THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Writ Petition No.31723 of 2016 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) By present writ petition, petitioner assails order, dated 17.03.2016, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (for short “the Tribunal”), in O.A.No.020/0034 of 2014. 2. Petitioner was recruited as Sub-Inspector of Police (APSP), belonging to 1996 batch. While working so, he was sent on deputation to Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau (S.I.B.) as ACIO-II/Exe., on 20.06.2003. As per deputation policy guidelines, period of deputation would normally be for a period of three years extendable upto five years, and further, in case one is considered for absorption, he/she would be considered in the same rank in which he/she is officiating. While things stood thus, petitioner was promoted to the post of Reserve Inspector (R.I.) on 05.11.2005 in his parent department. Since the post of R.I. is equivalent to that of ACIO-I/Exe, petitioner requested S.I.B. to promote him to the said post on deputation. Said request was not considered and he was continued in the same post of ACIO-II/Exe., and it was informed that his request would be considered after absorption. Petitioner submitted option for absorption 2 RNT, J. & CGR, J W.P. No.31723 of 2016 in the year 2008, after processing the same, finally, he came to be absorbed in the S.I.B. in the rank of ACIO-II/Exe., with effect from 27.04.2011. Later, considering his service in the parent department, his seniority in the initial cadre of R.S.I. came to be fixed with effect from 11.11.1996 and accordingly, he has been promoted as ACIO- I/Exe., with effect from 01.04.2012. Petitioner aggrieved by the same and claiming his seniority to be fixed from the date of his promotion in his parent department i.e. 05.11.2005 as Reserve Inspector, which is equivalent to ACIO-I/Exe., filed O.A. before the Tribunal. 3. Respondents filed detailed counter-affidavit opposing the claim made by the petitioner. It is stated that petitioner’s seniority has been fixed in accordance with instructions contained in Department of Personnel and Training (“DoP & T”) Office Memorandum in F.No.20011/1/2000-Estt..(D), dated 27.03.2001, by which his regular service in the cadre of R.S.I. was considered and seniority came to be fixed with effect from 11.11.1996. It is further stated that as petitioner has been absorbed in the rank of ACIO-II/Exe., his service in equivalent grade on regular basis in his parent department alone would be eligible to be considered and the said aspect was very much intimated to him, only after petitioner’s willingness letters, dated 21.07.2008 and 13.04.2011 for absorption in the rank of ACIO-II/Exe., 3 RNT, J. & CGR, J W.P. No.31723 of 2016 his case has been considered for absorption and therefore, pleaded to dismiss the O.A. 4. The Tribunal, having considered aforesaid submissions, rejected the claim of petitioner by dismissing the O.A. The Tribunal considered the purport of DoPT instructions which came to be issued in pursuance to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.I. Rooplal v. Lt.Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi1 and also the petitioner’s willingness for permanent absorption in S.I.B. as ACIO- II/Exe., and rendered categorical finding that the seniority computed was very much within the purview of aforesaid circular and besides petitioner having given willingness cannot now turn around and claim to consider his seniority having regard to his promotion as R.I. in his parent department. Assailing the same, present writ petition is filed. 5. Heard Sri K.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pasala Ponna Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondents 1 to 3. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the findings rendered by the Tribunal while dismissing the O.A. are completely perverse and in as much as it failed to properly appreciate the true spirit of the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment rendered in S.I. Rooplal 1 JT 1999 (9) SC 597 4 RNT, J. & CGR, J W.P. No.31723 of 2016 case1, followed by the DoP&T instructions, dated 27.03.2001 and 11.11.2010. He further contended that the Tribunal erroneously has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has given willingness for absorption in S.I.B. in the rank of ACIO-II/Exe., therefore, has waived his right to claim seniority in the cadre of R.I. with effect from 05.11.2005. 7. Per contra, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, made submissions supporting the order passed by the Tribunal. He contended that as petitioner has given willingness by letters, dated 21.07.2008 and 13.04.2011 for absorption in the rank of ACIO-II/Exe., rightly the Tribunal has found that he is entitled for seniority in the same cadre considering his date of joining as R.S.I. with effect from 11.11.1996, which is strictly in terms of DoP & T circular as amended in pursuance to the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment. He also contended that when petitioner has made such request for permanent absorption as ACIO-I/Exe., the same came to be examined and reverted to the petitioner on 08.09.2008 informing that as per recruitment rules, such deputation in higher rank requires consultation of UPSC and, therefore, advised to apply for the said post as and when vacancies arise and advertised for filling up through UPSC. Therefore, petitioner was very much aware of the fact that his 5 RNT, J. & CGR, J W.P. No.31723 of 2016 seniority after absorption can be considered only with respect to the grade in which he is officiating on deputation. Further, by office memo, dated 15.02.2011, petitioner was intimated that his absorption in officiating capacity would be in the same rank i.e., ACIO-II/G, which he has accepted and never challenged, therefore, petitioner cannot somersault and claim seniority otherwise, therefore, pleaded to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 9. It is not in dispute that petitioner joined/worked on deputation with S.I.B. as ACIO-II/Exe., since 20.06.2003, which post is equivalent to that of R.S.I. He has been promoted in his parent department as Reserve Inspector on 05.11.2005. Initially in pursuance to advertisement to fill up 57 vacancies in the rank of ACIO-I/Exe., on deputation basis, dated 04.07.2008, petitioner has submitted his willingness by letter, dated 07.07.2008 However, the respondents issued memo, dated 08.09.2008 informing petitioner that as per recruitment rules, the deputation in rank of ACIO-I/G, requires consultation with UPSC, therefore, he has been advised to apply for the said post as and when vacancies are advertised through UPSC. However, with respect to the absorption in the same rank