JUDGMENT : - Samaresh Banerjea, J.: In the instant writ petition the petitioners, all of whom are directly recruited as Assistant Engineers of Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the C.M.D.A.) are aggrieved by the action of the C.M.D.A. in revising the existing gradation list by ante-dating the seniority of the promotee Assistant Engineers being respondents no. 4 to 9 as a result whereof the seniority of the present petitioners have been affected. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents no. 4 to 9 were working originally in the Public Health Engineering Directorate, Govt. of West Bengal as Worked-Charge Assistant Engineers by Govt. order no. 8026, dated December 31, 1973, but. subsequently along with other place under the disposal of the C.M.D.A. and were directed to report for duty to the Secretary, C.M.D.A. by an order dated December 29, 1973 on certain terms and conditions indicated in the order. Pursuant to an advertisement published in the Statesman on January 5, 1974 the Secretary, C.M.D.A., invited applications from all concerns for filling up all posts of Assistant Engineers (Civil), Technical Assistant (Civil), and Draughtsman (Civil) pursuant to which all the writ petitioners have applied and ultimately were appointed by various order passed in May 1974 after being selected by the Selection Committee. 3. The respondents no. 4 to 9 according to the petitioners being unmerited candidates were not appointed as the names were placed below in the order preference in the said list. The said respondents no. 4 to 9 subsequently, however, were selected by the Selection Committee and were appointed as Assistant Engineers after absorption subject to the condition that they will resign from Govt. services as worked-charge Assistant Engineer from the date of their absorption in C.M.D.A that is from the order dated August 2, 1975 the list of directly recruited as Assistant Engineers which was published on 28th August, 1976 also included the names of respondents no. 4 to 9 wherefrom it will appear that they were also treated as directly recruited as Assistant Engineers. 4. On March 23, 1981 a gradation list of Assistant Engineers as on January 1, 1977 was published where the respondents no. 4 to 9 were shown as juniors to the writ petitioners by an order dated 31st of March, 1981 the petitioners as well as the respondents no. 4. On March 23, 1981 a gradation list of Assistant Engineers as on January 1, 1977 was published where the respondents no. 4 to 9 were shown as juniors to the writ petitioners by an order dated 31st of March, 1981 the petitioners as well as the respondents no. 4 to 9 were confirmed in the post of Assistant Engineers wherefrom also it will appear the confirmation of the petitioners were made prior to that of the respondents no. 4 to 9. 5. On 18th June, 1974 the petitioners on coming to know that the respondents were going to refix the seniority of the respondents no. 4 to 9 above the writ petitioners who made representation to the Chief Executive Officers, C.M.D.A. But despite such representations the Secretary, C.M.D.A. by an order dated March 13, 1985 have regularised the services of the respondents no. 4 to 9 with effect from 1st of January, 1974, that is the date of their joining of C.M.D.A as Transferee Worked Charge Assistant Engineers (Civil) from Public Health Engineering Directorate, Govt. of West Bengal. As a result whereof the said respondents no. 4 to 9 who were juniors to the petitioners now have become seniors to the petitioners in the cadre of Assistant Engineers (direct recruited in C.M.D.A.). 6. The aforesaid action of the respondents have been challenged by the writ petitioners, inter alia, on the ground that admittedly the respondents no. 4 to 9 having been appointed in the post of Assistant Engineers between 2nd August, 1975 and 27th August, 1975 as direct recruits on condition of submission of resignation with their parent department, namely, Government of West Bengal, the respondents cannot illegally treat the period of service rendered by the said respondents with the State Government as worked-charged Assistant, as service rendered by the C.M.D.A. and thereby antedating their seniority over those of the writ petitioners. 7. The petitioners filed a supplementary affidavit annexing the resolution of 29th Board meeting of C.M.D.A. held on 17th May, 1973 the Memorandum dated 1st of July, 1974, issued by the Deputy Secretary, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal. It has been contended relying on the said resolution of the said Board meeting that it will appear there from all the employees of C.M.D.A. would enjoy equal service benefit with that of the State Govt. employees except pensionary benefits. It has been contended relying on the said resolution of the said Board meeting that it will appear there from all the employees of C.M.D.A. would enjoy equal service benefit with that of the State Govt. employees except pensionary benefits. It has been further contended relying on clause 18 of C.M.D.A. service regulation that seniority of all employees of C.M.D.A. within a cadre would be determined in accordance with the principles to be laid down by the authority which will be the State Government in the instant case. It has also been contended relying upon the memorandum dated 1st of July, 1974 of the Finance Department where it has been provided that the period of service rendered in the worked-charged establishment counts for leave, increment, pension and other recruitment benefits, that it does not count for seniority. 8. The C.M.D.A. in its affidavit has explained the situation under which the worked-charged employees of the Government departments including the respondents no. 4 to 9 were transferred to C.M.D.A. which is being relevant for the present case, is necessary to be referred to. 9. It has been contended after the actual establishment of C.M.D.A. in the year 1970 the actual implementation of the project was initially left to different State Government Engineering Directorates and Specialised Bodies like Improvement Trust etc. which arrangements continued up to 1973. Thereafter a decision was taken by the State Govt. to consolidate and entrust the execution and implementation and responsibilities of the projects to C.M.D.A. itself and as a first step towards such policy it was decided that the C.M.D.A. should take over the works together with the personnel recruited and/or deployed for the various C.M.D.As projects in such Government Engineering Directorates. The transfer from Public Health Engineering Directorate were made in terms of resolution dated 29th September, 1973 of the Department of Health and Family Planning. The status of the employees of the Public Health Engineering Directorate after their transfer from Government services to C.M.D.A. with effect from 1.1.1974 was defined in Govt. Order dated 29th December, 1973 of the Department of Health and Family Planning (Annexure A to the affidavit in-opposition ), 10. The status of the employees of the Public Health Engineering Directorate after their transfer from Government services to C.M.D.A. with effect from 1.1.1974 was defined in Govt. Order dated 29th December, 1973 of the Department of Health and Family Planning (Annexure A to the affidavit in-opposition ), 10. Para 8 of Government Order dated 29th December, 1973 which contains terms and conditions of transfer of such employees from Public Health Engineering Directorate to C.M.D.A. provided there, inter alia, that services of the personnel employed in the worked-charged establishment and having services less than 3 years are placed at the disposal of C.M.D.A. for appointment in identical posts and the period of service rendered by them with Government will be taken into account only. As such benefits as confirmation, absorption in the regular post, contributory fund, gratuity, leave etc. as may be admissible. It is the contention of the said respondents that such employees thus would have no lien in their parent department post and would be deemed to employee of C.M.D.A from the date of their transfer. The respondents no. 4 to 9 were borne in the worked-charged establishment and having less than 3 years service in such establishment were treated as employees of C.M.D.A. with effect from 1.1.1974 right from the date of transfer. It is further stated in the said affidavit that the respondents no. 4 to 9 pursuant to the advertisement dated 6th of January, 1974 published in the newspapers inviting applications for the post of Assistant Engineers (Civil) applied for the post. On selection of the candidates four panels were prepared with candidates who are found suitable for appointment in four sectors of C.M.D.A., namely, water supply, sewrage and drainage, traffic and transportation and area development and basti improvement and the names of the candidates found suitable for the aforesaid panels were arranged by the Selection Committee in order of preference. Respondents no. 4 to 7 and 9 were found suitable along with petitioners for appointment as Assistant Engineers in the water supply sector, but their position in the panel were placed below those of the petitioners no. Respondents no. 4 to 7 and 9 were found suitable along with petitioners for appointment as Assistant Engineers in the water supply sector, but their position in the panel were placed below those of the petitioners no. 2, 4 and 5 and accordingly they did not get the regular appointment of Assistant Engineers at that point of time; subsequently in May 1974 the same Selection Committee prepared a composite panel of Assistant Engineers in order of preference from the said four sectors of the panels and in such composite panels the position of the said respondent no.7 was fixed at serial no. 8 which was above the position of the petitioners no. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 15. The position of respondent no. 4 in the said consolidated panel was fixed at serial no. 19 which was above petitioner no. 12. 11. It has also been specifically contended in the said affidavit-in-opposition that the stipulation which was made in the letter of appointment of the respondents no. 4 to 9 that they are being appointed on condition of resigning from Government services was made erroneously inasmuch as the said respondents having no lien in their parent department question of resignation from service did not arise. In January 1975 a decision was taken by C.M.D.A to regularise the service of transferee worked-charged employees who joined C.M.D.A. from different departments of the State Government with effect from the date of their joining of C.M.D.A. (Annexure C to the affidavit-in-opposition). In 83rd meeting of the C.M.D.A. held on November 29, 1984 it was decided in modification of its earlier decision to regularise the services of the transferee worked-charged employees having less than 3 years service in the worked-charged establishment in the present department prior to their transfer to C.M.D.A. with effect from respective date of