Settled seniority cannot be reopened after decades where it prejudices crystallised rights of others.

The applicant, appointed as a Postal Assistant on 20 June 1991 and confirmed on 20 June 1993, challenged the order dated 9 September 2024 and its consequential endorsement dated 24 September 2024, by which her seniority in the LSG cadre was determined with reference to her date of confirmation rather than her date of appointment.

Respondents 5 to 10 had been appointed between July 1991 and February 1992 and confirmed before 4 November 1992. Their seniority had accordingly been fixed under the then-prevailing principle that seniority followed confirmation.

The applicant contended that seniority should be reckoned from initial appointment, that her seniority in the Postal Assistant cadre had affected her subsequent promotion to LSG and HSG-II, and that the resulting position had also contributed to her transfer from Mangaluru Division.

The respondents relied on DoPT Office Memorandum No. 20011/5/90-Estt.(D) dated 4 November 1992, which prospectively delinked seniority from confirmation while preserving seniority already determined under the earlier rules.

The applicant had not challenged her seniority at the Postal Assistant or LSG stages when those positions were fixed.

1. Whether the applicant’s seniority was required to be determined from her date of initial appointment rather than her date of confirmation, notwithstanding the seniority position protected by the DoPT O.M. dated 4 November 1992.

2. Whether the applicant could, after nearly three decades, reopen her seniority vis-à-vis Respondents 5 to 10 at the Postal Assistant, LSG or HSG-II stages.

3. Whether the alleged absence of a finalized LSG/Circle Gradation List, the communication dated 11 January 2021, or the applicant’s subsequent transfer justified interference with the impugned seniority determination.

The Tribunal applied DoPT O.M. No. 20011/5/90-Estt.(D) dated 4 November 1992, which modified the earlier principle that seniority followed confirmation and provided that seniority of a person regularly appointed according to the rules would ordinarily be determined by the order of merit at initial appointment; however, it expressly preserved seniority already determined under the earlier principles as on 4 November 1992.

The Tribunal relied on Class II Direct Recruits Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra, as reflected in the O.M., for the general rule that seniority ordinarily runs from the date of appointment and not confirmation, unless the applicable rules provide otherwise.

It also applied the doctrine of delay and laches in seniority disputes, relying on K.R. Mudgal v. R.P. Singh, which holds that settled seniority should not ordinarily be reopened after many years, and Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, which recognises that even a continuing wrong cannot ordinarily revive a stale claim where reopening the matter would affect third-party seniority or promotion rights.

The Tribunal also referred to V. Vincent Velankanni v. Union of India, emphasising that retrospective alteration of crystallised seniority rights after a long period is impermissible where it would prejudice other employees.

The Tribunal held that although the general post-1992 rule was that seniority should be based on initial appointment, paragraph 4 of the 4 November 1992 O.M. protected seniority already determined under the earlier confirmation-based regime.

Respondents 5 to 10 had all been confirmed before 4 November 1992, whereas the applicant was confirmed only on 20 June 1993; their relative seniority had therefore crystallised before the revised principle came into force.

The applicant did not challenge that position when her Postal Assistant seniority was determined, or when she was promoted to LSG with effect from 27 May 2016.

Since her claim for alteration of HSG-II seniority necessarily depended on reopening the foundational Postal Assistant seniority, the Tribunal found that granting relief would unsettle long-standing seniority and promotional rights of third parties.

The alleged administrative assurance that her case would be pursued, the absence of a fresh LSG seniority determination, and the transfer grievance could not override the governing rules or revive a stale seniority challenge.

Applying the principles of delay, laches and protection of settled service rights, the Tribunal declined to interfere.

The impugned orders disclosed no legal infirmity. The Original Application was dismissed, all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.