O R D E R

PER JAYESH V. BHAIRAVIA, MEMBER (J)

1.By filing the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal‟s Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-

"(A) The Hon‟ble Tribunal be pleased to direct Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 to re-fix the seniority of UDC Group C, as existing on 01.01.2012, and declare the applicant as senior to Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 4 as on 01.01.2012;

(B) The Hon‟ble Tribunal be pleased to direct Respondent No.1 and Respondent No. 2 to promote the applicant to the rank of UDC with effect from 26.02.2004;

(C) The Hon‟ble Tribunal be pleased to direct Respondent No.1 and Respondent No. 2 to promote the applicant to the rank of Assistant Superintendent w.e.f. 09.03.2012;

(D) The Hon‟ble Tribunal be pleased to direct Respondent No.1 and Respondent No. 2 to afford all service benefits, including financial benefits, to the applicant at par with the Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 4;

(E) The Hon‟ble Tribunal may be pleased to grant any other and further reliefs, as the nature and circumstances of the present case may require and in the interest of justice."

2. The brief facts of the case as pleaded in the O.A., are as under :-

2.1 Applicant was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) through the Staff Selection Commission Clerk Grade Examination of 1993, and joined his services on 12.08.1996. It is stated that some of the selected candidates of the same selection list had joined their service in the month of November/December, 1995. Thereafter, the applicant along with other 400 LDCs in the department, were confirmed in service vide Order of the official respondents dated 12.10.2001.

2.2 The Seniority of LDCs was prepared on the basis of on the date of joining of the LDCs and accordingly the official respondents had circulated the seniority list of LDCs on 03.03.2003 wherein, the applicant herein was assigned his seniority at S.No.154 (Annex.A/3).

2.3 In the aforesaid seniority list dated 03.03.2003 of the LDCs, the names of private respondent No.3 & 4 herein, were shown at Sl. No.145 and 153 respectively.

2.4 In the said seniority list, the LDCs, who had been promoted through Limited Departmental Examination were shown senior to the LDCs, who had been directly recruited through the Clerks‟ Grade Examination. Therefore, being aggrieved by the said action on the part of the respondents, the applicant herein filed an Original Application No.124 of 2007 before this Tribunal, which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide Order dated 19.01.2009, the relevant observation of the said order reads as under:-

"11. The applicant in para 3.2 of the OA has stated that his seniority was correctly assigned in 2001. Representation submitted if any on that occasion is not on record. All the persons, who qualified on the basis of special qualifying examination, were above him. The persons, who qualified in Group 'D' examination on 10.3.93 and are at Serial 272-288 and Serial 504-514 respectively,.

12. Neither the Annex.-II of letter dated 3.7.96 is on record nor the principles on which the seniority list of 2001 & 2005 are on record. It is not possible to verify if the position in seniority list is in accordance with what is stated in impugned order.

13. We dispose off this OA by giving a direction to respondent No. 1 to reconsider the representation dated 18.8.2005 and pass a fresh order having regard to the following:

(a) Para 4 of Annex. - II of letter dated 3.7.96 sponsoring the name of applicant and two others.

(b) The policy of Government of India in regard to direct recruits as to whether the seniority is reckoned from date of examination, date of panel by UPSC/SCC or date of actual appointment.

(c) The decisions of Apex Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association vs. State or Maharashtra, AIR 1990 SC 1607 and other decisions.

(d) Whether the seniority list of 2001 was widely circulated and whether the applicant had objected ? It is laid down in K.R. Mudgal vs.