Uttarakhand High Court

WPSB/316/2020 on 2 August, 2022

                                                            Reserved Judgment

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

                                  AT NAINITAL
                 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
                                          AND
                        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.C. KHULBE

                WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 191 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

Trilok Chandra Tiwari & others                                 .....Petitioners.
And

State of Uttarakhand & others                                  ....Respondents.

with

WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 316 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

State of Uttarakhand & others .....Petitioners. And

Hari Dutt Devtalla & others ....Respondents. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Lalit Samant, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Special Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Ms. Durgesh Thapa, learned counsel for the private respondents.

Judgment Reserved on: 27.07.2022 Judgment Delivered on:02.08.2022

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)

These two writ petitions assail the same judgment

dated 29.03.2019, passed by the Uttarakhand Public Services

Tribunal at Dehradun, in Claim Petition No. 13/DB/2013,

preferred by the private respondent nos.5 to 8 in Writ Petition

(S/B) No.191 of 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the private

respondents). The petitioners in Writ Petition (S/B) No.191 of

2019 were the respondents in the Claim Petition, whose

seniority above the private respondents has been disturbed,

and the effect the impugned judgment is that the private

respondents would be ranked senior to the petitioners. The

State of Uttarakhand has also assailed the impugned

judgment in Writ Petition (S/B) No.316 of 2020. The Tribunal

allowed the said claim petition preferred by the private

respondents; set-aside the seniority list dated 29.04.2009;

and, the Tribunal also directed the State of Uttarakhand, and

its authorities to re-draw the seniority list afresh on the basis

of the date of substantive appointment of the persons in the

parent department for determining the inter se seniority of

the persons who joined the Secretariat services under the

उ राँचल सिचवालय वैय क सहायक, अवर वग सहायक, सहायक ले खाकार,

टं कक, अनुसेवक के पदों पर संिविलयन िनयमावली, 2002 (hereinafter

referred to as the "Absorption Rules, 2002"), (the Tribunal

has referred the expression "Amalgamation Rules" for the

same). Rule 6 of the Absorption Rules, 2002 is material to

determine the present controversy, and the relevant extract

from Rule 6 of the said rules, as published in Hindi language,

as well as its English translation, (provided by the learned

Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners- which has not

been disputed by the learned counsel for the private

respondents, and the learned Special Senior Counsel

appearing for the State), reads as follows:-

"6. संिविलयन हे तु शतों का िनधारण- (1) सिचवालय म वैय क सहायक, अवर वग सहायक, सहायक लेखाकार/ टं कक/ अनुसेवक के पद पर संिविलयन के आदे श म इं िगत ितिथ स ंिधत कमचारी की सिचवालय म स ंिधत पद पर मौिलक िनयु की ितिथ मानी जाएगी और उस ितिथ के बाद स ंिधत पद पर उसकी े ठाता पदो ित एवं अ सेवा स ी मामले संगत सेवा िनयमावली के अंतगत व त होंगे।

(2) संिविलयन के प ात कमचारी की सिचवालय संवग के स ंिधत पद पर पार रक े ता स ंिधत संवग के पद पर मौिलक िनयु की ितिथ के आधार पर िनधा रत करने के प ात सिचवालय सेवा के किन तम कमचारी के नीचे े ता सूची म रखा जायेगा। सिचवालय म स ंिधत पद के िव सिचवालय संवग के किन तम कमचारी के नीचे े ता िनधारण के समय िजन कमचा रयों का िविभ िवभागों के अंतगत एक ही वेतनमान होगा उनकी े ता उनके मूल िवभाग म उनकी मौिलक िनयु की ितिथ से सेवा अविध की गणना के आधार पर िनधा रत की जायगी।

(3) राजकीय िवभागों के सेवा थानांतरण पर तैनात कािमक के संिविलयन के प ात भी यिद उ पदों पर सीधी भत की र यां उपल रहती ह तो उस दशा म सिचवालय म स िनगमों एवं ाय शासी सं थाओं के मौिलक प से िनयु कािमक का संिविलयन िकया जायेगा।

(4) िनगमों / ाय शासी सं था के कमचा रयों के संिविलयन की दशा मउ राजकीय िवभागों के संिवलीन कमचा रयों के ठीक नीचे े ता सूची म रखा जायेगा। िनगमों / ाय शासी सं था के एक ही वे तनमान के संिवलीन कमचा रयों की पार रक े ता उनके िनगमों / ाय शासी सं था म उस वेतनमान म मौिलक िनयु की ितिथ से उसकी संिवलीन की ितिथ तक की सेवा अविध के आधार पर िनधा रत की जाएगी।

English Translation:-

6. Determination of conditions for absorption:- (1) The date indicated in the order of absorption on the post of Personal Assistant, Lower Division Assistant/Assistant Accountant/ Typist/ Peon in the Secretariat shall be treated as the date of substantive appointment of the concerned employee on the concerned post in the Secretariat and after that date, the matters relating to

his seniority, promotion and other service matters shall be governed as per the concerned service rules.

(2) After absorption, after fixation of the inter se seniority of the employee on the concerned post in Secretariat cadre on the basis of date of substantive appointment in the concerned cadre, he shall be placed in the seniority below the junior most employee of the Secretariat cadre. Against the concerned post in the Secretariat cadre at the time of fixation of seniority below the junior most employee, those employee whose pay scale is same in different departments, their seniority shall be determined from their date of substantive appointment in their parent department on the basis of counting their period of service.

(3) Even after absorption of personnel posted in the Government departments on deputation, the direct recruitment posts remain vacant, then in such an eventuality the absorption shall be made in the Secretariat from amongst the employee substantively appointed in the Corporations and Autonomous Institutions.

(4) In the eventuality of absorption of the employees of Corporation/Autonomous Institution, they shall be placed in the seniority list at the bottom of absorbed employees of Government Department. The inter se seniority of the absorbed employees of Corporation/ Autonomous Institution having same pay-scale shall be determined on the basis of their period of service from the date of their substantive appointment in the Corporation/ Autonomous Institution till the date of their absorption".

(emphasis supplied)

2. The Absorption Rules, 2002 were framed on

22.06.2002. The petitioners and the private respondents- at

their option, were attached to the Secretariat on 25.06.2002

with the issuance of an office memorandum. On 20.07.2002,

the Government of Uttarakhand issued an office

memorandum, whereby it stated that with immediate effect,

the sixty-four stenographers posted in Uttaranchal

Secretariat, on the basis of transfer, are substantively

appointed on the posts of Personal Assistant under the terms

and conditions specified in the Uttaranchal Personal Assistant,

Lower Division Assistant/Assistant Accountant/ Typist/ Peon

Absorption Rules, 2002, on probation for a period of one

year. Paragraph No.3 of the said office memorandum stated

that the serial numbers mentioned in the above appointment

order do not have any relation with the seniority of the

persons. The order relating to seniority under the provisions

of the Absorption Rules, 2002 will be issued separately.

3. On 13.08.2002, the Uttarakhand Government

Servants Seniority Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the

"Seniority Rules, 2002") were framed and enforced. It

appears that on 26.03.2004, the Government of Uttarakhand

issued a tentative seniority list of the absorbed employees

into the Secretariat, in the cadre of Additional Private

Secretary. After considering the objections, on 08.12.2004,

the final seniority list was issued by the Government of

Uttarakhand in the cadre of Additional Private Secretary. In

the said seniority list, the petitioners were placed at Sl.

Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 11, whereas the private respondents

were placed at Sl. Nos.26 and below. As noticed above, the

date of absorption of the petitioners as well as the private

respondents was the same, i.e. 25.06.2002. This seniority list

indicated- in column No.9, the pay-scale drawn by, inter alia,

the petitioners, and the private respondents in their parent

departments. It would be seen that the petitioners were all

drawing their pay in the pay-scale of Rs.5500 - 9000, or

Rs.5000 - 8000, whereas, the private respondents were

drawing their pay in the pay-scale of Rs.4000 - 6000.

4. On 10.12.2004, the Government of Uttarakhand

issued a promotion order granting promotion to the Additional

Private Secretaries as Private Secretaries (Grade-1) in the

pay-scale of Rs. 6500-10500. In this promotion order, the

names of the petitioners ranked higher in seniority, than that

of the private respondents.

5. At this stage, we may leave the narration of further

facts on the side, and take note of certain legal proceedings

qua the challenge to Rule 6 of the Absorption Rules, 2002.

The constitutionality of the aforesaid rule was challenged

before this Court in a batch writ petitions, including Writ

Petition (S/B) No.34 of 2005. A Division Bench of this Court,

vide its judgment dated 20.12.2006, repelled the said

challenge to Rule 6(2). The Division Bench, in its judgment

held, inter alia, as under:-

"27. In view of these circumstances as stated in the writ petition, there is no material on record to show that the provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules are unreasonable rather on the other hand, it was the only reasonable criteria which has been adopted. Therefore, the Rule 6 of the Rules cannot be held to be violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India. Hence the provisions of Rule 6 are held to be valid subordinate legislation.

28. The petitioners were well aware about the Rules before absorption in Secretariat. They have opted to be absorbed in Secretariat, being aware of the fact that their inter-se seniority would be determined in accordance with sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Rules. Can now the petitioners be permitted to challenge the constitutionality of the Rules? (although it has already been held that the provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules are not violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India). In the case of Union of India and another Vs. N. Chandrasekharan and others reported in (1998) 3 S.C.C.694, it has been held that "It is not in dispute that all the candidates were made aware of the procedure for promotion before they sat for the written test and before they appeared before the Departmental Promotion Committee. Therefore, they cannot turn around and contend later when they found they were not selected, by challenging that procedure and contending that the marks prescribed for interview and confidential reports are disproportionately high and that the authorities cannot fix a minimum to be secured either at interview or in the assessment on confidential report." In view of the facts of the case, definitely, now the petitioners cannot challenge the validity of the Rules by which they have been absorbed in the Secretariat service and about which they were aware before absorption".

(emphasis supplied)

6. The matter was carried to the Supreme Court in

Special Leave Petition being Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)

No(s).5574 of 2007. The same was dismissed on 02.04.2007.

The Supreme Court further observed that "in case any

individual person is affected by the improper implementation

of the Rule, then he can approach the proper forum for relief

of his grievance. So far as Rule is concerned, we do not find

any illegality in it".

7. It appears that the Government of Uttarakhand

again invited objections to the seniority list finalized on

08.12.2004. On 29.04.2009, the Government, after

considering the objections received, again issued a final

seniority list. Yet again, the petitioners were ranked higher to

the private respondents. In Paragraph No. 3.1 of the said

office order dated 29.04.2009, the Government stated as

under:-

"In relation to the objections filed by the aforesaid employees, it is to inform that after absorption under Rule 6(2) of the उ राँ चल सिचवालय वैय क सहायक, अवर वग सहायक, सहायक लेखाकार, टं कक, अनुसेवक के पदों पर सं िविलयन िनयमावली, 2002, after determination of the inter se seniority of the employees on the concerned post in the Secretariat cadre on the basis of their date of substantive appointment on the post under the concerned cadre, there is a provision for placing the employee in the seniority list just below the junior-most employee, and under the Uttarakhand Government Servants Seniority Rules, 2002, where the pay-scales are different, then there is a provision that the promoted employees drawing higher pay-scales in the feeder

cadre, will be senior to the promoted persons drawing lower pay-scales in the feeder cadre".

(emphasis supplied)

8. On 17.04.2012, the Government of Uttarakhand

issued another office order containing its decision on the

representation of officers- like the private respondents, in the

light of the right of representation given by the Supreme

Court while dismissing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)

No.5574 of 2007. The Government rejected the said

representation, wherein the Government observed as

follows:-

"6 (4.) As written consent was sought from all the employees before the absorption and it was known to these employees that according to Rule 6(2) of the Absorption Rules, the seniority is to be determined and no change can be done in it. Still, the absorption was accepted by the personnel and according to the Absorption Rules, at the time of issuance of the seniority list, there have been promotions twice on the basis of seniority list and now any kind of alteration in this seniority list is neither right according to the Rules, nor is it right from the administrative point of view.

(5.) The Private Secretaries mentioned in Para-4 met with me and raised the points regarding the seniority list that personal pay-scale and time-scale pay-scale should have been considered at the time of absorption. Consultation of Personnel Department was sought on this point, and Personnel Department has clarified that according to the Absorption Rules, 2002, personal pay-scale/time scale pay- scale cannot be considered as the basis of date of substantive appointment".

9. The private respondents then preferred their claim

petition before the Tribunal being Claim Petition

No.13/DB/2013. The said claim petition was rejected by the

Tribunal on 18.05.2016, on the ground that the same suffers

from delay, laches, and limitation.

10. This order of the Tribunal was, however, set-aside

by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No.239

of 2016, and the matter was remitted back to the

Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal to decide the lis on its

own merit, without being influenced by delay and laches. The

Tribunal, thereafter, heard the aforesaid claim petition, and

has allowed the same by the impugned judgment.

11. On behalf of the petitioners, the submissions were

led by Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, the learned Senior Counsel. He

firstly submits that the Tribunal fell in grave error in

unsettling the settled seniority lists since 08.12.2004, which

had repeatedly been finalized after repeated rejection of the

objections raised by the private respondents. The provisional

seniority list, upon absorption of the petitioners and the

private respondents into the Secretariat services, was issued

by the Government of Uttarakhand on 26.03.2004, and

objections were called against the same. The said seniority

list was finalized on 08.12.2004 after considering of all

objections of the private respondents.

Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal further submits that this

seniority list dated 08.12.2004 was drawn strictly in

accordance with Rule 6 of the Absorption Rules, 2002,

which provided that if the date of absorption in the post

within the Secretariat cadre is same, the inter se

seniority of the absorbees would be determined by

placing those drawing higher pay-scale, above those

drawing a lower pay-scale, in their parent departments

on the date of absorption. The second occasion when the

same seniority list was affirmed by the State, was when

the State issued yet another seniority list on

29.04.2009. This seniority list was issued in respect of

the promotional post since, in the meantime, the

petitioners and the private respondents had been

promoted. However, their inter se seniority was

maintained.

Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal further submits that the

Tribunal's finding that the inter se seniority of the

absorbees would be determined on the basis of the

length of service in the parent cadre in all cases, has no

basis in the Rules, and the same is contrary to the

express provision in the Rules, namely Rule 6(2) of the

Absorption Rules, 2002. He submits that when there is a

specific rule with regard to fixation of the inter se

seniority of the absorbees in the same posts of the

Secretariat cadre, the same has to be given effect to,

and it cannot be over-looked by invocation of the

general principle of seniority being determined on the

basis of the length of service. The Seniority Rules, 2002,

admittedly, were not in force when the petitioner and

the private respondents were absorbed in the

Secretariat cadre on 25.06.2002. Admittedly, the

Seniority Rules, 2002 were framed under clause (3) of

Article 348 of the Constitution of India by the Governor

on 13.08.2002.

The further submission of Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal is

that, Rule 7 of the Seniority Rules, 2002 is of no avail,

since the same dealt with the situation where the

appointments are to be made only by promotion from

more than one feeder cadres. Rule 7 of the Seniority

Rules, 2002 reads as follows:-

"7. Seniority where appointment by promotion only from several feeding cadres.- Where according to the service rules, appointments are to be made only by promotion but from more than one feeding cadres, the seniority inter se of persons appointed on the result of any one selection shall be determined according to the date of order of their substantive appointment in their respective feeding cadres". (emphasis supplied)

Mr. Thapliyal submits that, in the present case, the

petitioners and the private respondents were not

promoted, but were absorbed in terms of the Absorption

Rules, 2002 in the Secretariat services. Since Rule 6 of

the Absorption Rules, 2002 itself provided the manner of

fixation of inter se seniority of the absorbees qua those

already in service in the Secretariat services, as also the

manner of fixation of inter se seniority of the absorbees

into the Secretariat services, the said rule alone was

relevant, and it took effect on the date of absorption.

The Seniority Rules, 2002 were not even in force on the

relevant date, i.e. 25.06.2002. The said Rules, in any

event, could not have altered the inter se seniority

positions, since the same already stood fixed by the

Absorption Rules, 2002.

Mr. Thapliyal has also drawn our attention to the

Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Seniority Rules,

1991 (hereinafter referred to as the "1991 Rules" for

brevity). Rule 7 of the 1991 Rules is the same, as the

Rule 7 of the Seniority Rules, 2002. He submits that the

Government was aware of the 1991 Rules which were in

force, when the Absorption Rules, 2002 were framed. If

the Government intended that the inter se seniority of

the absorbees should be governed by their length of

service in their parent departments, the Government

would have said so expressly, and all that the

Government was required to do was to say that Rule 7

of the 1991 Rules would apply to determine the inter se

seniority of the absorbees. However, the Government

consciously made a departure in Rule 6 of the

Absorption Rules, 2002 and, thus, Rule 6 has to be given

effect to. He submits that the private respondents came

into the Secretariat service with open eyes, by opting for

the same, knowing fully well as to how the inter se

seniority of the absorbees would be fixed and, therefore,

they are estopped from raising any such grievance.

Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal further submits that even the

private respondents acknowledged in their claim

petition, in Paragraph 4.18 that the inter se seniority of

the absorbees of the same date; in the same posts, had

to be determined on the basis of the pay-scales drawn

by the absorbees in their parent departments on the

date of absorption. In this regard, he relies on the

following averment made in Paragraph 4.18 of the claim

petition, which reads as under:-

"They have taken into consideration to the Rule 7 which provides that a person who is having higher pay-scale pursuant to the one selection may be senior, but this analogy cannot be accepted because the initial date of appointment of the petitioners has a great role and in their parent department, the date of appointment of the petitioners is much earlier to the private respondents and no private respondent was getting higher pay-scale in comparison to the petitioners at that time of induction in services of parent department in comparison to the petitioners".

12. Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Special Senior Counsel,

appearing for the State in the aforesaid writ petitions,

supported the submissions of Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, the

learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners.

13. On the other hand, Ms. Durgesh Thapa, the learned

counsel for the private respondents, has firstly drawn our

attention to an office order dated 20.07.2002, whereby, the

absorbees, i.e the petitioners and the private respondents,

were kept in probation for a period of one year upon their

transfer into the Secretariat services on the post of Personal

Assistant in terms of the Absorption Rules, 2002. Learned

counsel submits that in this list, some of the private

respondents were placed above the petitioners. For example,

Mr. Madan Mohan Bhardwaj- respondent no.8, was placed at

Sl. No.6, Mr. Hari Dutt Deotala- respondent no.5, was placed

at Sl. No.13, and Mr. Dinesh Chandra Gairola-respondent

no.7, was placed at Sl. No.30, whereas the petitioner Mr.

Trilok Chandra Tiwari was placed at Sl. No.56.

14. Pertinently, this office order, in Paragraph No.3,

clearly stated that the said office order had no relation with

the inter se seniority of the absorbees, and that the inter se

seniority would be fixed under the Absorption Rules, 2002 on

a later date. Therefore, reliance placed by the learned counsel

for the private respondents on the office order dated

20.07.2002 appears to be of no avail. As we have noticed

hereinabove, the inter se seniority list of the absorbees was

issued on 08.12.2004.

15. Learned counsel for the private respondents has

vehemently argued that the seniority is always counted from

the date of substantive appointment and, therefore, the inter

se seniority of the petitioners and the private respondents

ought to be fixed on the basis of their length of service in the

parent departments- irrespective of the pay-scales that they

were drawing in their parent departments on the date of

absorption, i.e. 25.06.2002. She has placed reliance on the

judgment of the Supreme Court, in the case of "State of

Uttar Pradesh & others vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava &

others, (2015) 1 SCC 347".

16. This decision has absolutely no relevance to the

present case, as it deals with the aspect of delay/ laches/

acquiescence, and held that there is entitlement to claim

benefit of judgment in rem with intention to benefit all

similarly situated persons, irrespective of whether they had

approached the Court or not, subject to well-recognized

exceptions. In the present case, the aspect of delay and

laches in the private respondents approaching the Tribunal

already stands concluded in the earlier round, and has not

even been argued by the petitioners.

