D.THANGARAJ Vs. DEVIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners have preferred W.P.No.27592 of 2010 praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 09.04.2010 in O.A.No.1154 of 2009 on the file of the 5th Respondent/Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai and to quash the same. The Petitioners have filed W.P.No.28256 of 2010 praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 09.04.2010 in O.A.No.1154 of 2009 on the file of the 4th Respondent/Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai and to quash the same.

(2.) THE Central Administrative Tribunal, (5th Respondent in W.P.No.27592/2010 and 4th Respondent in W.P.No.28256/2010), while passing the orders in O.A.No.1154 of 2009, has, inter alia, observed that 'the 1st Respondent/Applicant has joined the service on 25.06.1998 and the Respondent No.4-Shri D.Thangaraj has joined on 11.10.1998 and the Respondent No.5-Shri K.Rajasekaran has joined on 24.03.2000. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a series of Judgments has held that in the absence of any specific rule, the seniority among persons holding similar posts in the same cadre has to be determined on the basis of the length of service and not on any other fortuitous circumstances (Ref. K.Anjaya Vs. Chandraiya reported in JT 1998(2) SC 242: 1998 (3) SCC 218 : AIR 1998 SC 1202 and many others)' and further found that there is no specific rule and therefore, the seniority has to be determined based on the date of appointment which in turn determines the length of service in the cadre of Lab Technician etc. and has come to the conclusion that as found from the records, in the revised seniority list issued on 04.10.2008, the date of appointment in the present post has to be altered as 01.01.1996 for Respondent No.4 and 11.03.1997 for Respondent No.5 and according to them, this appears to be incorrect because their appointment has already been notified to be 11.10.1998 and 24.03.2000. Moreover, the said notification has not been set aside and held that the alteration in the date of appointment of Respondents 4 and 5 is illegal and consequently set aside the revised seniority list dated 04.10.2008 issued by the Respondents (Petitioners in W.P.No.28256 of 2010) and ordered to restore the seniority list issued on 11.04.20057 wherein, the 1st Respondent/Applicant has been shown at Sl.No.2 and Respondents No.4 and 5 at Sl.No.4 and 6 respectively. In fact, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order dated 04.11.2009 and directed the Respondents (Petitioners/Union of India and 2 others) to restore all the consequential service and monetary benefits to the 1st Respondent. Contentions in W.P.No.27592 of 2010:

(3.) THE Learned Counsel for the Petitioners urges before this Court that while publishing the seniority list in April 2007, the 1st Respondent /Applicant was placed senior at Sl.No.2 according to her date of appointment to the post of Laboratory Technician viz., 25.06.1998 and that the Petitioners were kept at Sl.No.5 and Sl.No.6 as if their date of appointment to the said post was on 14.10.1998 and 24.03.2000 respectively without taking into account the fact that the appointments to the said post were given effect from 01.01.1996 and 11.03.1997.