Promoted IPS officers' seniority weightage cannot be curtailed to match a senior's lower year of allotment.

The applicants were initially appointed as Deputy Superintendents of Police in the Uttar Pradesh Provincial State Police Service (PPS) in 1997

Following their induction into the Indian Police Service (IPS) via the 2021 Select List, they were assigned 2015 as their year of allotment

The applicants contended that despite rendering over 24 years of service—entitling them to 2014 as the year of allotment based on length of service weightage—their seniority was restricted to 2015 to ensure they did not surpass Respondent No. 6, who was senior to them in the Select List but had shorter service

The applicants' representations were rejected by the respondents on 01.09.2025, citing the proviso to Rule 3(3)(ii) of the Seniority Rules

the applicants challenged the orders dated 04.10.2024, 16.05.2025, and 01.09.2025

1. Whether the seniority and year of allotment of a junior officer, determined by length of continuous service, can be restricted by the shorter service duration of a senior officer in the same Select List under the proviso to Rule 3(3)(ii) of the IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988

2. Whether the restriction of the applicants’ year of allotment constitutes "undue hardship" remediable under the Residuary Rules of 1960

Rule 3(3)(ii) and its proviso from the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988, which governs the assignment of the year of allotment for promotee officers

precedent set by the CAT Allahabad Bench in Kavindra Pratap Singh & Ors vs Union of India & Ors (OA No. 463/2016), which established that a senior’s service handicap cannot be transmitted to a junior to deprive them of legitimate seniority

Residuary Rules of 1960 regarding the redressal of manifest injustice

Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India concerning equality in service matters

The Tribunal observed that the applicants had rendered service exceeding the threshold required for the 2014 allotment year

Applying the logic from Kavindra Pratap Singh, the Tribunal reasoned that the proviso to Rule 3(3)(ii) must be interpreted positively and cannot impose a "negative burden" or "encumbrance" on junior officers due to a senior officer's shorter service span

The court noted that if a senior officer lacks the required service length, the proper remedy is to apply the Residuary Rules of 1960 to grant notional weightage to that senior officer, rather than "eclipsing" the legitimate seniority of the juniors

Although the respondents argued that the Kavindra Pratap Singh judgment is currently under challenge before the Allahabad High Court, the Tribunal held that in the absence of a stay order, the precedent remains binding

The Tribunal held that the applicants' seniority could not be restricted by the service duration of their senior

Respondents No. 1 to 5 were directed to re-decide the applicants' case in accordance with the principles laid down in Kavindra Pratap Singh within a period of three months from the receipt of the order