Seniority lists unfinalised as of 18 November 2019 must follow actual joining dates, not N.R. Parmar.

The applicants challenged the Inspector seniority lists issued on 1 March 2023, 29 January 2024 and 16 December 2024, contending that their seniority should be determined by their dates of assumption of charge rather than under the vacancy-based method associated with Union of India v. N.R. Parmar.

The applicants stated that they assumed charge as Inspectors on 30 April 2015; the judgment later records 24 April 2015, creating an inconsistency in the stated date.

They also challenged provisions of DoPT’s Office Memorandum dated 13 August 2021 and the Ministry of Finance’s Office Memorandum dated 26 October 2021, and sought revision of promotion orders issued in December 2024.

The official respondents maintained that the seniority list had been prepared in accordance with applicable instructions and the Supreme Court’s ruling in K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro.

The private respondents did not appear and were proceeded against ex parte.

Whether seniority lists that remained unfinalized as of 18 November 2019 could be prepared or finalized using the N.R. Parmar method pursuant to the challenged Office Memoranda.

Whether the applicants were entitled to a revised Inspector seniority list based on actual appointment and assumption of charge, and to consequential revision of the December 2024 promotion orders.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides the basis for the applicants’ application before the Tribunal.

In Union of India v. N.R. Parmar, seniority could be linked to the vacancy year or requisition, but the Supreme Court overruled that approach in K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro, holding that seniority is counted from regular appointment and assumption of charge; the latter ruling operated prospectively and protected inter-se seniority arrangements already finalized under N.R. Parmar.

The Tribunal also relied on its decision in Jayanta Dey v. Union of India & Ors., affirmed by the Gauhati High Court, which treated an unfinalized draft list as outside the protection accorded to finalized seniority arrangements.

The Tribunal considered DoPT’s Office Memorandum dated 13 August 2021 and the Ministry of Finance’s Office Memorandum dated 26 October 2021, but held their provisions purporting to apply the earlier method to seniority still unfinalized on 18 November 2019 to be inapplicable to such arrangements.

The Tribunal treated the decisive distinction as whether the seniority arrangement had been finalized by 18 November 2019.

It reasoned that K. Meghachandra Singh protected arrangements already finalized under N.R. Parm