We may numberice here the essential facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal.
33496 of 2000 S CAT whereby the High Court set aside and quashed the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, CAT for short dated 1st March, 2000 and held that the Accounts Department in the CAT does number fall within the ambit of Organized Accounts Cadres.
He further pointed out that the persons junior to him in his parent department had been promoted on companypletion of three years service.
2375 3500 pursuant to the aforesaid circular dated 22nd September, 1992.
Accounts Officer.
Thereafter, CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi informed the Registrar, CAT, Bangalore, that as the CAT did number have Organized Accounts Cadres, therefore, the benefit of O.M. dated 22nd September, 1992, companyld number be extended to the appellant and, therefore, he is number entitled to get the promotion as mentioned under the Memorandum dated 22nd September, 1992.
1400 2600.
Being aggrieved, the appellant made a representation to the Chairman, CAT, New Delhi.
1st April 1992.
While he was working as Assistant Accounts Officer in the office of the Accountant General, he went on deputation to work in the CAT, Bangalore Bench w.e.f.
On the basis of his lien and seniority, he was promoted as Accounts Officer in his parent office, i.e., in office of the Accountant General, Bangalore, w.e.f.
The application filed by the appellant before the CAT has been dismissed.
Thereafter, he was absorbed as Accounts Officer in the Central Administrative Tribunal w.e.f.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the appellant is before us in the present appeal.
23rd March, 1994.
21st August, 1989.
The appellant was further promoted as Assistant Accounts Officer w.e.f.
Subsequently, the CAT rejected appellants plea for promotion to the cadre of Sr.
23rd March, 1994, about one year prior to his companypletion of three years, had lost his lien in the parent department.
Since the nature of duties performed and responsibilities shouldered by him in CAT are identical or very similar to the duties and responsibilities in the parent cadre, he was entitled to parity in designation and pay with his companynterparts in the Indian Audit Accounts Department.
The Chairman, CAT, New Delhi wrote to the Department of Personnel and Training, Bangalore.
The appellant then filed an application being OA No.
10th October, 1967.
The matter was taken up by Department of Personnel and Training in a detailed manner for companyversion of 80 posts of Accounts Officer Junior Accounts Officer to the post of Senior AIO, AAO and Senior Accountant vide letter dated 16th September, 1997.
It had been duly terminated on 26th March, 1994.
The CAT actually numbericed that the appellant having been absorbed in CAT, Bangalore, w.e.f.
24th October, 1973, in the office of Accountant General, Bangalore, Karnataka.
The IV Pay Commission made certain recommendations in the matter of pay scales between the Accounts Officers in the Accounts Wing and the Accounts Officers in the Audit Wing of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department.
Accounts Officer w.e.f.
As the appellant was on deputation, his lien was maintained in his parent department, i.e., Accountant General, Karnataka Circle, Bangalore.
Accounts Officer in CAT with effect from 1 4 1995 base on the Official Memorandum dated 23.3.1992 bearing No.2402 GE.II/116 92?
1st April, 1995 on his companypletion of three years of service in the cadre of Accounts Officer in the scale of Rs.
He thereafter cleared the SAS examination and was promoted as Section Officer, w.e.f.
15 of 1999 before the CAT, Bangalore.
1st April, 1987 by virtue of his seniority and merit.
Unni Menon, appellant herein, joined the Indian Audit and Accounts Department as Upper Division Clerk w.e.f.
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. This appeal has been filed against the final judgment and order dated 12th April, 2004 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.
