The entitlement to notional seniority is subject to actual joining dates, irrespective of previous merit, affirming procedural adherence over retrospective adjustments.

ORDER

Per : Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)

The present O.A. has been filed by the applicants challenging (i) the impugned order issued by Respondent No.3 dated 09.06.2020 for not acceding to their request for granting inter-se- seniority with effect from 2012 as per order of their merit in the final select list by direct recruitment to the post of DBW/Semi-Skilled, which was published on 23.06.2012 (Annex-A-1); (ii) the impugned order dated 15.12.2018 for applicant no.2 and order dated 10.01.2019 for applicant no.1 published by Respondent No.3 for appointment against the existing vacancies illegally; (iii) the impugned seniority list of Semi- Skilled Grade, Skilled Grade, Highly Skilled Grade-II and Highly Skilled Grade-I, in which the names of junior employees were shown without making any provision or mentioning of adding the name of applicants appropriately who were senior to them in the final select list as per order of their merit position, after and/or subject to the judgment of C.A.T., Mumbai Bench, Mumbai and / or the Hon'ble High Court, Mumbai / Nagpur was declared in their favour; and (iv) the impugned actions of the respondents for not making any provision for granting due service benefits of notional appointment to DBW/SS against the vacancies of recruitment year 2011-12 or earlier to it and/or upgradation / promotion in higher posts to the applicants, at par with the junior employees and consequently inter-se-seniority in those posts.

2. Brief facts of the case as stated in the O.A., are that the applicants were selected for the post of Danger Building Worker / Semi- Skilled Grade [in short, DBW (SS)] after passing written examination and trade test held on 12.02.2012 and 02.06.2012 respectively. The final selection list was published on 23.06.2012 in accordance with the order of merit (aggregate marks) obtained by each of the candidates. The names of applicant no.1 and 2 were placed at merit sl.no.230 and 347 respectively out of total 672 numbers of candidates selected finally for the post.

2.1. However, the Respondent No.3 intimated to the applicants vide letter dated 05.01.2013 that their selection for the post of DBW (SS) had been cancelled by the Competent Authority in accordance with the provisions of the “WARNING” in the attestation form, which was, inter alia, related to filling up the column of criminal cases pending in the Court, if any. The applicants challenged the impugned cancellation of their selection for the post of DBW (SS) before this Tribunal in O.A.395/2013, which was decided by order dated 07.08.2014 and thereby set aside the impugned orders and directed the respondents to issue appointment order to the applicants within a period of four weeks.

2.2. The aforesaid order was challenged by the Union of India, before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay through Writ Petition No.11384/2014, which was subsequently transferred to the Hon'ble High Court, Bench at Nagpur and re-numbered as Writ Petition No.2800/2018 and vide order dated 30.08.2018, the said Writ Petition was dismissed. Thereafter, the respondents ultimately issued appointment order dated 07.12.2018 to the applicant no.2 for the post of DBW (SS), after getting his fresh P.V.R. from the local civilian authority and also medical fitness certificate from the competent medical officer of Ordnance Factory Hospital, Chanda. The applicant no.2 thereafter joined his duties in Factory on 11.12.2018. Similarly, in respect of applicant no.1 appointment order was issued on 04.01.2019, after getting his fresh P.V.R. from the local civilian authority and also medical fitness certificate from the competent medical officer of Ordnance Factory Hospital, Chanda. Applicant No.1 joined his duties in the Factory on 07.01.2019. However, the Respondent No.3 issued orders dated 1