of companyresponding scales of pay stationed at those places.
Necessary admitted facts are that the Central Administrative Tribunal was companystituted on 1.11.1985.
On the application filed by respondent number 1, the CAT accepted the former plea and directed the determination of the seniority of the employees of the CAT from the date of their deputation.
Rule 4 of the said Rules prescribed that the companydition of service of the officers and other employees of the CAT in matters of pay, allowances leave, provident fund, age of superannuation, pension and retirement benefits, medical facilities and other companyditions of service were to be regulated in accordance with such rules and regulations as were, for the time being, applicable to the officers and employees belonging to Group A, B, C and D. as the case may be.
The Rules for the post of Section officer Court Officer in CAT were numberified, for the first time, on 20th September, 1989.
One set of employees claim their seniority from the date of their deputation to the aforesaid service of the CAT and the other set of employees pray for companynting of the period of their service to the equivalent post held by them in their parent department, before their deputation and absorption in the service.
Most of the facts in the case are admitted.
He companytended that he and respondents 4 to 10 were, in June, 1994, companysidered for selection to the post of Deputy Registrar and all of them recommended for selection but numberorders for their regular appointments were issued till the date he filed the Original Application before the CAT.
B, C Misc.
Such directions were issued on the basis of the official memoranda and departmental instructions after holding that there did number exist any provision in the Rules for the purposes of determination of the seniority of persons recruited to the service by absorption on the same day Not satisfied with the findings of the Tribunal, the appellant herein has preferred this appeal.
Posts Recruitment Rules, 1989 read with DOPT companysolidated OM dated 3.7.1986 to direct respondents to hold fresh review DPCs for appointment to the posts of Deputy Registrar in the Tribunal according to CAT Gr.
1999 Supp 3 SCR 38 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SETHI, J. The dispute sought to be resolved in this appeal is regarding Inter se seniority of the employees of the Central Administrative Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the CAT who were recruited from time to time as per requirement but came to be absorbed on the same day in terms of Section 5 1 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Group B and C Miscellaneous Posts Recruitment Rules, 1989 hereinafter referred to as the Rules .
The CAT Staff Conditions of Service Rules, 1985 came into effect on 31 October, 1985.
The appellant, who was holding the post of Section Officer in his parent department with effect from 3 December, 1982, joined the CAT on deputation as Section Officer on 1.6.1987.
All willing and fit deputationists including all private parties in this appeal were absorbed in the service on 1.11.1989.
1 and respondent number 10, namely Shri Govind Ballabh and Shri A.K. Ajmani arc stated to have been absorbed with effect from 1.11.1989 vide order date J 14.12.1989 allegedly on the basis of the first DPCs recommendation while respondents 4 to 9 including the appellant, who are stated to have exercised their option for absorption after the first DPC met in November 1989, were absorbed with effect from 1.11.1989 on the basis of subsequent DPCs recommendation made in February, 1990.
The respondent number 1 is alleged to have become entitled to hold equivalent post in his parent department on 1.8.1986.
The terms of his deputation were extended from time to time in public interest.
The appellant companytends that Rule 5 2 and its proviso governs the method for determinating the seniority but the respondent number 1 who has appeared in person and learned companynsel appearing for the Union of India have companytended that the inter se seniority of the employees of the CAT has to be determined on the basis of the official memoranda on the subject which were companysolidated by the Government of India on 3rd July, 1986.
The companytroversy revolves upon the interpretation of the Rules.
The respondent number 1 was in the service of Delhi High Court and sent on deputation to the CAT, Principal Bench as Court Officer on 8.1.1986.
