Seniority of employees in an intermediate grade belonging to different seniority units appearing for a selection/non-selection post in a higher grade is determined by the total strength of continuous service in the same or equivalent grade held by the employees, irrespective of the date of confirmation.

KAUSHIK, MEMBER, J.

( 1 ) SHRI Chandan Kumar Maji has filed this Original application with the following prayers :-"i. To direct the respondents to reckon seniority as I. O. W. Gr. I from the date of ad hoc promotion (4. 6. 93 ). II. To direct the respondents to, recast the impugned seniority list of i. O. W. Gr. I accordingly. III. Any other order (s) as the Tribunal deems fit. "

( 2 ) WE have heard learned Counsel for representing the contesting parties. No one has represented the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 despite due service. We have carefully perused the pleadings and records of this case.

( 3 ) THE factual matrix of this case is at a very narrow compass. The applicant came to be initially appointed to the post of apprentice IOW Grade-Ill after qualifying the selection conducted by the Railway Recruitment Board and was posted in Khurda Road Division on 17. 12. 1979. He was given regular posting on the post of IOW Grade-Ill on 20. 12. 1980. Subsequently,. he was transferred from Khurda Road Division to Kharagpur Division on 11. 9. 1984 in administrative interest. The applicant enjoyed his further promotion to the post of IOW Grade-Ill with effect from 23. 11. 1987 on which he was regularised with effect from 1. 1. 1993. Thereafter, he enjoyed his promotion to the post of iow Grade-l (re-designated as Sectional Engineer) on ad hoc basis w. e. f. 4. 6. 1993 and on regular basis from 6. 6. 1996. He was given the regular promotion on passing the requisite selection.

( 4 ) THE further facts of the case are that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are junior to the applicant in every respect. They belong to Bilashpur Division and they were appointed as IOW Grade-Ill on 1. 6. 1983k and 2. 6. 1983, respectively, at a much later date than that of the applicant. The date of applicant's appointment to the said post being 17. 12. 1979. The post of IOW grade-ll and Grade-l are divisional control post and in Bilashpur Division. The selection to the post of IOW Grade-l was held on at an earlier date than that of the applicant. The private respondents were promoted to the post of IOW w. e. f. 8. 12. 1995. In Kharagpur Division, during the period from 1992 to 1995, no selection was held for the post of IOW Grade-l and due to the fortunes circumstances, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 got their promotion at an early date on the post of IOW Grade-l. The Original Application has been filed on number of legal grounds complaining violation of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 300a of the Constitution of India.

( 5 ) THE respondents have filed a counter reply to the Original application wherein it has been mentioned that the applicant is claiming perfunctory relief without specifying any rule or provisions. Application suffered from non-joinder or necessary parties. The past history of the applicant has been narrated which is almost identical to that of the one narrated in the original Application. It has been averred that at the senior IOW Grade-ll whose lien were fixed in Kharagpur Division and working in Metro Railway and Construction Organisation etc. could not come on promotion to KGP division for their own non-sparing, the Authority Concerned take decision to issue ad-hoc promotion in exigency of the Administration with the approval of cpo/grc for some junior IOW Grade-ll. After setting all the disputes, the regular selection for the post of IOW Grade-l was held on 30. 11. 1995 followed by supplementary written examination on 19. 1. 1996. One cannot claim that the erstwhile junior should remain junior in everywhere and the senior will remain senior even after bifurcation in a separate seniority zone. Ad hoc promotion does not confer any right for claim for the seniority. The applicant has filed a rejoinder refuting the averments made in the statement of defence.

( 6 ) BOTH the learned Counsel for the contesting parties have reiterated the facts and grounds raised in their respective pleadings. The learned Counsel for the applicant has strived hard to persuade

Click Here to Read the rest of this document