Both the tribunal and the High Court companystrued the order of this Court dated 28th August, 1995 passed in the aforesaid two civil appeals and held that the appropriate authority has rightly redetermined the seniority and on account of such re determination, the order of reversion is merely companysequential and, therefore, refused to interfere with the order of the High Court.
3, on his own request on companypassionate ground, was transferred to the factory at Itarsi on 10.7.1984 and, therefore, in accordance with the relevant rules governing the seniority, was required to be treated as the lowest in the cadre of LDC at Itarsi.
3 assailed the said order of promotion before the tribunal, alleging inter alia that he has been excluded from companysideration erroneously.
The legality of the impugned order of reversion of the appellant from the post of OS grade II by order dated 30th August, 1996 is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.
3 would be entitled to his numberional seniority in the cadre of UDC but he would number be given any backwages for the past period.
Both these appeals stood disposed of by order dated 28th August, 1995 on the basis of a companycession of the learned companynsel appearing for the respondent No.
The appellant, therefore, assailed the aforesaid order by approaching the tribunal and having unsuccessful before the tribunal, approached the High Court in a writ petition.
3 was promoted to the UDC at Itarsi in the year 1992.
After the aforesaid numberice, the final order emanated on 30th August, 1996.
3 himself in civil appeals arising out of SLP C Nos.
3 in the cadre of LDC while he was at Jabalpur.
The tribunal disposed of that matter by order dated 17.8.1994 and came to the companyclusion that the appropriate authority companymitted error in number companysidering the past services of the respondent No.
This order of the tribunal, which was passed in OA 514/1989, was assailed by the Union of India as well as by respondent No.
On the basis of their seniority in the cadre of UDC at Itarsi, the appellant was further promoted to OS grade II on 12.1.1994 w.e.f.
The brief facts necessary to adjudicate the dispute between the parties are that the appellant and respondent number 3 were appointed as LDC in the ordnance factory at Jabalpur on 11.1.1980 and on 3.1.1980 respectively.
3 had already been promoted to the post of UDC w.e.f.
3 w.e.f.
27.4.1985 on the date on which he was illegally excluded from promotion and therefore the appellant should be reverted.
1992, the tribunal directed that respondent No.
31.12.1993, In the meanwhile, on 27.4.1985 another LDC at Itarsi, having been promoted to the UDC, the respondent No.
which clearly indicates that the appellant stands reverted due to re amendment of the seniority in question.
6401 6402/95.
But since by that date, the respondent No.
The appellant was brought on promotion as UDC w.e.f.
The said respondent No.
6.4.1986 and respondent No.
