(1.) 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 S. 5 (1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Group B and C Miscellaneous Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). 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 counting 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. On the application filed by respondent No. 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. Such directions were issued on the basis of the official memoranda and departmental instructions after holding that there did not 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.
(2.) Most of the facts in the case are admitted. The controversy revolves upon the interpretation of the Rules. The appellant contends that Rule 5 (2) and its proviso governs the method for determining the seniority but the respondent No. 1 who has appeared in person and learned counsel appearing for the Union of India have contended 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 consolidated by the Government of India on 3/07/1986. Necessary admitted facts are that the Central Administrative Tribunal was constituted on 1-11-1985. The CAT (Staff) (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1985 came into effect on 31/10/1985. Rule 4 of the said Rules prescribed that the condition 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 conditions 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, of the corresponding scales of pay stationed at those places. The respondent No. 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. The terms of his deputation were extended from time to time in public interest. The appellant, who was holding the post of Section Officer in his parent department with effect from 31/12/1982, joined the CAT on deputation as Section Officer on 1-6-1987. The respondent No. 1 is alleged to have become entitled to hold equivalent post in his parent department on 1-8-1986. The Rules for the post of Section Officer/court Officer in CAT were notified, for the first time, on 20/09/1989. All willing and fit deputati-onists including all private parties in this appeal were absorbed in the service on 1-11-1989. The draft seniority list of Section Officers/court Officers/private Secretaries in the CAT was published on 16-11-1990. Final seniority list as on 1-11-1989 is admitted to have been published on 17-5-1994. Respondent No. 1 filed Original Application before the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal on 2-6-1995 seeking the following reliefs :
(3.) The Central Administrative Tribunal found that the guidelines issued by it, which were sought to be quashed, were not legal and thus not sustainable. It also noticed that the correctness of the impugned guidelines had been doubted by the CAT itself who withdrew the same vide its letter dated 5-5-1995. No party is aggrieved by such findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal.