Voluntary acceptance of request-based transfer terms precludes subsequent challenge to settled seniority or pay status.

The applicant joined the South Eastern Railway as a Ticket Collector on September 13, 1993, and was posted to the Nagpur Division

On March 18, 1997, pursuant to his own request for an Inter-Divisional Transfer, he was transferred to the Khurda Road Division

The transfer order explicitly stated the transfer was on "own request," involved "reversion" to a lower pay scale (Rs. 950-1500 from Rs. 1200-2040), and required the applicant to accept "bottom seniority"

The applicant joined the new division on March 27, 1997, and his pay was protected despite the reversion

After 23 years of service in the Khurda Road Division and receiving subsequent promotions in 2002 and 2008, the applicant filed this Original Application (OA) in 2020 seeking pay parity with his original batch mates and a recasting of the seniority list

He also filed MA 436 of 2020 for condonation of delay

1. Whether an employee is entitled to a preferred posting based solely on training examination marks and preference forms in the absence of specific rules

2. Whether an employee who voluntarily accepts an Inter-Divisional Transfer on the condition of reversion and bottom seniority can challenge those conditions after a lapse of 23 years

3. Whether the OA is barred by the law of limitation

The court applied the service law principles governing "Own Request Transfers," which stipulate that such transfers are subject to the acceptance of bottom seniority and, where applicable, reversion to a lower grade

It further applied the principle of "settled seniority," which dictates that long-standing seniority positions should not be disturbed after a significant lapse of time, especially when such changes adversely affect third parties not joined in the litigation

Finally, the court adhered to the law of limitation and the doctrine of laches, establishing that repeated representations do not extend the period of limitation for a cause of action that arose decades earlier

The Tribunal first dismissed the applicant's claim regarding initial posting preference, noting that no legal provision was produced to show that high training marks guarantee a choice of division

Regarding the transfer, the Tribunal observed that both the 1997 transfer and posting orders were crystal clear regarding the terms of "reversion" and "bottom seniority"

The applicant had consciously accepted these terms and joined the Khurda Road Division without any "demur or protest"

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant was now precluded from challenging the conditions he voluntarily accepted, particularly since his pay was protected at the time

Furthermore, the Tribunal found the 23-year delay fatal to the case; the applicant’s attempt to use a 2017 representation to revive a 1997 cause of action was rejected

The court emphasized that recasting seniority after nearly three decades would "unsettle a settled position" and unfairly impact other employees who were not parties to the suit

It ruled that the applicant, having voluntarily accepted the terms of his transfer in 1997, cannot challenge the same after 23 years

The OA and the associated MA for condonation of delay were dismissed, and the parties were ordered to bear their own costs