LAWS(KER)-2016-8-140

UNION OF INDIA Vs. M. CHENCHURAMAN

Decided On August 29, 2016
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
V/S
M. Chenchuraman Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These cases have been filed by the Union of India and Central Board of Excise & Customs Department, being aggrieved by the verdict passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam, in the concerned O.As. For convenience of reference and to understand the nature of the case, the prayers raised by the applicants in O.A.No.611/2009 are extracted below:

(2.) Obviously, the claim is with regard to the settlement of seniority with reference to the date of occurrence of vacancies. It was alleged by the applicants that, despite the availability of vacancies and in spite of the settled eligibility to get posting and promotion to the post in question, there was inaction on the part of the Department in finalizing the proceedings, which quite adversely affected the rights and interests of the parties concerned. The claim was sought to be resisted from the part of the Department, referring to the facts and figures to the effect that, there was no such lapse or default on the part of the Department and that the delay was because of various administrative reasons. However, rejecting the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners/Department, the O.A.s came to be allowed as per orders dated 16.11.2015, the operative portion of which reads as follows:

(3.) When the matters came up for consideration before this Court on the last occasion, a submission was made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants that, the proceedings now being pursued before this Court are nothing, but, an abuse of the process of Court in so far as, the Department has already taken a decision to have the seniority fixed with reference to the date of occurrence of the vacancies in other Commissionerates, based on the verdict passed by the Tribunal in the concerned States, in compliance with the mandate of the verdict passed by the Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. N.R.Parmar and others [(2012) 13 SCC 340]. In the above circumstances, time was sought for by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, to get instructions and to file an affidavit.