D.D.Kaushik v. U O I & Ors

SANJIV KHANNA, J Pk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: 16th March, 2011 % Judgment Pronounced on: 18th March, 2011 + W.P.(C) 2329/2000 D.D. KAUSHIK ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. G.D. Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.K. Gupta, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Mr. Jitender, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No DIPAK MISRA, CJ Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 29th October, 1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (for short "the tribunal") in O.A. No. 529/1995. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts which are essential to be stated are that the petitioner on successful completion of the Subordinate Service Commission Examination conducted for the post of Inspector Central Excise during 1977 was offered the appointment on 23.11.1978 and joined in the service on 12.12.1978 at the Central Excise Collectorate, Bombay. On 30.4.1979, he submitted a representation to the Collector, Central Excise, Bombay requesting for transfer to Delhi on compassionate grounds. After receipt of the representation, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Bombay by his letter dated 28.5.1979 required the applicant to submit a declaration to the effect that on transfer to Delhi Collectorate, he would be treated as a new entrant and would be adjusted against direct recruitment vacancy of inspector and his seniority would be accordingly fixed. When the matter stood thus, he was further informed that he was required to complete two years probation period for becoming eligible for inter collectorate transfer. After completion of probation, by order dated 2.8.1982 he was transferred to Delhi Collectorate and was assigned the seniority at the bottom of seniority list of temporary inspector working in Delhi Collectorate at that time. The said seniority was reflected in the seniority list on 31.12.1990. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid publication of the seniority list, the petitioner submitted a representation in 1991 and he was communicated vide letter dated 30.9.1992 that his case along with others was recommended to re-fix the seniority appropriately but the said order was recalled by a communication dated 20.1.1994 as contained in Annexure-P25. A further representation met with unsuccess by communication dated 2.3.1994. 4. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner approached the tribunal contending, inter alia, that the transfer policy dated 12.2.1958 had not been superseded and, therefore, he should get the benefit of the said policy. The relief sought for by the petitioner was resisted on the ground that the application was barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Act; that the petitioner was transferred on his own request on compassionate grounds and had already given a declaration to accept the bottom seniority; that the circular dated 12.2.1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1958 circular) was superseded in 1972; and that the seniority was validly fixed as per the Circular dated 20.5.1980. 5. The tribunal after appreciating the rivalised submissions and referring to the various decisions in the field came to hold as follows: "Hence the applicant have been transferred on compassionate grounds and on the basis of the undertaking given by him to forego his seniority at Bombay and having accepted the bottom seniority at Delhi Collectorate and having worked for more than 10 years at Delhi, questioning the seniority cannot now to seek the benefit of circular of 1958 which in fact has been superseded by the department and issued separate orders in 1990. We are also fortified in our view by the judgment of the Principal Bench of the Trib