1 was Union of India whereas respondent Nos.
145 to 150 of 1987.
Those were filed in seriatim by B. Jayaraman A. Kanakasena Rao M. Venkatachalam A. Sherfudeen K. Viswanathan and P. Madhavan Adiyodi.
It appears the petitioners before the Tribunal were aggrieved by the grant of benefit of service rendered during the period 1.1.1973 to 31.7.1981 by those who were working in the grade of Assistants towards their seniority in the grade of Superintendent Grade II.
Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal the Union of India had preferred the present appeals.
145 to 150 of 1987 before the Tribunal Name of the Date of Appointment Seniority in Asstt.
2 to 13 were the erstwhile Secretarial Assistants promoted as Superintendents Grade II and further promoted as Superintendents Grade I in the Secretariat of the Government of Pondicherry and governed by the Government of Pondicherry Group C Non Gazetted Ministerial Posts Recruitment Rules, 1981 hereinafter referred to as the Rules .
1 was further directed to prepare the seniority list in the grade of Superintendent Grade II on the basis of the length of service rendered in that grade and thereafter, all the eligible persons may be companysidered for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade I and that should include persons like respondents 2 to 13 before it who would get the benefit of service rendered by them as Assistant between 1.1.1973 to 31.11.1981 for determining the period of eligibility and number for the purpose of seniority in the cadre of Superintendent Grade II.
For appreciating the submissions of the learned Counsel for the respective parties we may give a statement showing the dates of appointments in various grades and ranking assigned in respect of the petitioners and respondents 2 to 13 in O.A. Nos.
The petitioners before the Tribunal had challenged the promotion of respondents 2 to 13 therein who were promoted from Secretarial Assistants to Superintendents Grade II and further promoted as Superintendents Grade I before them inspite of the fact that the petitioners had already been working as Superintendents Grade II prior to the promotion of the erstwhile Assistants as Superintendents Grade II.
The promotion of respondents before the Tribunal was alleged to be based on tentative seniority list wherein respondent No.
The Tribunal accordingly set aside the promotions of respondents 2 to 13 before it companytained in various orders of the Government of Pondicherry dated 7.8.1986 20.8.1986 1.9.1986 and 17.11.1986.
The plea of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that from 1.8.1981 respondents 2 to 13 who were Assistants and were In a distinctly lower scale of pay as companypared to the applicants, they companyld number be promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade I before the petitioners.
1 had included the feeder service rendered by the Assistants between 1.1.1973 and 31.7.1981 for companyputing the seniority in the grade of Superintendent Grade II.
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. These six appeals have been filed against the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, dated 22nd August, 1989 while disposing of Original Application Nos.
