Seniority must be corrected where departmental non-verification alone caused an employee’s omission from the original panel.

The applicant was engaged as a casual khalasi on 16 March 1981.

His name was omitted from the screening and empanelment list dated 3 February 1984 because his service record had not been verified. By letter dated 4 February 1984, the Railway authorities asked him to produce the relevant record and stated that his name could then be interpolated in the panel at the appropriate position.

The applicant maintained that his casual-labour card established his service; the respondents disputed the period worked and said the record was unavailable. In an order dated 3 January 1995, the respondents placed him between Tulsi Prasad and Nasir Ali in the list published on 8 November 1990.

After his representations were rejected in 2016 and 2018, the applicant challenged those orders and sought correction of his seniority by reference to the 1984 panel.

1. Whether the applicant’s seniority should be corrected by interpolating his name at the appropriate position in the empanelment list dated 3 February 1984, rather than fixing it by reference to the list published on 8 November 1990.

2. Whether the orders rejecting the applicant’s claim for seniority correction should be quashed.

The Tribunal cited no statute, rule, or judicial precedent as the basis for its decision.

Its determination rested on the documentary record, particularly the Railway’s letter of 4 February 1984, which linked the applicant’s omission from the 1984 panel to the unverified service record and contemplated interpolation once the service particulars were produced.

The Tribunal also considered the respondents’ later order of 3 January 1995, which recorded that the applicant had produced relevant documents and fixed his position in the 1990 list.

The Tribunal found no dispute that the applicant had been engaged as a casual khalasi from 16 March 1981 and observed that his working days had been maintained and verified for the purpose of screening.

It treated the 4 February 1984 letter as showing that the applicant’s absence from the 1984 panel resulted from non-verification of his service record, rather than a finding that he was ineligible; the letter also contemplated placing his name in the appropriate position after verification.

The Tribunal considered the respondents’ later placement of the applicant in the 1990 list inconsistent with the earlier correspondence and the record concerning his claim to the 1984 panel, and concluded that his seniority required correction by reference to that panel.

It directed the respondents to interpolate the applicant’s name at the correct position in the empanelment list dated 3 February 1984 and notionally fix his seniority from that date. As the applicant had retired, the respondents were directed to issue a revised PPO and pay any arrears to which he was entitled within four months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made.