R V SINHA Vs. AJAY KUMAR TANDON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Research and Analysis Service (RAS) is a group-A service in the Cabinet Secretariat. Respondent Raghav Prasad Bhatnagar cleared Civil Services Examination 1991. He was appointed as Assistant Commandant in C.I.S.F. group-A on 12.10.1992. All the probationers were given an option to join RAS. It was made clear that if the aspirants were already employed in government service they would be required to resign from those posts and the previous service rendered by them would not be counted for the purposes of seniority. The applicant opted for RAS on 1st September 1993. He moved a representation on 3.9.2003 with the prayer that his seniority should be counted from the date of 12.10.1992 when he had joined the government service. He also averred that similarly placed persons J.K. Ojha and others have been granted the benefit of previous service by the Tribunal. His representation was rejected for the reasons mentioned above and due to the reason that the respondent did not join RAS from an organized service and as such he was not not entitled to the benefit of past service. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent approached Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its order dated 18th August 2005 allowed the petition and quashed the order rejecting respondents representation. It was directed that the respondent will get the benefit of his past service rendered in C.I.S.F. Aggrieved by that order the present writ petition has been filed by UOI with the prayer that the judgment passed by the Tribunal dated 18.8.2005 be quashed.

(2.) We passed the following order on 30.05.2006:-

(3.) Today the learned counsel for the petitioner states that they are not willing to withdraw the benefits already accorded to Sh. J.K. Ojha. He further submits that the terms of appointment specifically provided that credit for previous government service in another organization is not to be taken. He pointed out that giving the respondent the credit for service in C.I.S.F. was contrary to the terms of the appointment letter. He has also relied upon case of Sub-Inspector Rooplal and Anr. Vs. Lt. Governor Delhi and Ors. 2001 SCC 644, wherein it was held:-