Shri Shanker Raju, Member (J): Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Applicant, an Inspector in Delhi Police, impugns respondents order dated 23.2.2004 as well as an order passed on 3.2.2005 where his request for fixing of seniority without dwelling upon the seniority of the deputationist, who had now been absorbed in Delhi Police, was turned down.
3. On the other hand, Shri Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel appearing for respondents vehemently opposed the contentions. However, we take cognizance of an order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA-244/2002 (with connected cases) in Inspector Pratap Singh Saini & others v. Union of India & others, decided on 24.5.2006 wherein by ruling that before according seniority as per the decision of Apex Court in SI Rooplal & another v. Lt. Governor, through Chief Secretary, Delhi & others, JT 1999 (9) SC 597, the Tribunal observed that there should be an exercise on determining of equivalence of the scale and rank held by the erstwhile deputationists, now being absorbed in Delhi Police.
4. In this view of the matter, as the directions were to be complied with within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order dated 24.5.2006, an order passed by the respondents now reiterating the seniority accorded to the private respondents in the present case on the basis of equivalence in the grade has become redundant. By virtue of implication of the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal (supra), this exercise has to be undertaken and re-determination on equivalence has to be done. In such an event, the seniority now being settled would have to go change as per the decision taken by the respondents. As such the appreciation of the respondents or his grievance, which is fortified by the respondents by rejecting his request as to grant of seniority on the equivalent grade to the officers, who have now been absorbed in Delhi Police over and above the applicant, has settled for the time being till it resurfaces with a decision to be taken by the Delhi Police in the light of the decision in OA-244/2002 (supra).
5. In the result, as the equivalence has not attained finality, the orders passed by the respondents cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we partly allow the OA and direct the respondents to redo the equivalence as directed by the Tribunal in OA-244/2002 (supra) and thereafter decide the case of the applicant regarding grant of seniority by passing a reasoned order within a period of one month from the date of taking decision as to the equivalence of the private respondents in the present OA. Any promotion made during the interregnum shall remain subject to the final outcome of the decision to be taken by the respondents, insofar it relates to the promotion of the private respondents. No costs. ( Chitra Chopra ) ( Shanker Raju ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/