1)In O.A 741/2013 and 692/2013 the applicants were direct recruit Inspectors who were selected vide advertisement issued in year 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. The recruitment process lasted for 2 to 3 years before applicants were appointed. The post had as above a quota of direct recruitment and promotee. The Bombay Bench of the Tribunal directed the respondents to revise the seniority list of Inspectors by following the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Parmar's case referred above and by ignoring clause 5(b) of the DoP&T OM of 4.3.2014 and place the applicants according to the recruitment year i.e, the year in which the recruitment process was initiated by notifying the vacancies to be filled up, although it may take a couple of years to complete the said selection process.

2). The Bombay Bench in O.A 741 and 692 of 2013 analysed in detail the Apex Court judgment in Union of India v. N.R.Parmar (2012) 13 SCC 340 wherein the Apex Court had held that issuance of advertisement is crucial to determine the seniority of direct recruits and the provisions of DoP&T OM dated 07.02.1986 and 3.07.1986 have to be followed. The OM dated 3.3.2008 was declared irrelevant for determining the seniority of direct recruit and promotee officers. The Bench also observed that it has been specifically held in Parmar's case that the direct recruits have to be interspaced with promotee officers of the same recruitment year in which the promotee officers were appointed although the direct recruits may have actually been appointed and joined in subsequent years. In para 22.1(b) the Apex Court held:

'22.1(b) It is not necessary that the direct recruits for vacancies of a particular recruitment year, should join within the recruitment year (during which the vacancies had arisen) itself. As such, the date of joining would not be a relevant factor for determining the seniority of direct recruits. It would suffice if action has been initiated for direct recruit vacancies, within the recruitment year in which the vacancies had become available. This is so, because delay in administrative action, it was felt, could not deprive an individual of his due seniority. As such initiation of action for recruitment within the recruitment year would be sufficient to assign seniority to the concerned appointees in terms of the 'rotation of quotas' principle, so as to arrange them with other appointees (from the alternate source), for vacancies of the same recruitment year.

3)The Bombay Bench also considered the retrospective application of the Parmar's judgment by stating that every judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is the law of the land and it is always retrospective in operation unless it is specifically directed by the Court itself in the judgment that the decision will have prospective application only. There is nothing in the judgment in Parmar's case which intends that the judgement should have only prospective application. The Bench also observed that the judgment is in rem i..e, applicable to all similarly situated and not in personnem i.e, applicable to the parties involved therein only. 17 The respondents are directed to notionally assign and fix the seniority of the applicant with reference to date of initiation of the process of recruitment and in terms of the rotation of quota principle and operate the revised seniority list when promotions are effected to the next promotion post.

4) you should get the reliefs in view of CAT judgment of bombay bench

On perusal of the referred judgment it can be inferred that direct recruits seniority has been protected.

The 15 paragraph of the judgment in OA 611/2009 dated 16.11.2015 is clear and confirms your statement, the contents are reproduced below:

Based on the above precedent of the Apex Court in the Parmar's Case and the Bombay Bench judgement supra the respondents are directed to revise the seniority list suitably so as to interspace the direct recruit applicant with the promotee officers at appropriate slots on the basis of their recruitment year and not on the basis of the date when they they have actually joined service.

The above clearly states that if your case is similar to this then it is in your favor.

CAT Ahmadabad would follow the judgment of CAT Mumbai

2) time taken for disposal of your application in CAT Ahmedabad only local lawyer can guide you

The referred judgment is a clear authority and precedence based on which your case also can be decided by CAT wherever you may file.

You dont wait for the reply by the organisation/competent authority beyond a stipulated time period.

You may add in your pleadings about the non-responsive attitude of the department in this regard when a representation was made, in the case before CAT.

You may proceed as per provisions of law, all the best.

if your department is not granting you benefit of judgment of CAT Mumbai then file application in CAT Ahmedabad that your seniority be revised with retrospective effect

2)merely because DOPT has not issued any amendment to OM dated 4th march 2014 should not dis entitle you to claim benefit

The department will maintain elusive attitude only without giving clear cut instruction on it.

Their refusal will not be in writing and they will intentionally drag on the issue.

You have to look for reliefs through court of law only with a petition before CAT once again.