Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8.3 That the Tribunal may also be pleased to pass any other or further order as may be deemed fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case.
8.4 That the cost of the proceedings may kindly be granted in favour of the Applicant."

MAYA BAHADUR SINGH MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI TARAGI 2026.02.19 17:21:54+05'30' Item 47 (C-3)

2. The factual matrix of the case as per the counsel of the applicants is that although the applicants were initially appointed on different grades on different dates however, they are working in the higher grade of Rs. 7450- 11500/- in the same cadre and have been assailing the action of the respondents in holding selection for the post of Assistant Operating Manager (AOM) by considering only candidates working in the lower grade of Rs. 6500-10500, thereby ignoring them despite their higher placement in the cadre. It is contended that several juniors to the applicants including private respondent Nos. 4 and 5 who were still in the lower grade were considered and empanelled ignoring the applicants. The counsel for the applicants highlighted Para 203.5 of IREM Vol. I (1989 Edition), which provides that where employees from different streams are eligible for selection, integrated seniority is to be determined on the basis of the total length of non-fortuitous service rendered in the relevant grade and above. She contended that the respondents wrongly interpreted the said provision and treated employees in the lower grade as senior to those in the higher grade, which resulted in denial of due consideration to the applicants. Further, the aforesaid interpretation of the rule continued to be followed until it was set aside by the Tribunal in a judgment dated 05.12.2008. Despite the said clarification, the respondents continued to follow the incorrect interpretation and failed to extend the benefit of the said judgment to the applicants. Representations submitted by the applicants in this regard before and after the said judgment also remained unaddressed. Aggrieved by non consideration of their case and excluding their names from the panel for the post of AOM dated 07.03.2012, while their juniors were MAYA BAHADUR SINGH MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI TARAGI 2026.02.19 17:21:54+05'30' Item 47 (C-3) empanelled, the applicants have approached this Tribunal seeking interpolation of their names in the said panel in accordance with their seniority and consequential benefits.

After 5 Pay Commission the circumstances changed and now the grade of Group B post is Rs 7500 12000 for promotee officer and senior supervisor grade is Rs.7450-11500 and Junior Supervisor grade Rs. 6500-10500. In the circumstances, para 2035 could not be applied mechanically so as to eliminate the seniority of Senior Supervisor having grade 7450-11500. The seniority for consideration for post of AOM (Group B) has to be based on the seniority of grade 7450-11500 and not on the basis of grade of Rs.6500-10500. Thus the para 203.5 Vol. I could not be interpreted and construed in a manner that it leads to anomalies, injustices or absurdities.