JAMEEL AHMED MOHAMMED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition judgment and order dated 19/9/05 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal ("Tribunal" for short) in Original Application No. 640 of 2002. The facts of the case may be shortly stated:

(2.) On 21/9/88 the petitioner was appointed as Inspector in Bombay-III Collectorate. On 28/9/95 the petitioner made a representation for Inter-Commissionerate Transfer. He was transferred to Bangalore on 2/4/97. One of the conditions prescribed in the order dated 2/4/97 was that he would not be considered for further confirmation/promotion in the parent Commissionerate. The order further contained the condition that if the petitioner was confirmed in the old charge his lien would be retained in the parent Commissionerate till he was confirmed in the new charge.

(3.) On 10/9/98 the petitioner made a representation for repatriation to Bombay Collectorate. In February 1999 Bangalore Commissionerate approved the petitioner's repatriation to Bombay-Commissionerate. On 7/4/99 Chief Commissionerate Mumbai who is the Competent Authority granted approval to the petitioner's repatriation. It is the case of the petitioner that his lien of two years in Mumbai Commissionerate was subsisting on 7/4/99. On 15/4/99 order of approval of the petitioner's repatriation to Mumbai Commissionerate was issued but the petitioner was sought to be treated as new entrant and he was placed before the last temporary employee. The petitioner made representations dated 10/5/99, 14/5/2001, 31/10/01 and 10/6/02 making grievance that his transfer to Mumbai Commissionerate was not treated as repatriation resulting in loss of his seniority maintained in the Bombay Commissionerate. He filed original application in the Tribunal challenging the denial of proper seniority to him vide Establishment Order No 18/99 dated 15/4/99 whereby he was granted repatriation to the original post in the Mumbai Collectorate but his seniority was fixed below the last temporary Inspector of Central Excise and Customs in the Bombay Commissionerate in the seniority list of 2000 in which his juniors superseded him. The petitioner also challenged order dated 17/7/02 whereby the respondent department denied his plea of retention of lien and seniority in the combined M-1-07 Commissionerate Zone.