- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 7 -12 -1995 passed in CWJC No. 799/95 (R), whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the claim of the petitioner of seniority over respondent No.5 and for promotion to the higher grade was not justified.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Stenographer in 1972 in the Scale of Rs.160 -260/ -. It was contended that in 1977 he was promoted to Grade -I while the concerned respondent was appointed in Grade -I in the year 1978. According to the appellant therefore. after merger of grade, the petitioner became senior to the said respondents. The claim of the petitioner was denied by the respondent Bank by filing counter -affidavit stating inter -alia that petitioner was promoted to the Stenographer Grade -II with effect from 1 -3 -1977. The concerned respondent on the other hand was appointed in Grade -I Stenographer on 13 -9 -1978. Learned single Judge therefore held that person appointed in higher grade and scale of pay will continue to rank senior even after merger of the grades. Learned single Judge further held that the claim of the petitioner for further promotion was considered and he was not found fit for promotion. Mr. R. S. P. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that the judgment suffers from serious error of record. As a matter of fact, petitioner was promoted to Grade -I Stenographer on 1 -3 -1977 while respondent concerned was appointed in Grade -1 Stenographer on 13 -9 -1978. According to the learned counsel, petitioner having the maximum length of service in Grade -I ought to have been made senior to the said respondent.
(3.) FROM perusal of the counter -affidavit filed in the writ petition, it appears that the respondent -Bank categorically denied and disputed the averments made in the writ petition that petitioner was promoted in Grade -I Stenographer in 1977. It was stated in the counter affidavit that petitioner was appointed as Stenographer in the Scale of Rs. 160 -260/ - in the year 1972 and promoted to Grade -II Stenographer with effect from 1 -3 -1977 and was given scale of Rs.400 -630/ - vide Office Order No. 4681 dated 16 -2 -1985. Rejoinder to the counter -affidavit was filed by the petitioner wherein paragraph 4 it was stated that he was initially appointed in Grade -II and subsequently Grade -II and Grade -I was merged in the Third Pay Revision Commission and a common Gradation list was prepared. It further appears from the order passed by the respondent -Bank rejecting the representation of the petitioner that the petitioner was promoted only in Grade -II in 1977. We, therefore, of the view that the learned single Judge has not committed any error of record. Consequently, finding arrived at by the learned single Judge is in accordance with law. It is well settled that particularly inter see seniority amongst the members has to be fixed in accordance with continuous length of their service in particular grade. In the instant case, it appears that the length of service of the petitioner in Grade -I was less than the length of service of the concerned respondent in the same grade. In that view of the matter, after the merger, the petitioner can not claim seniority over the concerned respondent.;