(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in its O.A.No.20 of 2021 dated 22.02.2023 and quash the same.)

Common Order:

S.M. Subramaniam, J.

Under assail is the common order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench in a batch of Original Applications.

2. Dispute arose between the Direct Recruits and Promotees, regarding fixation of inter se seniority in the cadre of Inspectors of Income Tax to the higher cadre.

3. Learned counsel for Union of India would mainly contend that issues have been initially decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Union of India and others vs. N.R.Parmar and others, reported in 2012 (13) SCC 340 (in short ‘N.R.Parmar’s case’), holding that the date of notification is to be reckoned for fixation of seniority of the employees serving in the cadre of Inspectors of Income Tax. N.R.Parmar’s case has been decided by the Hon’ble Two Judges Bench of Supreme Court of India. Subsequentlly, in K.Megachandra Singh and others vs. Ningam Siro and Others, reported in 2020 (5) SCC 689, (in short ‘K.Megachandra Singh’s case’), Hon’ble Three Judges Bench of Supreme Court of India ruled that proposition laid down in N.R.Parmar’s case is not a good law and the said judgment was delivered on 19.11.2019. Thereafter, the issue has been referred to a Larger Bench by the Apex Court of India in the case of Hariharan and others vs. Harsh Vardhan Singh Rao and others, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1717 (in short ‘Hariharan’s case’), regarding correctness of the ratio laid down in N.R.Parmar’s case and K.Megachandra Singh’s case. Admittedly, H ariharan’ s case is subjudice before the Apex Court.

4. Some of the employees approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chennai Bench, challenging the draft seniority list and CAT, Chennai Bench disposed of applications, relying on the order passed by the CAT, Bangalore Bench in O.A.No.219 of 2022 dated 17.01.2022. Union of India preferred the present Writ Petitions mainly on the ground that any inconsistency in the matter of fixation of seniority would unsettle the seniority and in order to maintain transparency in the matter of grant of promotion, it necessitated to file the present Writ Petitions.

5. Admittedly, the order passed by the CAT, Bangalore Bench in O.A.No.219 of 2022 dated 17.01.2022 came to be challenged by way of writ proceedings in W.P.No.5172 of 2024 (S-CAT) (Union of India and others vs. Amit Kumar and others) before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. A Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru passed a final order on 13.06.2024 and the relevant portions of the order read as under:

               “7. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the three-judge Bench in K. Meghachandra Singh's case (supra), had reversed the ratio in N R Parmar's case (supra), and had specifically directed the preparation of the seniority list while saving the seniority list which had been prepared on the basis of the decision in N R Parmar's case (supra). It was such seniority list, which was in operation on the strength of the OMs which were under challenge before the Tribunal.

               8. In view of the fact that the matter stands referred to two-judge bench in Hariharan's case (supra), the contention that the decision in K. Meghachandra Singh's case (supra), is no longer applicable, cannot be accepted in the light of the decision relied on by the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for petitioners. We are therefore of the opinion that in the light of the judgment of two-judge bench of the Apex Court in Hariharan's case (supra), the seniority lists which were prepared on the strength of the Judgment of the Apex Court in K. Meghachandra Singh's case (supra), would have to govern the field and be operated till the larger bench answers the question as referred by Hariharan's case (supra).

               9. In he above view of the matter, we direct that the petitioners shall follow the ratio of the Judgment in K.Meghachandra Singh's case (supra), and shall operate the seniority list accordingly. The seniority list which was prepared on the basis of the ratio in N.R.Parmar's Case shall stand protected as observed by the three-judge bench in K. Meghachandra Singh's case (supra). It is made clear that the seniority list as well as the promotions made will be subject to revision as and when the matter is finally settled by the larger bench constituted to decide the issue as required in Hariharan's case (supra). The impugned order shall stand modified to that extent.

               10. Accordingly, the petitions stand disposed of.”

6. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the seniority list, which was prepared on the basis of the ratio laid down in N.R.Parmer’s case, is protected even in the case of K.Megachandra Singh’s case. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that at the time of passing the impugned order by the CAT, Chennai Bench, the decision in K.Megachandra Singh’s case was not available.

7. This Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case, since the issues are subjudice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. However, this Court is inclined to follow the orders of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of Union of India vs. Amit Kumar, reported in NC:2024:KHC:21062-DB, in order to maintain consistency in the matter of grant of promotion uniformly to the employees without causing any infringement of rights during the interregnum period, till such time the issue is resolved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Therefore, Writ Petitioners / Union of India are to follow the ratio laid down by the High Court of Karnataka in its order dated 13.06.2024 in the case of Union of India and others vs. Amit Kumar and others, till such time the Hariharan’s case pending before the Supreme Court of India is finally decided. However, any seniority fixed during the interregnum period is subject to the final orders to be passed by the Apex Court in Hariharan’s case.

With the above observations, all these Writ Petitions are allowed and the common orders passed by the CAT, Chennai Bench dated 22.02.2023 and 06.03.2019 stand set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.