Seniority in Open Line Cadre is Fixed from Date of Induction, Not Previous Service in Construction Wing.

The applicant was appointed as a Trackman on February 1, 2013, in the Construction Organisation (Construction Wing) of the North-East Frontier Railway

His lien was subsequently fixed at SSE/P-Way/LLBR under the Lumding (LMG) Division vide a letter dated November 22, 2013

A provisional seniority list published on July 13, 2020, showed three individuals (serial nos. 22, 23, and 26) who were appointed later than the applicant (between March and August 2013) but had been promoted to Level-2 as early as September 21, 2015

The applicant, still in Level-1, sought priority for promotion and seniority parity, arguing he was senior based on his initial appointment date

The respondents contended that the applicant’s name only entered the LMG Division seniority list in 2017 after his lien was fixed, whereas the other three individuals were "Open Line Staff" from the start

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim seniority and priority for promotion over employees appointed later in time but within a different cadre (Open Line vs. Construction Wing)

2. Whether the period of service in the Construction Wing can be equated with service in the feeder cadre of Track Maintainers in the Open Line for the purpose of retrospective seniority

The court applied the principle of cadre distinction in railway service, distinguishing between "Construction Organisation" employees and "Open Line Staff"

The court relied on the doctrine that seniority in a specific cadre (Track Maintainer) is governed by the date of entry into that specific feeder cadre or the date of fixation of lien within that unit

The court upheld that service in a different initial cadre does not grant automatic seniority over members of the relevant functional cadre who were appointed as "Open Line Staff"

The Tribunal analyzed the organizational structure and found that while the applicant was appointed in 2013, he was borne in the Construction Wing, which is a separate cadre from the Open Line Staff of the Engineering Department

The three individuals cited by the applicant were appointed as Open Line Staff from their inception, making them part of the functional feeder cadre for Track Maintainers much earlier than the applicant

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant only "emerged" in the Track Maintainer cadre of the LMG Division following the communication dated June 27, 2017

The court found that the applicant could not legally claim parity or seniority over the respondents because he was not part of the same cadre during the relevant period when the promotions were granted in 2015

The court concluded that since the applicant was initially appointed in a different cadre, he is junior to the three cited individuals in the context of the Track Maintainer seniority list

The Original Application was dismissed on merits with no order as to costs