transfer. In 83rd meeting of the C.M.D.A. held on November 29, 1984 it was decided in modification of its earlier decision to regularise the services of the transferee worked-charged employees having less than 3 years service in the worked-charged establishment in the present department prior to their transfer to C.M.D.A. with effect from respective date of transfer. On condition that C.M.D.A.'s order regarding regularisation of the service of the transferee worked charged employees having less than 3 years of service under the Government from the dates of their transfer to the C.M.D.A. should be antedated with effect from the respective dates of transfer of their services to C.M.D.A. orders regarding regularisation of the services of C.M.D.A.'s directly recruited temporary employees in the worked-charged establishment should be antedated with effect from their respective dates in the worked-charged establishment of the C.M.D.A.; consequent upon such antedating seniority of those employees in their respective cadres should be redetermined with effect from new dates of regularisation and following the determination of seniority as aforesaid if it is found that in a cadre/ post junior persons have been given promotions to the higher post, then their seniors should be given promotions to those higher post with effect from the date the juniors were promoted by creating supernumerary post if necessary and fixing the pay of the employees in such cases notionally. 12. It is further contended by the respondents in their affidavit, the fact that the said respondents no. 4 to 9 could not get regular appointment in 1974 after selection by the Selection Committee having position lower than those of writ petitioners in the selection list did not wipe out their initial identity of transferee worked charged employees with less than 3 years service in worked charged establishment in the parent department and they belonged to a separate category of employee. Respondent nos. 6 to 9 were also brought under regular establishment of Assistant Engineers of C.M.D.A. in pursuance of a policy decision arrived at by the C.M.D.A. to offer opportunity to all transferee work charged Assistant Engineers to get themselves absorbed in the regular establishment of the C.M.D.A. The said four respondents along with others, were interviewed by a Selection Committee constituted for the purpose and on being found suitable for absorption by it, all the said four respondents were brought under regular establishment of the C.M.D.A. by order no. 1682/CMDN2624/75, dated 29.9.75 (Annexure, T to the petition). In the said affidavit it has been denied that the respondents no. 4 to 9 being absorbed as regular Assistant Engineers with effect from 29th September, 1975, became directly recruited as Assistant Engineers like the petitioners as alleged. 13. It has been further contended that in 1979 the State Government took a policy decision regarding convertion of worked charged posts which continued for more than 3 years into permanent job and regularisation of such worked charged employees who completed more than 3 years service on June 1st, 1977 with effect from the date, the State Government's decision came into force and the same was implemented. Thereafter a section of erstwhile worked charged employees began to clamour for regularisation of their services with effect from date of transfer of services of C.M.D.A and in view of the same the matter was considered by the C.M.D.A in consultation with the various departments of the State Government and ultimately the decision was taken to regularise the services of all such worked charged employees comprising both transferee employees with effect from their date of joining of C.M.D.A. 14. In their affidavit-in-opposition and in the supplementary affidavit (affirmed on 14th June, 1996) the C.M.D.A. has also referred to the State Government's order dated 21st July, 1995 para (4), which provides, inter alia, that in case of a regular/worked charged employees whose service in the parent department/office is less than 3 years before joining of C.M.D.A. his seniority in the C.M.D.A in the post in which his absorption is made will be from the date of joining of C.M.D.A. without the benefit of weight age. It has been contended that the aforesaid Government decision has been followed by the C.M.D.A. in the instant case. It is further contended that in the matter of 60 : 40 benefit both as Assistant Engineers and Executive Engineers, the private respondents were treated above the petitioners under order dated 31.12.1986 (Annexure 'O' to the affidavit). 15. The stand of the respondents no. 4 to 9 in their affidavit-in-opposition is more or less similar to that of C.M.D.A. It is the contention of the respondents no. 15. The stand of the respondents no. 4 to 9 in their affidavit-in-opposition is more or less similar to that of C.M.D.A. It is the contention of the respondents no. 4 to 9 that they are employees of the C.M.D.A. through a process separate and different from the process through which the writ petitioners were recruited and accordingly they formed a separate, category or class and antedating their seniority on their regularisation has been made in terms of their policy applied by the C.M.D.A on the question of regularisation of all transferee worked charged employees. 