Seniority conditions attached to concessional absorption remain binding on absorbed employees.

The respondent, initially serving as a Radio Supervisor in the Tamil Nadu Local Administration Radio and Television Maintenance Organisation from 13 November 1997, was affected by the abolition of that organisation under G.O.Ms. No. 229, dated 30 August 2000.

Under G.O.(3D) No. 43, dated 09 December 2011, the respondent was appointed as Assistant with effect from 01 May 2001, but his seniority was directed to be fixed below the last existing employee in the relevant seniority list.

The Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 05 April 2024. The State preferred the present intra-court appeal.

Whether the respondent was entitled to fixation of seniority in the post of Assistant from his initial appointment date, 01 May 2001, notwithstanding the condition in G.O.(3D) No. 43 that absorbed employees would be placed below the last existing employee in the seniority list?

Whether the condition governing seniority of employees absorbed from the abolished Radio and Television Maintenance Organisation was legally sustainable, having regard to the concessionary nature of the absorption and the seniority rights of existing employees?

Whether the respondent could claim any additional relief on the basis of the decision in unrelated writ appeals whose Special Leave Petitions were pending before the Supreme Court without any stay order?

The Court applied the terms of G.O.(3D) No. 43, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 09 December 2011, which governed the permanent absorption and stipulated that the absorbed employees’ seniority would be fixed below the last person in the existing seniority list.

It applied the principle that permanent absorption into a different service, granted as a concession through relaxation of the applicable service rules, may be subject to conditions designed to protect the seniority and promotional prospects of existing employees.

The Court also distinguished the Tamil Nadu Engineering Subordinate Services, to which the post of Radio Supervisor belonged, from the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service, to which the posts of Assistant and Deputy Block Development Officer belonged; consequently, service in the former post did not automatically confer seniority in the latter service.

A pending Special Leave Petition, in the absence of a stay, did not prevent the Court from deciding the present appeal, although any benefit ultimately granted by the Supreme Court could subsequently be extended to the respondent.

The Court held that the respondent’s absorption was not a regular appointment to an equivalent post but a special concession extended after abolition of his original organisation.

The post of Radio Supervisor was neither equivalent to nor part of the same service as the post of Assistant; the two posts belonged to distinct services.

Since the Government had relaxed the applicable rules to secure the respondent’s permanent absorption, it was entitled to impose a corresponding condition regulating his seniority.

Placing the absorbed employees below the last existing employee protected the seniority and promotional prospects of thousands of employees already serving as Assistants and Deputy Block Development Officers.

The respondent had accepted the absorption and joined service subject to that condition, and G.O.(3D) No. 43 remained unchallenged or, at any rate, had not been invalidated in the earlier proceedings.

The earlier litigation did not grant him seniority from 01 May 2001, and the subsequent writ petition could not be used to obtain relief inconsistent with the Government Order.

The Court further noted that the respondent had already been promoted as Deputy Block Development Officer under the applicable seniority position.

The condition in G.O.(3D) No. 43 requiring his placement below the last existing employee was valid and continued to govern his service position.

The order dated 05 April 2024 in W.P. No. 5903 of 2018 was set aside, and W.A. No. 2494 of 2024 was allowed without costs.

The Court clarified that if the Supreme Court ultimately granted any further relief in the pending SLPs relied upon by the respondent, corresponding benefits could be extended to him after the Supreme Court’s decision.