Chandigarh: Cops appointed from waiting list entitled to same benefits, rules CAT

The Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal has ruled that applicants, who remained on the waiting list and were appointed to vacant posts later under the same recruitment process, cannot be denied the service benefits as given to the candidates appointed through the main selection list.

The tribunal has passed the order on an application filed by three constables of Chandigarh Police, through advocate Nitin Sharma.

Police constables Anil Kumar, Mandeep and Sabin, in their petition, stated that they were part of the 2009 recruitment process for 150 constables. They were selected under the same process, although their names were on the waiting list rather than the main selection list. Later, when some candidates from the main list did not join, they were appointed against vacant posts under the same recruitment process. They joined on May 4, 2010, while the candidates from the main list had joined on September 11, 2009.

The petitioners argued that since they were appointed under the same selection process, they should be considered part of the same batch. They demanded that they be given a deemed date of appointment equal to the last selected candidate in the 2009 recruitment. They stated that not receiving the deemed date affected their seniority and deprived them of promotion opportunities.

Many employees, who were recruited later or through a different recruitment process, received promotion benefits, while their seniority was kept pending. This also affected their pay fixation, annual increments, pension, gratuity and other service benefits.

After hearing the arguments, the tribunal stated that the principle of equality should be applied in his case as well. It said the petitioners should be granted all service benefits equal to other constables in that batch The Tribunal said entire recruitment process was the same. Both the merit list and the waiting list were part of the same recruitment process. The applicants were appointed to the same 150 posts that remained vacant due to some candidates from the main list did not join service.

The tribunal said since the posts were from the same advertisement and recruitment was done through the same process, the candidates should not be denied the deemed date of appointment merely because they joined later.

The respondents are directed to grant the applicants the deemed date of appointment on a par with the last candidate appointed under the recruitment of 150 constables. Service of the applicants from the deemed date of appointment till actual joining shall be counted on notional basis for the purposes of seniority, eligibility for promotion, pay fixation, pensionary benefits, gratuity and other retirement dues.