16. It will thus appear from the rival contention of the parties, the issues which were required to be determined by this court in the instant writ application are whether C.M.D.A could have antedated the date of regularisation of the respondents no. 4 to 9 and other worked charged employees of the State Government who were admittedly transferred to C.M.D.A., with effect from the date of their transfer to C.M.D.A. and whether because of such antedating the regularisation of the said respondents, the seniorities of such respondents viz-a-viz. the writ petitioners can be redetermined treating the said respondents as seniors to the writ petitioners. 17. The answer to both of such questions according to the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, should be in the negative. 18. Mr. Apurba Lal Basu, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner have submitted, inter alia, that the respondents no. 4 to 9 like the petitioners were also appointed in the C.M.D.A. as direct recruits on being selected by the Selection Committee like the present petitioners as they also applied pursuant to the advertisement published in the newspapers and their appointment were made on the specific condition that they would have to resign from the Government services. The respondents no. 4 to 9 accepted such appointment on such condition. Under such circumstances that there cannot be any scope of antedating their regularisation in C.M.D.A. with effect from 1.1.1974 that is the date when they were transferred from the State Government to C.M.D.A. 19. On consideration of all aspects of the matter and the material on records I am, however, of the view that the decision to absorb the respondents no. 4 to 9 from 1.1.1974 cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. On consideration of all aspects of the matter and the material on records I am, however, of the view that the decision to absorb the respondents no. 4 to 9 from 1.1.1974 cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. On the contrary such decision appears to be quite proper and valid and taken pursuant to a policy decision of the Government and the C.M.D.A. 20. The respondents no. 4 to 9 were admittedly employed in the worked charged establishment of the Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. of West Bengal, as Assistant Engineers having less than 3 years service and were transferred to the C.M.D.A and appointed in identical post with effect from 1.1.1974 in terms of Govt. of West Bengal's resolution No. ESTT.-9228/2E-195/73, dated 29.12.1973 which is clearly provided that they should be employed by the C.M.D.A. on such terms and conditions not less advantageous than what they were entitled to immediately before such transfer as may be determined by the authorities. 21. Paragraph (8) of Memo No. ESTT.-9228/2E-195/73, dated 29.12.1973 which specifically dealt with the case of employees who were employed in the worked charged establishment of the Government having service less than 3 years like the respondents no. 4 to 9 provided that their services were placed at the disposal of the C.M.D.A. for appointment in such identical posts ......... such employees were holding subject to the terms and conditions specified in the previous Govt. resolution and the period of service rendered by them under the Government will be taken into account fully for such benefit as confirmation, absorption in the regular post, contributory provident fund, gratuity, leave etc. as may be admissible in the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority. 22. It will thus appear that even under the terms and conditions of the aforesaid order the period of service rendered by the respondents no. 4 to 9 with the Government are required to be taken into consideration, inter alia, for the purpose of their absorption in C.M.D.A. 23. It will further appear from the aforesaid resolution No. ESTT-9228/ 2E-195/73, dated 29.12.1973 that the schemes for water supply, drainage and sewrage sponsored and administratively approved by the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority which were entrusted to the Public Health Engineering Directorate for execution were transferred from 1.1.1974, the C.M.D.A. along with the ........................ It will further appear from the aforesaid resolution No. ESTT-9228/ 2E-195/73, dated 29.12.1973 that the schemes for water supply, drainage and sewrage sponsored and administratively approved by the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority which were entrusted to the Public Health Engineering Directorate for execution were transferred from 1.1.1974, the C.M.D.A. along with the ........................ all the staffs therein will be admissible on such terms and conditions as may be determined by the authority and subject to such terms and conditions, including deputation terms as will be admissible as and may be prescribed by the Government. 24. It will further appear that C.M.D.A. treated such employees employed in the worked charged establishment of the Government, so transferred to C.M.D.A. as transferee deputationist. In November 1974, the C.M.D.A. Recruitment Rules, 1974 was enacted, Regulation 11 of which lays down the principles relating to absorption of deputationist. 25. Pursuant to a decision taken in the 56th Board meeting of the C.M.D.A. held on 21st January, 1978 a committee was set up on 6th May, 1978 to examine some aspects of service condition of the employees of the C.M.D.A. The terms of reference of the said committee, inter alia, was to recommend principles and procedure to be followed for determining seniority of the confirmed employees, employees against permanent post; temporary employees; employees under worked charged establishment and absorbed employees; and also to recommend the principles for determining the seniority of the employees on deputation on particular cadre. From examination of the informations made available to the said committee, inter alia, it was found by the said committee that the employees who came along with the works in January 1974 of the Public Health Engineering Unit by the aforesaid G.O. No. ESTT.