ANIL SRIVASTAVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal altering the seniority of the appellant in the cadre of welfare Inspector, Railway. The appellant was working as Junior Chemical and Metallurgical assistant in the grade pay Rs. 380-560. Before his absorption as AJCM on 15.9.1981, he had been appointed as an Apprentice JCMA on 19.6.1980. The private respondents were clerks in the grade of Rs. 260-400 as well as another grade of Rs. 330-560. The post of welfare Inspector could be filled up by promotion from different category of personnel including the JCMA and Clerks. The appellant as well as private respondents were all selected for being appointed as Welfare Inspector, and were appointed on the same day, but the in terse-seniority in the seniority list was shown treating the appellant to be in service with effect from 19.6.1980, and thereby giving him a higher seniority than the private respondents. Objections having been filed by the private respondents, the Railway Administration altered the seniority list and treated the appellant to be junior to the private respondents solely on the ground that the appellant was erroneoulsy shown to be in service in the grade of JCMA on 19.6.1980, though in accordance with the rules, he could have been shown in the service only with effect from 15.9.1981. Against the said alteration of the seniority, the appellant approached the Tribunal, and the tribunal having rejected his O. A. , the appellant is before us.

(2.) Two contentions are being raised in this Court in assailing the order of the Tribunal. One, the appellant must be deemed to be in service as JCMA with effect from 19.6.1980. Two, assuming the appellant would be held in service with effect from 15.9.1981, as contended by the Administration, yet the appellant as well as the respondents having been promoted to the post of Welfare Inspector on the same date, and the appellant being in a different grade than the private respondents, who are Clerks, continuous length of service, as indicated in the paragraph 320 of the Railway establishment Manual, would not be the criteria. Consequently, the appellant having been brought from a higher grade of pay ought to have been declared senior to the private respondents.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the railway Administration, on the other hand, contended that the appointment of the appellant as an Apprentice JCMA cannot be held to be the appointment to the service in view of the very definition of "apprentice", and therefore he was rightly treated by the Administration to be in service with effect from 15.9.1981. The counsel, further, urged that when employees from different sources have been selected for being appointed as Welfare Inspector, the continuous length of service could be the only reasonable criteria, and applying the same, the administration has held the appellant to be junior to the private respondents.