1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench dealing with the question of inter-se-seniority between the Labour Officer and Assistant Welfare Commissioner. By a Notification dated February 3, 1987, a set of rules were framed in exercise of powers under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, called the Central Labour (Services) Rules, 1987. Section 2(c) of the said rule defines the "departmental candidates" to mean all the existing officers holding Group 'A' posts recruited under the different rules enumerated therein. Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) were being recruited under the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Recruitment Rules, 1958, whereas Labour officers were being recruited under the Labour Officers (Central Pool) Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1951. Rule 2(g) defines "Grade" to mean a Grade specified in Column 2 of Schedule I. Schedule 1, Item 5 indicates Grade V, which includes the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) as well as the Labour Officer and Assistant Welfare Commissioner. It is thus apparent that the post of Labour Officer and Assistant Labour Commissioner were in the same grade. Rule 9 of the aforesaid Recruitment Rules deals with the seniority.
"Seniority:
(1) The inter-se-seniority of the officers appointed to the various Grades mentioned in Schedule 1 at the initial constitution stage of the service under Rule 6, shall be determined according to the length of regular continuous service in the grade subject to maintenance in the respective grades of inter-se-seniority of officers recruited under the rules mentioned in Clause (c) of Rule 2."
2. The real question that arises for consideration is whether a person who had been appointed as a Labour Officer, subsequent to December 31, 1972, and then had been appointed as Assistant Labour Commissioner, and was continuing as such Assistant Labour Commissioner on the date the aforesaid recruitment rules came into force, and two posts were clubbed together, the services rendered by such employee as Labour Officer could be counted as continuous length of service in the grade in terms of Rule 9(1) of the recruitment Rules? Proviso to Rule 9(1) speaks of the Labour Officer and Assistant Labour Commissioner recruited prior to December 31, 1972 with which proviso we are not concerned in the present case. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment, while interpreting Rule 9(1), has come to the conclusion that it is the continuous length of service as Assistant Labour Commissioner, which shall be taken into account for the purpose of seniority in terms of Rule 9(1). Obviously, the Tribunal has committed error inasmuch as Rule 9(1) specifically indicates that the regular continuous service in the grade would be the determining factor. Since admittedly Labour Officer and Assistant Labour Commissioner were in the same grade, there is no rhyme and reason not to count the services rendered as Labour Officer prior to the incumbent being appointed as Assistant Welfare Commissioner for determining his seniority in the cadre. The conclusion of the Tribunal, therefore, is contrary to the plain meaning of Rule 9(1) of the Recruitment Rule, which governs the question of seniority. In our view, the continuous length of service in the grade is the determining factor for the purpose of reckoning seniority in the cadre. In the aforesaid premises, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
3. Shri Koteswara Rao respondent No. 1 did not appear in spite of due service of notice. On the last occasion, when the matter had reached before us because a prayer had been made, we had directed issuance of fresh notice and it appears notice has been issued on January 13, 2001, and more than 2 months have elapsed in the meantime. We, therefore, hold that the notice must be deemed to have been duly served.