Seniority for employees appointed on compassionate grounds must be determined based on the calendar year of appointment, not the vacancy year, and cannot be claimed from a date prior to their actual entry into the cadre.

O R D E R

Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member

Applicant is a Junior Passport Assistant in the Regional Passport Office, Kochi. He is aggrieved by the arbitrary and discriminatory way in which seniority was fixed in the cadre of Junior Passport Assistants, JPA for short, under Annexure-A1. So, he has approached the Tribunal seeking a declaration that Annexure-A1 seniority list, in so far as it is not consistent with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Meghachandra Singh and others. v. Ningam Siro and others [(2020) 5 SCC 689], is arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional, to direct the respondents to consider Annexure-A5 representation of the applicant and to determine the seniority vis-a-vis counter parts by applying the principles of law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meghachandra.

2. Applicant's father was a Superintendent in Regional Passport Office, Kochi. He had died in harness on 06.03.2010 and thereafter the applicant was appointed as LD Clerk which was the designation on 15.12.2014, under the compassionate appointment scheme. Later, it was re-designated as JPA and he was appointed in Bangalore. Thereafter he was transferred to Kavaratti, in Lakshadweep.

3. That means, the applicant had started career as LD Clerk/JPA on 15.12.2014. According to the applicant, the cadre of JPA is maintained in all India basis. In 2015, Annexure-A2 seniority list of Group-C post as on 01.04.2015 was published by the respondents, where applicant appears at sl.No.591 and those between 577 and 599, both inclusive, are persons appointed on compassionate ground in different Regional Passport Offices. Similarly, in Annexure-A3, the seniority list of JPAs as on 01.04.2016, the applicant appears at sl.No.581. Here, sl.Nos.567 to 589, both inclusive, are persons appointed on compassionate grounds. According to the applicant, thereafter, a draft seniority list was published under Annexure-A4 for the period as on 01.01.2019. In Annexure-A4, the applicant appears at sl.No.351 and persons between 340 and 360 are the JPAs appointed on compassionate ground.

4. However, in Annexure-A4 he noticed that some of the JPAs, who were appointed simultaneously with the applicant on compassionate grounds, who were among sl.Nos.567 to 569 in Annexure-A3, have been given sl.Nos.83 to 87. The applicant is given to understand that the draft seniority list of Annexure-A4 for the first time was prepared by applying the principle enunciated in Union of India and others v. N.R. Parmar and others [(2012) 13 SCC 340].

5. According to the applicant, application of N.R.Parmar for the preparation of seniority list is erroneous in the light of the decision in Meghachandra. So, he gave Annexure-A5 representation, which is not considered by the respondents and that prompted him to approach this Tribunal seeking the aforestated reliefs.

6. According to the applicant, he has been placed at sl.No.352 in ignorance of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meghachandra, quoted supra, which was the law applicable on the relevant period of time. In Meghachandra, Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that 'law of determination of seniority as propounded by various pronouncements' clearly indicate that a person cannot claim seniori