Service from date of initial deputation must be reckoned for seniority upon permanent absorption in the department.

The applicant was initially a teacher in the Education Department. On 22.11.1995, his services were placed at the disposal of the Wild Life Protection Department as an "Ecologist" on a deputation basis

He was permanently absorbed into the Wild Life Protection Department on 29.06.2000, and his lien in the parent department was terminated in 2002

While the applicant continuously worked in the department and underwent specialized training since 1995, the respondents reckoned his seniority and date of absorption only from 29.06.2000

Consequently, he was placed at Serial No. 9 in the seniority list of Assistant Conservator of Forests (Wildlife). He challenged Government Order No. 534-JK(FST) of 2019, which rejected his claim for promotion to Deputy Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), and sought to have his service counted from 1995

1. Whether the applicant’s service in the Wild Life Protection Department should be reckoned from the date of his initial placement (22.11.1995) or from the date of his formal absorption (29.06.2000) for the purpose of seniority and promotion

2. Whether the rejection of the applicant’s claim for promotion via Government Order No. 534-JK(FST) of 2019 was legally sustainable in light of prior adjudications

The Tribunal primarily applied Rule 24 of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, which generally stipulates that seniority is counted from the date of first substantive appointment

The Tribunal relied on the principle of "Fairness in Administrative Action" and the doctrine of res judicata or "Covered Matters," specifically referring to its own earlier judgment in T.A. No. 1388/2020

That precedent established that when an employee is treated as an integral part of a department long before formal absorption, arbitrary exclusion of that prior service for seniority violates the principles of equity and fairness

The Tribunal found that the controversy was "no longer res integra" as it was squarely covered by the decision in T.A. No. 1388/2020, which involved the same parties and facts

The Tribunal reasoned that although the 1995 order was labeled as "deputation," the applicant had been discharging duties, receiving charge allowances, and undergoing specialized training for the Wild Life Department without interruption since that date

It was determined that reckoning service only from 2000 was arbitrary

Since the foundational dispute regarding the 1995 start date was already decided in favor of the applicant in the connected matter, the subsequent order (the impugned order of 2019) rejecting his promotion based on the old seniority was a "sequel to the same dispute" and rested on an "erroneous basis"

To uphold the 2019 rejection would effectively defeat the relief granted in the previous litigation

It held that the applicant is entitled to have his service reckoned from 22.11.1995 for seniority purposes

The respondents were directed to: (i) revise the seniority list of Assistant Conservator of Forests (Wildlife); (ii) place the applicant above the private respondents wherever due; and (iii) grant him promotion to Deputy Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) from the date his immediate junior was considered, with all consequential benefits, within a period of three months