- (1.) This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by Union of India and two of the authorities of South Eastern Railway, namely, the Divisional Personnel Officer and the Divisional Superintendent, Kharagpur. The appellants are challenging in this appeal the judgment and order dated August 20, 1973 passed by a learned single Judge allowing a writ petition of respondents Nos. 1 to 7 wherein they challenged the validity of revision of seniority list of Assistant Drivers in the electric traction and the consequent reversion of the said respondents from the post of Shunters to which they were temporarily promoted and replacing them by respondents Nos. 8 to 15. The main issue that arose for consideration in the trial court and which has also been raised before us in. this appeal is as to whether the appellants while absorbing respondents Nos. 8 to 15 in the cadre of Assistant Drivers, electric traction on their being rendered surplus as firemen in the steam side could confer on them seniority in the cadre of Assistant Drivers with reference to the respective dates of appointment or promotion of the said respondents Nos. 8 to 15 as firemen or they should be conferred such seniority with reference to the date they were absorbed in the cadre of Assistant Drivers. Facts leading to the dispute may shortly be stated. Sometime in 1965 respondents Nos. 1 to 7 were directly recruited as Assistant Drivers, Electric Traction in the scale of Rs, 125-155. In 1967 the railway authorities published a seniority list of such Assistant Drivers. On the basis of their respective seniority position in the said list respondents 1 to 7 were found eligible and were sent up for training for further promotion as Shunters which promotion was given to them on varied dates between October 1968 and July 1970. Such promotion, however, was conferred on them purely as a temporary measure. The extension of electric traction in that section of the railways led to curtailment of the steam side which resulted in rendering men in that side to be surplus. Respondents Nos. 8 to 15 who were serving for long years as firemen in the steam side in the grade of Rs. 125-155 a grade equivalent to the grade of Asstt. Drivers, electric traction were rendered surplus and accordingly they were trained up as Asstt. Drivers for electric traction and were absorbed as such on varied dates but all after 1967. The names of these respondents, namely, respondents Nos. 8 to 15 were not borne on the seniority list of Assistant Drivers of 1967 and hence on July 8, 1970 the railway authorities revised the said seniority list by bringing these respondents on the list. They were, however, given seniority position determined with reference to their respective dates of appointment or promotion to the post of firemen and not with reference to their date of absorption as Assistant Drivers. Since these respondents Nos. 8 to 15 were serving for longer years as firemen than the period respondents Nos. 1 to 7 were serving as Assistant Drivers they were naturally conferred 'higher seniority than respondents Nos. 1 to 7. Seniority list of Assistant Drivers being so revised, as a necessary consequence respondents Nos. 1 to 7 who were enjoying the benefit of their previous seniority by way of temporaray promotion to the next higher rank of Shunters were reverted to the post of Assistant Drivers by an order dated January 5, 1971 and they were replaced in their respective post of Shunters by one or other of respondents Nos. 8 to 15. Respondents Nos. 1 to 7 felt aggrieved by the aforesaid revision dated July 8, 1970 of the seniority list of Assistant Drivers, electric traction and the order of reversion dated January 5, 1971 and they as petitioners challenged them in the writ petition out of which the present appeal arises. According to them, respondents Nos. 8 to 15 could be conferred seniority position in the seniority list of Assistant Drivers only with reference to the date of their respective absorption as Assistant Drivers and not with reference to the date of their respective appointment or promotion to the post of firemen. According to them, seniority must be fixed up with reference to the date of appointment to a grade which can only mean a particular grade in a class and not with reference to the date of appointment or promotion in a grade in a different class though both may be equivalent. They claimed that seniority in the grade of Assistant Drivers can be determined only with reference to the date of appointment or promotion to that grade and respondents 8 to 15 being appointed to that grade on their respective dates of absorption they are entitled to seniority from such dates only. They further claimed that they having been promoted to the next higher post of Shunters they could not lawfully be reverted in the manner done particularly on the basis of revision of a seniority list which revision itself was not in accordance with the rules.
(2.) The writ petition was contested by the present appellants who were respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in that petition. According to these appellants, respondents Nos. 8 to 15 were under the relevant rules of seniority entitled to seniority with reference to the date of their appointment or promotion to the post of firemen where they being rendered surplus had to be brought over to the equivalent grade of Assistant Drivers. The appellants further pleaded that the seniority list of 1967 had to be revised in such circumstances and the revised list had been correctly prepared conferring higher seniority to respondents Nos. 8 to 15 since they joined as firemen prior to dates respondents Nos. 1 to 7 joined as Assistant Drivers. The appellants further supported the order of reversion on the ground that the promotions conferred on respondents Nos. 1 to 7 were all provisional and temporary which conferred on them no right to the post to which they were promoted and that they were reverted when the seniority on the basis whereof they were so promoted was lost by them.
(3.) The learned Judge in the trial court accepted the contention of the petitioners before him, that is respondents Nos, 1 to 7 in this appeal and held that seniority could be determined only with reference to the date of appointment to a particular grade and not with reference to the date of appointment and/or promotion to a grade in a different class though the two may be equivalent. According to the learned Judge, respondents Nos. 8 to 15 could not have been conferred seniority in the list of Assistant Drivers with reference to their respective dates of appointment or promotion as firemen but should have been conferred seniority with reference to the date they were absorbed as Assistant Drivers. Consequently it was held that these respondents Nos. 8 to 15 must stand in a position lower than respondents Nos. 1 to 7 in the seniority list so that revision of the seniority list giving them higher seniority as made on July 8, 1970 and the consequent reversion order dated January 5, 1971 cannot be sustained in law. The learned Judge, accordingly, allowed the writ petition and set aside the, revised seniority list as also the order of reversion. That is the order which is being challenged in the present appeal.;