Seniority disputes cannot be reopened after unreasonable delay that unsettles an established service position.

The applicants were appointed in 2013 as Fitter in Semi-Skilled grades in different trades at Ordnance Factory, Khamaria. Respondents 4–7 were similarly appointed in different Fitter trades.

The factory subsequently merged the various Fitter trades for functional requirements and prepared a common seniority list for the Skilled and Highly Skilled grades.

An earlier seniority list dated 1 January 2019 was based on the date of appointment or grant of the Skilled grade, in which the applicants were placed above some of the private respondents.

A fresh combined seniority list was prepared as on 1 January 2020 on the basis of merit in the original selection panel. In that list, the applicants and private respondents were placed at revised positions, resulting in a reversal of some earlier seniority positions.

Promotions to Highly Skilled Grade-II were thereafter made by order dated 9 June 2020.

The applicants challenged the revised seniority placement of respondents 4 and 5, the promotion order, and sought promotion from the date on which their alleged juniors had been promoted, with consequential benefits.

The respondents contended that the revised list was prepared pursuant to the applicable Ordnance Factory Board and Department of Personnel and Training instructions, and that all employees had been given an opportunity to raise objections by 15 January 2020.

The applicants did not object within the prescribed period and submitted representations only on 12 October 2020.

Whether the respondents’ action in merging the various Fitter trades and recasting the common seniority list on the basis of merit in the original selection panel was legally sustainable.

Whether the applicants were entitled to challenge the revised seniority positions and the promotion order dated 9 June 2020 after failing to raise objections within the prescribed time.

Whether the applicants were entitled to promotion to Highly Skilled Grade-II from the date on which their alleged juniors were promoted, together with consequential benefits.

The Tribunal applied the principle that seniority may be determined in accordance with the governing service rules and applicable administrative instructions, including SRO 185 dated 1 November 1994, the Ordnance Factory Board letters dated 24 December 2002 and 13 January 2003, the OFB guidelines dated 4 August 2015, and the Department of Personnel and Training guidelines dated 4 November 1992 and Office Memorandum dated 3 July 1986.

The Tribunal accepted that, where feeder categories or trades are merged for functional reasons, a common seniority list may be prepared in accordance with the prescribed criterion, including merit in the selection panel.

It further relied on B.S. Bajwa v. State of Punjab, AIR 1999 SC 1510, for the rule that seniority disputes should not ordinarily be reopened after an unreasonable lapse of time because doing so unsettles an otherwise established position.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had recast the seniority list by merging the relevant Fitter trades and applying merit in the original selection panel, pursuant to the applicable OFB and DoPT instructions.

The revised list was circulated on 1 January 2020, and the employees were expressly permitted to submit objections by 15 January 2020. Since the applicants did not object within that period and instead submitted representations substantially later, the Tribunal held that their challenge was belated.

Applying the principle in B.S. Bajwa, the Tribunal declined to disturb the seniority arrangement or the promotions already made.

It also found no basis to interfere with the promotion order dated 9 June 2020 or to grant the applicants retrospective promotion merely because their claimed seniority positions had been altered.

The applicants’ challenge to the seniority placement, the promotion order dated 9 June 2020, and their claim for retrospective promotion with consequential benefits were rejected.

The Original Application was dismissed, with no order as to costs; any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.