M MATHIAZHAGAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 955 of 2001, dated 1. 1. 2002, the first and second respondents as well as the third and fourth respondents in the above said Original Application, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have filed these Writ Petitions in W. Ps. No. 7939 and 5192 of 2002 respectively.

(2.) SINCE both the Writ Petitions assailed the same order and issue involved in these petitions are one and the same, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience, we call the parties as arrayed in W. P. No. 7939 of 2002.

(3.) THE facts leading to the filing of these Writ Petitions are as follows: a. The first respondent was appointed as Fitter Mechanical Transport (A) (Skilled) (in short FMT (A) (SK)) on 16. 8. 1989 and has been working in the Second Petitioner Depot. b. The second respondent was appointed as Mechanical Transport Mechanic (A) (Skilled) (in short MTM (A) (SK))on 10. 10. 1986. c. The third and fourth respondents were appointed on 16. 8. 1989 and their seniority has been fixed in Mechanical Transport Mechanic (in short MTM Trade) from the date of their appointment. d. The second respondent was absorbed as FMT (A) (SK) with effect from 23. 10. 1989 on his passing of prescribed Trade Test and his seniority has been fixed from the date of his absorption in FMT (A) Trade. Subsequently, he has passed the Trade Test prescribed for FMT (A) HS-II. Thereafter, he gave several representations to fix his seniority on the basis of his initial appointment in MTM (A) on 10. 10. 1986 as there is no difference between FMT (A) and MTM (A) Trade. e. While so, the Ministry of Defence merged the MTM Trade with FMT Trade. Following such merger, the second respondent was placed at first position and the first, third and fourth respondents were placed at fourth, second and third positions in the revised seniority list. f. Thereafter, on the instructions of the first petitioner, the Review Departmental Promotion Committee, reviewed the matter and promoted the second respondent as FMT (A) HS-I with effect from 1. 8. 2000 and also the second, third and first respondents as FMT (A) HS-II with effect from 17. 4. 2001 and 29. 6. 2001. g. Aggrieved by the above recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, the first respondent approached the Tribunal by filing an application in O. A. No. 955 of 2001 and the same was allowed by the Tribunal. h. As against the order of the Tribunal, the petitioners in the above said two Writ Petitions are before us.