Seniority cannot be granted to employees not borne in the cadre; it must reflect the actual date of joining. A fresh seniority list should be prepared following Supreme Court rulings.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order/judgment dated 18.12.2024 passed in O.A No.051/00317/2021 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench [Circuit Bench at Ranchi] (in short, the learned Tribunal) whereby and whereunder while allowing the O.A No.051/00317/2021 a direction has been passed upon the respondents (petitioners herein) to prepare a fresh final seniority list in respect to the Upper Division Clerk in Jharkhand region for the recruitment year(s) in the light of observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. V. Ningam Siro and Ors.” reported in (2020) 5 SCC 689 and order dated 15.12.2020 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Jaipur in O.A No.291/194/2020 which attains its finality after dismissal of W.P No.351 of 2021 by the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur and further the S.L.P filed against the said order being being Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.(s). 25050 of 2022 has also been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition which has been incorporated from the O.A being O.A No. OA/051/00317/2021 filed before the learned Tribunal by the respondent nos. 1 to 4 herein reads as under:

(i) The applicants-respondent nos.1 to 4 herein, have joined their service in the month of December 2009 as LDC in ESIC Corporation at Rajasthan and after merger of LDC and UDC, applicants were upgraded to the post of UDC in December 2011 whereas applicant of OA 348/2021 initially appointed as UDC in Maharashtra Region and transferred to Jharkhand Region on 30.06.2017 and posted at Ranchi.

(ii) As per IRT Policy dated 05.03.2013 contained in Annexure A/1, applicants were transferred to Jharkhand Region in the year 2016 and 2017. Thereafter, respondent no. 4 (petitioner herein) on 13.12.2019 published Regional Seniority list of UDC as on 31.03.2016 in which name of the applicants figured as 49, 47, 50 and 48 but again the same respondent published another seniority list on 16.12.2019 as on 31.03.2016 in which, name of the applicants was not figured. Again, revised seniority list published on 14.09.2020 as on 31.03.2016 but in this list also, the name of the applicant does not figure.

(iii) Applicants were raised objection but without considering the objection, again published final seniority list on 13.11.2020 in which also, name of the applicants were missing and applicants were put below the employees who are joined their service in the year 2016 and DPC were held on 29-31.08.2016.

(iv) It is further case of the applicants that the respondents vide letter dated 13.11.2020 rejected the claims of the applicants stating therein that revised seniority list were prepared as per instruction issued by DoPT Om dated 04.03.2014.

(v) It is further pleaded in the OA that Jammu Bench of the Tribunal in OA 658/2020 having exactly similar facts and circumstances held that direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court has not been considered while preparing of the seniority list. The respondents are duty bound to obey the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 19.11.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 8853/2019 in the case of “K. Meghachandra Singh” (supra). Besides this, so many orders passed by the different Bench of the Tribunal has also been referred.

(vi) It is further pleaded that name of the applicants was not included in the final list dated 13.11.2020 and from that list one Deepa