A settled seniority list which has remained unchallenged for a reasonable period (3 to 4 years) cannot be reopened or disturbed subsequently, as it would cause systemic instability and prejudice the vested rights of other employees.

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:

“ a)To call for the records/files relating to the (a) impugned bearing No.TN/CHN/Adm.1/A7/Seniority list/SSA/2016 datd 02.08.2016 (A-33) of the 3rd respondent herein namely, the RPFC-I, CPFO, quash the same in so far as the applicant is concerned; (b) impugned letter bearing No.TN/Adm.1/A8(4) SS Promotion/2016-17 dated 12.09.2016 (A-34) of the 3rd respondent herein namely, the RPFC-I, quash the same and thus render justice.

b) To call for the records/files relating to the final seniority list of Social Security Assistants as on 31.12.2012 (A-21) issued by the respondents 1 to 5 herein and quash the same in so far as the placement given to the 6th respondent herein as S.No.297 and the placement given to the applicant as S.No. 38 is concerned.

c)To consequently direct the respondents 1 to 5 herein to fix and assign the correct seniority of the applicant in the final seniority list of Social Security Assistant as on 31.12.2012 (A-21) by giving him the correct position above the 6th respondent herein;

d)To consequently direct the respondents 1 to 5 herein to promote the applicant to the post of EO/AO/APFC, RPFC-II, RPFC-I, on its respective due dates and consequently to pay the arrears arising out of such promotion within a time-frame that may be stipulated by this Hon'ble Tribunal and thus render justice.

e)To consequently direct the respondents herein to produce before this Hon'ble Tribunal copies of all Post Based Rosters from 2.7.1997 for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Tribunal by the respondents 1 to 5and whether reservation policy of the Government of India has been implemented in its true and letter and spirit in the respondent EPFO organization by the respondents 1 to 5 and thus render justice.

f)To award exemplary costs payable by the respondents to the applicant herein and thus render justice

g)To grant such other relief(s) which may be prayed for and/or which this Tribunal may deem fit, proper and just to be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.”

2. The factual matrix of the case are as follows:

The Applicant belongs to the Adi Dravidar community, which is classified as a Scheduled Caste. He appeared for the competitive examination conducted by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) for the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) under the Scheduled Caste quota through direct recruitment. The Applicant was successful in the said examination and was appointed as LDC on 31.08.1989. He successfully completed his probation in the year 1991. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of UDC on 13.11.1992 and as Assistant w.e.f. 18.11.2003. He was granted MACP , as per his option date on 18.11.2013. Thereafter, he was promoted as Section Supervisor on ad-hoc basis on 01.12.2014 and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2021. The Applicant submits that the Respondents, by proceedings dated 25.05.2016, published the draft seniority list for the post of Section Supervisor as on 31.03.2016. The Applicant submitted his representation against the said draft list, with a bona fide expectation that the same would be considered favourably. However, to his shock and surprise, the said representation was rejected. Consequently, the Applicant is left with no other efficacious remedy except to challenge the impugned order dated 02.08.2016 rejecting his claim for proper seniority, as well as the consequential comm