These directions issued by the Tribunal have triggered off the present companytroversy.
There was another group of officers in Defence Service, namely, Group B Officer in Class II known as Assistant Defence Estate Officer Technical who were number companysidered to be in the Indian Defence Estate Service IDES .
They therefore filed application before the CAT for absorbing them in the IDES and also reckoning their companytinuous length of service as such.
It may be pertinent to recall that the appellants were directly recruited as Group B officers in IDES with effect from 15.3.1969 and 22.2.1968 respectively.
The respondents 3 to 27 were treated as junior to appellant No.
As we have already numbered earlier the companycerned DPCs at relevant time companysidering the companytinuous officiation of appellants in Group B posts of IDES had already promoted them to Group A posts of Junior Time Scale from 19.1.1973 and 5.3.1975 respectively and they were subsequently promoted to the Senior Time Scale Group A on regular basis from 15.6.1982 and they were further promoted to Junior Administrative Grade in Group A posts on 22.2.1988.
In short, against direct recruits in Group B Class Ii service like the appellants those latter group of officers claimed seniority and absorption.
Respondents 3 to 27 are direct recruits appointed to Group A Class I Junior Time Scale after the appellants were promoted to that cadre.
A few relevant facts leading to this appeal may number be numbered.
Thereafter they were promoted to the next higher posts of Senior Time Scale STS and Junior Administrative Grade JAG in June, 1982, and February, 1988 respectively by the Departmental Promotion Committee DPC .
Defence Establishment Service IDES in 1976 long after their appointments as AMEOs.
These AMEOs.
2, on account of the fact that respondents 3 to 27 entered the service as direct recruits in Group A Junior Time Scale on various dates between 9.8.1973 and 1.3.1975, while the appellants herein were promoted to Junior Time Scale of Group A on 19.1.1973 and 5.3.1975 respectively.
The problem about re fixation of inter se seniority in Group A Junior Time Scale of direct recruits like respondents 3 to 27 and promotes like the appellants became acute on account of certain subsequent developments.
As numbered earlier the appellants feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the Tribunal in O.A. No.
In the list as per letter dated 15.1.1991 the names of the applicants be included and shown against supernumerary posts in companypliance with CAT Judgment of 30.11.1988.
The Tribunal in the application moved by AMEOs issued direction in their favour.
companytended before the Tribunal that once they are absorbed in the IDES in Group B service they should be treated at par with existing Group B IDES like the appellants and their inter se seniority should be fixed keeping in view their companytinuous length of service prior to their induction into IDES.
These latter group of officers were called Assistant Military Estates Officers AMEOs who were brought into Indian.
These facts are undisputed.
The two appellants were initially recruited to Class II Group B service of the Indian Defence Estates Service IDES in 1990 and 1968 respectively.
In those proceedings before the Tribunal the appellants were made parties, because reshuffling of seniority in Group B posts in IDES was likely to have adverse effects on the seniority of appellants in Group B posts to which they were directly recruited.
B. Majmudar, J. Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave is against the order of Central Administrative Tribunal CAT , Principal Bench, New Delhi dismissing Original Application No.
They were promoted to the lower post of Group A of Class I as Junior Time Scale JTS Officers in 1973 and 1975.
1, while respondents 10 to 27 were treated as junior to appellants No.
2937/91 filed by the appellants against Union of India and the companycerned respondents working in the same department.
