ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. - (1.) Both these matters would involve identical question of fact and law and as such, are disposed of by the common judgment.
(2.) The respondents in both the matters were working as Junior Clerk in South Eastern Railway. They were promoted to the post of Senior Clerk in Metro Railway and subsequently, as Head Clerk. The question arose, as to whether after their regular absorption in Metro Railway, they could still be considered as Deputationist. The identical question was gone into by the Division Bench in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Smt. Sanchita Bhowal and Anr. (WPCT 48 of 2011) dated June 9, 2011 . The Division Bench decided the issue as against the Metro Railway and affirmed the judgment and order of the Tribunal by setting aside the attempt on the part of the Metro railway changing the seniority list, considering the sole factor of formal absorption of Smt. Sanchita Bhowal in Metro Railway and ignoring her past service.
(3.) Mr. Partha Sarathi Bose, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Railway in his usual fairness submits that these two cases stand on the same footing. He however, informs this court that the Metro Railway already approached the Apex Court in Sanchita Vowal 's case and obtained an order of stay in SLP (Civil) CC No. 19162 of 2011 dated November 28, 2011. The said petition is still awaiting disposal at the Apex Court.;