit Inspectors of SSC CGLE-2006, would stand placed above 39 Direct Recruit Inspectors of SSC CGLE-2004 in the seniority list. Such a consequence doesnot appear to be in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. N.R. Parmar & Ors., nor with the directions contained in the order dated 02.03.2018 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal, in O.A. Nos. 170/586- 599/2015.

8. Considering the aforesaid inconsistencies, the Office of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru Zone, vide letter C.No. GCCO/CAT/SM/7/2020- CAT-PCCO dated 09.07.2026 (Annexure R-3),made a reference to the Board (CBIC) seeking further guidance and directions on the implementation of the order." Finally, in para 10 it is stated as under:- "10. It is therefore, prayed that this submission may kindly be accepted and proposed contempt action may be dropped and the direction of this Hon'ble Tribunal regarding placement of the applicants in the Instant OA immediately after SL.No. 617 in the seniority list, may kindly be re-examined by this Hon’ble Tribunal in the context of the existing seniority position of earlier batches officers (direct recruit Inspectors) as theaforesaid inconsistencies impeded the respondents from fully implementing the directions contained in the Hon'ble Tribunal's order dated 29.10.2025." The aforesaid paragraphs shows the contemptuous action of the respondents in sitting over judgment of this Tribunal which is not appreciable. When we are dictating the order, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the respondents are not pressing the same and on the other hand, he seeks time to implement the order and to file the compliance report submitting that the same is under process. Recording the same, time is granted to file the compliance report. List the matter on 22.12.2026.

Dr Sanjiv Kumar Member (A) Justice S Sujatha Member (J) Mikasha Suneja ( steno 'c' )