B RAM MOHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") dated 10/5/1990 allowing Original Application No. 375/88. One V. Arumugan had filed the application before the Tribunal claiming seniority over the two appellants in this appeal inter alia on the ground that he was appointed as a junior Planner earlier on 4/2/1981 whereas the two appellants herein were appointed as Junior Planner on 9/11/1981 and 17/1/1982. The Tribunal taking into account the date of continuous service in the rank of junior Planner allowed the application and held Arumugan to be senior to the present two appellants. It is against this order the present appeal has been preferred.

(2.) The two appellants were earlier in the trade of welder whereas Arumugan was in the trade of springsmith. The posts of welder and springsmith carry the same scale of pay, It is also undisputed that the two appellants were appointed as welders on 4/3/1976 whereas Arumugan was appointed as springsmith w. e. f. 18/7/1980. The. question for consideration therefore is when the people from different trade are brought into and appointments are made in a grade or post, as in the present case of Junior Planner, what would be the principle for determination of their inter se seniority

(3.) Mr. Venkataramani, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, contends that the inter se seniority in such cases will have to be governed by the criteria indicated in Railway Establishment manual para 321. The said para 321 is quoted herein below in extensor: