Re-designation of Regularized Employees Does Not Constitute Fresh Appointment for Determining Seniority under Rule 24.

The applicants were initially engaged as Daily Rated Workers in the Forest Department and were later regularized as "Helpers" under SRO 64 of 1994 on various dates between 1998 and 2001

Because the post of "Helper" was not included in the Recruitment Rules, the government issued Order No. 213-FST of 2015 on 19.08.2015 to re-designate 1,614 Helpers into existing departmental posts to facilitate their promotion

Respondent No. 4 subsequently issued Notification dated 27.01.2020, fixing the applicants' seniority from the date of re-designation (19.08.2015) rather than their dates of substantive regularization

During the pendency of the litigation, the government issued a tentative seniority list in 2024 for some applicants based on their regularization dates, following advice from the Finance Department

Applicants 1 and 2 withdrew from the case after being promoted

1. Whether the seniority of regularized employees should be reckoned from the date of their substantive regularization or from the date of their bureaucratic re-designation into the departmental hierarchy

2. Whether administrative delay in amending recruitment rules or re-designating posts can legally deprive an employee of their past regular service for seniority purposes

Rule 24 of the J Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, which mandates that seniority be determined by the date of "first appointment" to the service, class, category, or grade

The principle that "re-designation" is a mere change in nomenclature or placement and does not constitute a fresh recruitment or appointment that resets an employee's service record

Principles of Natural Justice, requiring that employees be given an opportunity to be heard before their seniority position is adversely altered

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicants became regular government servants upon their regularization under SRO 64 of 1994 between 1998 and 2001; thus, their "first appointment" under Rule 24 of the CCA Rules corresponds to those dates, not 2015

The court observed that the 2015 re-designation order did not create a new employer-employee relationship but was merely an administrative tool to fit existing regular employees into a recognized hierarchy

The Tribunal held that applicants cannot be penalized for departmental inaction or the failure of the state to timely update Recruitment Rules to include the "Helper" designation

Further, the court noted the respondents' own inconsistency, as they had already begun applying Rule 24(1) to fix the seniority of some applicants from their regularization dates in a subsequent 2024 list, thereby admitting the applicants' legal stance

The Tribunal allowed the O.A. for applicants 3 to 7, quashed Notification No. 3003-09/CFE/Estt/05/J dated 27.01.2020, and directed the respondents to re-fix seniority, consider notional promotions, and revise pensionary benefits for retired applicants within three months