M. Ramakotaiah And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.

3. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of these appeals are:

5. When the Tribunal was constituted under the Act, some of the casual labourers, on 23rd September 1987 challenged the seniority list before the Tribunal, which dismissed the said petition on the ground of delay. On an application for review of the aforesaid order dated 23rd September 1987, the Tribunal allowed the same on 2nd November 1987 and held that the petitioners to that review application were entitled to count their seniority from the date of granting them temporary status. On 21st February 1989, the Tribunal allowed a Transfer Application No. 135 of 1986 filed by Prabhakar Rao and others in which it was held that the applicants therein were entitled to seniority from the date of temporary appointment and not from the date of regularization. On 27th October 1989, the Tribunal in Transfer Application No. 779 of 1986 filed by one K. Ch. Venkayya and others directed the respondents therein to prepare the seniority list according to the dates when the applicants therein attained temporary status.

7. In 1995, another provisional seniority list was prepared by the respondents. However, on 24th November 1999, the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1547 of 1999 allowing the said application held that the fixation of seniority was to be from the date of grant of temporary status. On the basis of this order, the final seniority list was prepared on 25th July 2000 which was challenged by the respondents other than the State in O.A, No. 1933 of 2000 before the Tribunal. On 12th March 2001, in the said original application, the Tribunal directed the Government to prepare the seniority list on the basis of the date of entry into grade.

13. From a plain reading of this un-amended para, it would not be difficult for us to find out that casual labourers who are treated as temporary are entitled to all the rights and privileges admissible to temporary railway servants which include the benefits of the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules. However, their service prior to the date of completion of six months continuous service will not be counted for any other purpose like recalling of retiral benefits, seniority etc. However, they will be allowed to carry forward their leave to the new post on absorption in the regular service.

22. Coming to the second issue, the question raised before this Court is whether even after the preparation of a new seniority list by the authority in 2001, which was held to be correct, the list prepared in the year 2000 was still open to challenge. We are of the opinion that once the new seniority list comes into existence, it overrides the previous list. Considering this, it only appeases common sense that once the new list has come into existence and had been held to be valid, the old list would be assumed to have been superseded, thus, making it redundant. In such a situation, it is difficult for us to hold that seniority list prepared by the Department in the year 2000 taking into consideration the proviso to the amended Rule 2511(a) is open to contest even though the 2001 list is held to be correct. We are of the opinion that seniority list prepared in the year 2000 is not open to challenge after the list of 2001 is held to be correct.

23. We hereby dismiss the appeal with no orders as to costs.