Deputationists' Seniority: Past Regular Equivalent Grade Service Counts Upon Absorption.

The applicant, Dr. Narmada Prasad Dwivedi, was appointed as Section Officer/Court Officer in the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jabalpur Bench, on deputation w.e.f. 24.10.2011 and was subsequently absorbed permanently in the same post w.e.f. 11.08.2017

The seniority list published on 14.10.2022 (Annexure A-4) assigned him seniority from his absorption date, 11.08.2017

Prior to absorption, the applicant was promoted from JWM (Grade Pay Rs. 4600/-) to JWM/SG (Grade Pay Rs. 4800/-) with retrospective effect from 01.01.2016 by his parent department, the Directorate of Ordnance (C), Kolkata

The grade of JWM/SG is deemed equivalent to Section Officer/Court Officer

The applicant submitted representations on 13.10.2022 and 19.10.2022 (Annexure A-3, A-5) seeking re-fixation of his seniority from 24.10.2011 (date of deputation) and consideration for promotion to Deputy Registrar, citing the DoP O.M. dated 27.03.2001 (Annexure A-6) which allows counting of prior regular service in an equivalent grade for seniority upon absorption

He also argued that his promotion from JWM to JWM/SG was a "promotion" based on a previous order in OA No. 680/2019 (Annexure A-1, A-2) which directed grant of "Proforma Promotion" with consequential benefits including seniority

The respondents opposed the application, arguing that the JWM to JWM/SG move was a "non-functional financial upgradation," not a promotion

and that the applicant had given an undertaking accepting seniority from absorption date

They also contended that the application suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties as other affected officers were not impleaded

Despite the pending application, the respondents issued an Office Order dated 26.12.2022 (Annexure A-10) promoting officers to Deputy Registrar, in which the applicant was not considered

Whether the applicant's promotion from JWM to JWM/SG in his parent department was a "promotion" or a "non-functional financial upgradation"

Whether the undertaking given by the applicant at the time of absorption precludes him from claiming seniority based on services rendered in an equivalent grade in his parent department prior to absorption

Whether the Original Application is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties

Whether the applicant is entitled to re-fixation of seniority in the grade of Section Officer/Court Officer by counting his past services in the equivalent grade and consequential consideration for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar

The court applied the Central Administrative Tribunal's previous order in O.A. No. 680/2019 (affirmed by the High Court) which categorized the move from JWM (Grade pay of Rs. 4600/-) to JWM (Higher Grade pay of Rs. 4800/-) as a "Proforma Promotion" with consequential benefits including seniority

It also relied on the Government of India, Ministry of DoP Office Memorandum dated 27.03.2001 (Annexure A-6), which states that for officers absorbed after deputation, if they were holding the same or equivalent grade on a regular basis in their parent department before absorption, such regular service should be taken into account for seniority fixation

The principle of equality under Article 14 was invoked regarding similarly situated officers having their past services counted

The court also noted that General Statutory Rules (GSR-592(E)), dated 15/06/2017 (Annexure-RJ/1), provides for 70% of JWM (SG) posts to be filled through "promotion" from Grade Pay 4600

The Tribunal found that the previous order in O.A. No. 680/2019, which specifically granted "Proforma Promotion" to the applicant for JWM (SG) from 01.01.2016 with consequential benefits including seniority, directly contradicts the respondents' assertion of "non-functional financial upgradation"

The subsequent orders from the parent department dated 19.09.2022 and 27.09.2022 (Annexure-A/1, A/2) also explicitly used the term "Promotion"

Furthermore, GSR-592(E) itself states that 70% of such posts are to be filled by "promotion"

Therefore, the applicant was holding an equivalent grade on a regular basis in his parent department w.e.f. 01.01.2016 before absorption

Regarding the undertaking, the court clarified that it prevented the applicant from claiming seniority for services rendered during the deputation period as Section Officer/Court Officer

However, the applicant was claiming seniority only from 01.01.2016, the date of his regular promotion to the equivalent JWM (SG) post in his parent department, which is distinct from his deputation period (24.10.2011 to 11.08.2017)

The DoP O.M. dated 27.03.2001 mandates that such regular service in an equivalent grade must be considered for seniority upon absorption

On the issue of non-joinder, the Tribunal stated that it is not necessary to implead all affected persons in seniority claims

The only affected respondent above the applicant, Shri K.K. Ekka (Respondent No.3), was impleaded, whose seniority would be affected from 06.04.2016 if the applicant's seniority was fixed from 01.01.2016

The Tribunal also noted that similarly situated officers at serial numbers 1 to 4 in the seniority list had their past services in identical grades in parent departments counted for seniority upon absorption, invoking the principle of equality under Article 14

The Tribunal held that the applicant's promotion from JWM to JWM (SG) was a "promotion" as per O.A. No. 680/2019 and relevant rules

The undertaking did not bar his claim for seniority from the date of promotion to the equivalent grade in his parent department

The objection regarding non-joinder of parties was dismissed

The respondents were directed to: 1. Revise the applicant's seniority in the grade of Section Officer/Court Officer by considering his regular service in the equivalent grade (Grade Pay Rs. 4800/-) from 01.01.2016

2. Place the applicant at the appropriate place in the seniority list dated 14.10.2022

3. Convene a review DPC to consider the applicant for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar from the date his juniors/counterparts were promoted, with all consequential benefits

This exercise must be completed within 90 days from the receipt of the order

No order as to costs