i.e., ACIO- II/G, can be considered after 21.06.2008, upon completion of five years 6 RNT, J. & CGR, J W.P. No.31723 of 2016 period of deputation in S.I.B, which is mandatory. Further, by memo., dated 15.02.2011, petitioner has been informed that he could be considered for absorption in the officiating capacity in the same rank i.e., ACIO-II/G with effect from the date of issuance of order subject to the condition that the absorption shall be in terms of DoP & T, circular, dated 27.03.2001 and his pay and allowances on absorption will be fixed in terms of MHA, dated 19.07.1983 as amended from time to time and accordingly was called upon to submit written willingness for further processing. Only, thereafter, petitioner has given willingness for absorption in officiating capacity in the rank of ACIO-II/G., by declaration, dated 13.04.2011. Considering the same, he came to be absorbed in S.I.B. in the rank of ACIO-II/G, with effect from 27.04.2011. Later, petitioner’s seniority in the absorbed rank of ACIO-II/G was determined following the DoP & T circular, dated 27.03.2001, and the same came to be fixed with effect from 11.11.1996 i.e., the date of his joining to the post of R.S.I., and accordingly, he has been promoted to the post of ACIO-I/G, on 01.04.2012. In the light of these admitted facts, petitioner’s request for considering his seniority from the date of his promotion to the post of Reserve Inspector which is equivalent to ACIO-I/G with effect from 05.11.2005, has to be tested considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.I. Rooplal case1 and the 7 RNT, J. & CGR, J W.P. No.31723 of 2016 resultant DoP&T Circular, dated 27.01.2001. Petitioner has relied on the following portion of the circular, which reads as follows: “The undersigned is directed to say that according to our O.M.No.20020/7/80-Estt (D), dated May 29, 1986 (copy enclosed) in the case of a person who is initially taken on deputation and absorbed later (i.e., where the relevant recruitment rules provide for “transfer on deputation/transfer”), his seniority in the grade in which he is absorbed will normally be counted from the date of absorption. If he has, however, been holding already (on the date of absorption) the same or equivalent grade on regular basis in his parent department, such regular service in the grade shall also be taken into account in fixing his seniority, subject to the condition that he will be given seniority from – the date he has been holding the post on deputation, or – the date from which he has been appointed on a regular basis to same or equivalent grade in is parent department, whichever is later:” 2. The Supreme Court has in its judgment dated December 14, 1999 in the case of Shri S.I. Rooplal & Others Vs. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi, JT 1999 (9) SC 597 has held that the words “whichever is later” occurring in the Office Memorandum dated May 29, 1986 and mentioned above are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and, hence, those words have been quashed from that Memorandum. The implications of the above ruling of the Supreme Court have been examined and it has been decided to substitute the term “whichever is later” occurring in the Office Memorandum dated May 29, 1986 by the term “whichever is earlier”.” 10. In pursuance to the aforesaid judgment, the DoP & T circular came to be amended in line with the same. Petitioner now claims that in view of the aforesaid judgment, his seniority has to be re-fixed in the cadre of ACIO-I/G, having regard to his promotion to the post of Reserve Inspector in his parent department with effect from 30.10.2005 rather than 01.04.2012 as already effected. The Apex 8 RNT, J. & CGR, J W.P. No.31723 of 2016 Court in the aforesaid judgment has categorically stated that, if a person who is initially taken on deputation and absorbed later, his seniority in the grade in which he is absorbed will have to be counted from the date of such absorption, however, if such person is already holding same or equivalent grade post on regular basis in his parent department, such service shall also be taken into consideration for fixing his seniority. Even DoP & T Circular, dated 27.01.2001, is to the same extent. Respondents in their counter-affidavit have categorically asserted that his seniority has been re-fixed in accordance with instructions contained in DoP & T circular, according to which, as petitioner has been holding the post of R.S.I., in his parent department with effect from 11.11.1996, the said period has been taken into consideration for re-fixing the seniority, though, petitioner has been absorbed in the rank of ACIO-II/Exe, which is equivalent to R.S.I. with effect from 27.04.2011, thereby he has been given all due credit and benefits emanating from the said circular. The Tribunal, having considered the effect of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the resultant circular, has rightly come to the conclusion that petitioner since has been taken on deputation and later absorbed in the rank of ACIO-II/G, rightly his service prior to such absorption in the cadre of RSI has been considered for re-fixing the seniority. We do not find any infirmity in such finding. 9 RNT, J. & CGR, J W.P. No.31723 of 2016 11. In so far as the other contention that the Tribunal committed error in construing that petitioner has given willingness for absorption in S.I.B. in the rank of ACIO-II/G, disentitling him to claim any benefit of seniority considering his promotion to the post of Reserve Inspector after 05.11.2005, we do not find any merit in as much as petitioner was clearly put on notice by memorandums, dated 08.09.2008 and 15.02.2011, intimating that his request for absorption in the rank of ACIO-I/G, was not feasible and rather advised to apply for the said post in case vacancies were advertised through UPSC and he can only be considered for absorption in the officiating rank of ACIO-II/G after completion of five years period of deputation, which he accepted and proceeded to submit written willingness on 13.04.2011, basing on which he has been later absorbed. By not challenging either of Memos., dated 08.09.2008 and 15.02.2011, petitioner has in a way waived his right to claim absorption or seniority in the rank of ACIO- I/G. The Tribunal has, rightly on appreciation of aforesaid memos, and the declaration of willingness submitted by petitioner, concluded that petitioner is not entitled to claim for retrospective seniority in the rank of ACIO-II/Exe., and the findings recorded do not suffer from any infirmity calling for interference of this Court. In view of the same, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. 10 RNT, J. & CGR, J W.P. No.31723 of 2016 12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:20.06.2025 cs