The Supreme Court recently ruled that altering seniority lists after a long period would be unfair to employees. The decision came as the Court upheld a Madras High Court judgment, which had restored the seniority of several petitioners who were senior to the appellant, both by the date of their initial appointment and in their promoted positions.
The bench emphasised that modifying a seniority list after a significant period could lead to confusion and unjust consequences for many employees. It observed that such actions would unfairly affect employees who may lose their seniority rights retroactively, through no fault of their own.
The case revolved around a government order (GO) issued by the Ordinance Factory Board, Ministry of Defence. It clarified the process of counting seniority for semi-skilled employees promoted to skilled grade positions. According to the GO, seniority would only be calculated from the date of promotion to skilled grade and not from the date of entry into the semi-skilled grade.
The respondents argued that the semi-skilled grade was a trainee position, and seniority should only begin after the employee had completed the probation period and passed a trade test.
The apex court, however, reiterated its long-standing position that once an employee is appointed to a post according to the rules, their seniority should be counted from the date of their initial appointment, unless the rules specify otherwise. This principle was drawn from an earlier decision in the case of ‘Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra’ (1990), where it was established that seniority begins from the date of appointment, not confirmation.
The Court also highlighted the detrimental impact of altering seniority lists after an extended period. Such changes could disrupt the established seniority, rank, and promotion of employees, leading to unnecessary litigation and unrest. The justices noted that many employees would face significant prejudice and dissatisfaction as their rights regarding seniority, rank, and promotion had already been established.
In light of these considerations, the SC dismissed the appeal, maintaining the seniority as originally determined.
