Seniority entitles employees to financial upgradation parity from the date benefits are granted to their juniors.

The applicants, originally LDCs/UDCs and subsequently converted to Postal Assistants, sought the benefit of the Time Bound One Promotion (TBOP) Scheme effective from 01.08.1991

They contended that their juniors, including Smt. Uma Biswas and others, had been granted TBOP and Biennial Cadre Review (BCR) benefits earlier than them

The respondents rejected the applicants' representation via a speaking order dated 26.03.2018, asserting that TBOP/BCR benefits are financial upgradations based strictly on the completion of 16 and 26 years of regular service, respectively, and that seniority cannot override these length-of-service requirements

The respondents further argued that previous favorable court orders were either in personam or based on misinterpretations of departmental guidelines

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the benefit of the TBOP Scheme from the date their juniors received it, regardless of whether the applicants had completed the requisite years of service

2. Whether administrative instructions and clarifications can override the seniority of officials in the matter of granting financial upgradations under TBOP/BCR schemes

The court applied the TBOP Scheme (1983) and BCR Scheme (1991) guidelines regarding financial upgradation

Supreme Court precedent in Union of India v. Leelamma Jacob (2003) 12 SCC 280, which established that administrative clarifications cannot take away the rights of seniors for promotion or benefits to which their juniors are entitled

Tribunal's decision in Rabindra Nath Modak v. Union of India (O.A. 1108/2008), which invalidated the circular dated 17.05.2000 that sought to debar seniors from such benefits

The Tribunal found that the applicants were "squarely covered" by the decision in Rabindra Nath Modak and were similarly situated to the applicants in O.A. 1148/2003

The court reasoned that the principle established in Leelamma Jacob prevents the Department from allowing juniors to receive higher pay scales than their seniors under the TBOP/BCR schemes

The Tribunal noted that the High Court at Calcutta had affirmed this stance in WPCT No. 104 of 2014, and the respondents failed to produce any Supreme Court judgment to the contrary

The Tribunal determined that the respondents' speaking order was flawed as it relied on administrative instructions that had already been declared invalid by higher judicial forums

It held that the applicants are entitled to the same benefits as granted to the applicants in O.A. No. 1108/2008

The respondents were directed to extend these benefits within three months from the date of receipt of the order

The O.A. was disposed of with no order as to costs