17. Learned counsel for the private respondents has

then placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the

Supreme Court, in the case of "Coal India Ltd. & another

vs. Navin Kumar Singh, in Civil Appeal Nos.6491-6492

of 2014, decided on 25.09.2018".

18. We have perused this judgment, and in our view,

the same is wholly irrelevant for our purpose. This is for the

reason that the Supreme Court was concerned in that case

with a particular clause of the policy, namely Clause 11.1(ii)

which was applicable to inter-company transfer on request of

the employee. However, Rule 6 of the Absorption Rules, 2002

is completely different. Navin Kumar Singh (supra) was a

case of inter-company transfer, whereas the present is a case

of absorption in the Secretariat services of persons serving in

different departments of the Government. Reliance placed on

Navin Kumar Singh (supra) is, therefore, rejected.

19. Having heard the learned counsels, and considered

their submissions, and having perused the impugned

judgment rendered by the Tribunal, we are of the view that

the impugned judgment is, completely, laconic and cannot be

sustained.

20. We have extracted hereinabove the relevant part of

Rule 6 of the Absorption Rules, 2002 in Hindi language, as it

was published, as well as its English translation, as provided

by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners,

which translation has not been disputed by any of the other

parties. A perusal of the said rule leaves no manner of doubt

that the manner of fixation of inter se seniority of the

absorbees, who were absorbed on the same day; in the same

post, was that the absorbees who were in a higher pay-scale

in their parent departments on the date of absorption, would

rank higher in seniority than those who were in a lower pay-

scale in their parent departments on the date of absorption.

This Rule has been upheld, and there is good justification for

it. It stands to reason that persons in higher pay scale- when

clubbed with persons in lower pay scale, should be ranked

higher in the seniority list when their date of absorption is the

same; in the same post.

21. Pertinently, it was argued by the private

respondents before the Tribunal that the inter se seniority

should be governed by the Absorption Rules, 2002, and not

by the Seniority Rules, 2002, and this submission has been

accepted by the Tribunal. In Paragraph Nos.24, 25 and 26 of

its judgment, the Tribunal holds as follows:-

"24. We hold that petitioners' interest was crystallized on the day when they joined Secretariat services on amalgamation i.e. prior to enforcement of the Seniority Rules, 2002, which admittedly came into existence about 53 days after the Amalgamation Rules, 2002. Thus, a person, whose appointment on a post was finalized on a particular date, his service conditions would be governed from that date when, he was appointed to a particular post. Accordingly, in our

view, the Seniority Rules, 2002 would not govern the field at the time, when the services of the petitioners were amalgamated. The seniority of the petitioners should be and can be fixed as per the rules in existence at the time of their appointment. The absorption of the petitioners was made on 25.06.2002, when the Seniority Rules, 2002 were not in existence at all, so their seniority cannot be fixed according to these Rules. The above view also finds support from the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, passed in Union of India Vs. S.S. Uppal and others 1996(2) SCC pg. 168.

25. It is also to mention that it was the case of merger of two cadres and seniority after merger of the cadres, can only be decided according the Amalgamation Rules, 2002, wherein merger was provided. Whereas, the Seniority Rules, 2002 does not provide for determination of seniority on amalgamation of two cadres, merged into one.

26. Thus, we are of the view that the petitioners' seniority can be determined according to Rule 6(2) of the Amalgamation Rules, 2002 and not in accordance with the Seniority Rules, 2002, which came into existence later in time and which also does not provide for the situation of determination of seniority on amalgamation of two cadres".

22. It appears that the Tribunal, thereafter, proceeded

to hold that the inter se seniority of the absorbees should be

fixed according to the length of service of the absorbees in

their parent departments, only on the basis that the private

respondents claimed that in the case of Anusewak (peon), the

Absorption Rules, 2002 (Amalgamation Rules) were

interpreted, and were made applicable for fixation of seniority

according to length of service, i.e. on the basis of date of

their substantive appointment, and not on the basis of their

pay-scales in their parent departments at the time of

absorption. The Tribunal misdirected itself by not appreciating

that it was called upon to interpret Rule 6(2) of the