Settled seniority cannot be disturbed after a significant delay without timely objections to established seniority listings.

ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)

Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, seeking the following relief:

“(i) To issue order or direction to quash the impugned order dated 19-08-2025 (A-1) and 27.8.2025 and to revert respondent no.5 from the post of Chief Office Superintendent, and to recover all benefits of promotion from respondent no.5 and also to direct the department for initiating departmental proceeding against the responsible officer.

(ii) To issue order or direction to the Respondents to promote the applicant to the post of Chief Officer Superintendent Level-07 in G.P. Rs.4600 from due date with all consequential benefits along with full back wages and seniority and also to pay the interest @ 6% per annum with the arrears of salary in favour of the applicant.

(iii) To issue order or direction to the Respondents to pass any such and further order as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv) Award the cost in favour of the applicant.”

2. Brief facts of this case are that the applicant was selected for the post of Senior Clerk with Pay Band Rs.5200-20200+G.P. 2800 in the Commercial Department on compassionate ground and joined his duty on 03.05.2016. Respondent no.5 was working on the post of Junior Clerk in the department and was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk in grade pay Rs.2800 w.e.f. 11.05.2016 as per office order no.309 of 2016. The applicant as well as Respondent No.5 was promoted to the post of office superintendent Level-06 in grade pay Rs.4200 by office order dated 20.09.2018 and both are working on the same post and department under senior DCM Jhansi. The personnel department Jhansi issued provisional seniority list of office superintendent on 21.02.2025 in which the date of appointment of the applicant has been shown as 11.05.2016 with which the applicant is aggrieved as he claims that he was appointed and posted as Senior Clerk on 03.05.2016 and is senior to respondent no.5. The applicant filed an objection dated 21.03.2025 against the provisional seniority list. Thereafter, the DRM issued the impugned letter dated 19.08.2025 wherein the seniority of the promoted employee is stated to be above that of the employee appointed directly since the date of joining of the direct recruit and promotion of the promotee are same.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant had joined before the respondent no.5 and therefore he should be above him in the seniority list. The department prepared the service book of the applicant on dated 03.05.2016 and also prepared attendance of the applicant with other staff from April-2016 to 15.05.2016 and in the attendance sheet the applicant is on duty w.e.f. 03.05.2016 and the department has also issued pay slip in favour of the applicant in which also the date of appointment is 03.05.2016. Respondent no.5 was working on the post of Junior Clerk in the department, he was promoted to the post of senior clerk in grade pay Rs.2800 w.e.f. 11.05.2016 as per officer order No.309 of 2016 but the applicant was appointed on the post of senior clerk w.e.f. 03.05.2016. Hence, the applicant is senior to respondent no.5. The applicant as well as respondent no.5 was promoted to the post of Office Superintendent Level-6 in grade pay Rs.4200 by office order dated 20.09.2018 and both are working on the same post and department under senior DCM Jhansi. It is argued that the respondents have passed a misleading order dated 19.08.2025 on the basis of Master Circular 34 para 2.1. The above mentioned rule is not applicable in the p