Judgment

YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J.- These six appeals have been filed against the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, dated August 22, 1989 while disposing of Original Application Nos. 145 to 150 of 1987. Those were filed seriatim by B. Jayaraman; A. Kanakasena Rao; M. Venkatachalam; A. Sherfudeen; K. Viswanathan and P. Madhavan Adiyodi. The respondents in all these six matters before the Tribunal were the same - namely, respondent 1 was Union of India whereas respondents 2 to 13 were the erstwhile Secretarial Assistants promoted as Superintendents Grade II and further promoted as Superintendents Grade I in the Secretariat of the Government of Pondicherry and governed by the Government of Pondicherry (Group C - Non-Gazetted Ministerial Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).

2. The petitioners before the Tribunal had challenged the promotion of respondents 2 to 13 therein who were promoted from Secretarial Assistants to Superintendents Grade II and further promoted as Superintendents Grade I before them in spite of the fact that the petitioners had already been working as Superintendents Grade II prior to the promotion of erstwhile Assistants as Superintendents Grade II. The promotion of respondents before the Tribunal was alleged to be based on tentative seniority list wherein respondent 1 had included the feeder service rendered by the Assistants between January 1, 1973 and July 31, 1981 for computing the seniority in the grade of Superintendent Grade II. The plea of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that from August 1, 1981 respondents 2 to 13 who were Assistants and were in a distinctly lower scale of pay as compared to the applicants, they could not be promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade I before the petitioners. The Tribunal allowed the applications, O.A. Nos. 145 to 150 of 1987 and held:

"It appears to us that there has been some confusion between a liberal provision which has been deliberately made for conferring eligibility for consideration for promotion to the next higher post with reckoning of the period of service rendered in the post of Assistant for the purpose of counting seniority in the post of Superintendent, Grade II. The tentative seniority lists based on which promotions of respondents 2 to 13 have been made as Superintendents Grade I are based on the application of an erroneous principle of determining seniority which is not backed by any statutory provision. That has led to a situation where persons promoted to a higher grade of Superintendent Grade II before the Assistants and in which posts they were also confirmed, are being placed below respondent 2 onwards."

3. The Tribunal accordingly set aside the promotions of respondents 2 to 13 before it contained in various orders of the Government of Pondicherry dated August 7, 1986; August 20, 1986; September 1, 1986 and November 17, 1986. Respondent 1 was further directed to prepare the seniority list in the grade of Superintendent Grade II on the basis of the length of service rendered in that grade and thereafter, all the eligible persons may be considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade I and that should include persons like respondents 2 to 13 before it who would get the benefit of service rendered by them as Assistant between January 1, 1973 to November 30, 1981 for determining the period of eligibility and not for the purpose of seniority in the cadre of Superintendent Grade II.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal the Union of India had preferred the present appeals.

5. It appears the petitioners before the Tribunal were aggrieved by the grant of benefit of service rendered during the period January 1, 1973 to July 31, 1981 by those who were working in the grade of Assistants towards their seniority in the grade of Superintendent Grade II.

6. For appreciating the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties we may give a statement showing the dates o