Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 9364
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI BENCH
M. Swaminathan, Member (J), Sisir Kumar Ratho, Member (A)
K Balamourougan – Appellant
Versus
Ut Of Puducherry – Respondent
OA/310/00791/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.V.S. Giridhar Associates, Y. Kavitha
For the Respondents: R. Syed Mustafa
An employee who voluntarily accepts the terms and conditions of absorption into a new cadre, specifically regarding the commencement of seniority, is precluded from challenging those terms later or claiming retrospective seniority.
Headnote:The applicant, initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in 1997 under the Tourism Department, was later absorbed into the common cadre of LDC under the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (DP&AR) in 2008. The absorption was subject to specific conditions, including that seniority would be reckoned from the date of absorption. The applicant challenged the seniority list and sought retrospective seniority from the date of initial appointment or deputation, citing parity with another employee. The primary issue is whether an employee who voluntarily accepts the terms of absorption into a new cadre can subsequently claim retrospective seniority. The court reasoned that the applicant had accepted the absorption conditions on his own volition and that the similarly situated employee cited for parity was also granted seniority from the date of absorption. Furthermore, the court noted that the issue had already been adjudicated in a previous application (OA No. 403/2013), and the matter had attained finality. The OA is dismissed being devoid of merits.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts regarding the applicant's appointment, subsequent absorption into a common cadre, and the resulting seniority dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. the principle of res judicata applying to seniority claims previously adjudicated by the tribunal. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. analysis of parity claims and the necessity of comparable governing rules and employers for such claims to succeed. (Para 9) |
| 4. the legal effect of voluntary acceptance of service terms and conditions during inter-cadre transfer. (Para 10 , 11) |
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Sisir Kumar Ratho, Member(A))
This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:-
“a) To call for records relating to Office Memorandum No. A. 22015/2021/DPAR/CCUI dated 06.09.2021 passed by the 3rd Respondent and quash the same;
b) To call for records relating to Office Memorandum No. A. 22015/2021/DPAR/CCUI dated 29.11.2021 passed by the 3rd Respondent and quash the same;
c) To consequently direct the Respondents to reckon the seniority of the Applicant w.e.f. 09.02.2001 i.e., from the date of his transfer on deputation post in the same/equivalent grade under the 3rd Respondent, and to grant all consequential benefits including seniority and promotion with arrears of pay and allowances.
d) To award costs, and pass such further and other orders as may be deemed and proper and thus render justice.”
2. The brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant, are as follows :-
2.1. The applicant was initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) under the 4th respondent and was posted in the Office of the Liaison Commissioner, Puducherry Government Guest House, New Delhi, by order dt. 10.09.1997 on a temporary basis with effect from 08.09.1997. Upon successful completion of probation, he was regularized in the post of LDC with retrospective effect from 08.09.1997 by order dt. 02.08.2000.
2.2. Subsequently, the applicant was transferred and posted as LDC in the Central Office of the Public Works Department, Government of Puducherry, under the 3rd respondent, by order dt. 20.10.2005. Thereafter, he was absorbed in the same post under the 3rd respondent and continued in the Central Office, Public Works Department, pursuant to absorption and posting orders dt. 29.02.2008, 30.04.2008 and 16.05.2008. The applicant later appeared in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) conducted by the 3rd respondent and, on qualifying the same, was promoted as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) by order dt. 16.03.2015.
2.3. The grievance of the applicant arose when a tentative seniority list dt. 13.09.2012 placed him at Sl. No. 4900 by reckoning his seniority from the date of absorption instead of from the date of his initial appointment. The applicant submitted objections through representation dt. 20.09.2012. However, without considering the said representation or passing any order thereon, the authorities issued the final seniority list dt. 15.10.2012 retaining his position at the bottom of the seniority list.
2.4. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant filed OA No. 403/2013 seeking to challenge the absorption order dt. 29.02.2008 and for a direction to reckon his seniority from the date of his initial appointment as LDC, ie., 08.09.1997. The Tribunal, by order dt. 28.09.2016, dismissed the Original Application holding that his past service had been protected only for the purposes of pension, pay and leave and that he had accepted the conditions contained in the absorption order.
2.5. Thereafter, the applicant came to know that one Mr. M. Padmanadhan, who was similarly situated, had been granted seniority from the date of his transfer and posting under the 3rd respondent. Mr. Padmanadhan had initially been appointed as Driver (LMV) Grade III under the 4th respondent two years after the applicant's appointment and was transferred and posted to the Adi-Dravidar Welfare Department under the 3rd respondent by order dt. 23.12.2004. Though he was formally absorbed unde