-9228/2E-195/73, dated 29.12.1973 were for all purposes were transferees on deputation. 26. It however, appears only those employees who were so transferred to C.M.D.A. but having lien in the Government were to be treated as transferees on deputation. The said Committee, however, also opined by interpreting Regulation 11 of the Recruitment Rules that in interpreting the meaning of deputation as per Regulation 5(12) of the C.M.D.A.'s Service Regulations deputation will mean simply release of employees from the duty of the post held for the purpose of special temporary duty under the authority and the later part of the definition is not relevant. 27. 27. The said Committee ultimately opined, inter alia, after hearing representations from the direct recruits as also such transferees that they should be absorbed from the date of joining in C.M.D.A. and seniority to be counted from the said date. Such recommendation of the said service committee in fact was accepted by the C.M.D.A. in its 63rd Board meeting held in September 1979. It was decided in the 63rd Board meeting in the matter of seniority on absorption of such transferees like the respondents no. 4 to 9 having less than 3 years service in the parent organisation, will be completed from such date of absorption. 28. It will thus appear from the abovementioned facts as early as in the year 1979 the C.M.D.A. took a policy decision as aforesaid of the employees like the respondents no. 4 to 9 who were employed in the Public Health Engineering, Govt. of West Bengal worked charged establishment and were transferred to C.M.D.A. with effect from 1.1.1974 along with worked charged establishment. 29. Attention of the Court has been drawn by the ld. Counsels appearing for the C.M.D.A. as also the respondents no. 4 to 9 to the fact that the aforesaid decision of the 63rd Board meeting of the C.M.D.A. was challenged by some of the direct recruits of the C.M.D.A. by two applications Under Article 226 of the Constitution being C.R. No. 10536 (W)/1979 (Ujjal Kr. Ghosh & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., and C.R. No. ...................... (Kishori Mohan Ghosh & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) wherein although, the trial Court struck down the decision contained in the said Board meeting to give weightage to transferee deputationists who rendered more than three years service with the State Government before their transfer to C.M.D.A. upheld the decision of such 63rd Board meeting to absorb such worked charged employees having less than 3 years service with the State Government on transfer with their establishment from the date of joining of C.M.D.A. On appeal preferred against the said decision being FMAT No. 209 of 1982, the appeal court even set aside the decision of the trial Court striking down such weightage formula. It has been rightly argued by the ld. Counsel appearing for the C.M.D.A. as also the respondents no. It has been rightly argued by the ld. Counsel appearing for the C.M.D.A. as also the respondents no. 4 to 9 that after such adjudication of the aforesaid writ application, there is no scope for the present writ petitioners who are also direct recruits to challenge the impugned action of the respondents taken pursuant to the decision of the 84th Board meeting of the C.M.D.A. which is •nothing but implementation of the aforesaid decision of the C.M.D.A. taken in the 63rd Board meeting. 30. I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Basu the Id. Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners that the aforesaid decision would not apply in the instant case since the appeal court in the aforesaid case merely upheld the weightage formula contained in the said 63rd Board meeting and had no occasion to adjudicate the decision to absorb such worked charged employees of the State Government having less than 3 years service like the present private respondents and were transferred to C.M.D.A. from the date of their joining to C.M.D.A., namely, 1.1.1974. 31. Admittedly in the said writ proceeding the said decision of the 63rd Board meeting was under challenge and the trial Court had to consider not only the decision of granting of weightage to such transferee deputationist but also to absorb the transferee deputationist from the date of their joining to the C.M.D.A. specially the worked-charged employees of the State Government having less than 3 years service and transferred to C.M.D.A. with their establishments like the present private respondents. I have gone through the judgment of the trial Court in the said cases. It appears from the said judgment after considering all aspects of the matter the trial Court while striking down such decision to give such weightage as contained in items (III), (IV) and (V) of the decision of the 63rd Board meeting, clearly held thus :- "It, however, appears to me that those people who have come to C.M.D.A. on deputation along with their works and have no place to go back if there be any, then in respect of those persons there can be relaxation only to the extent that their absorption should relate back to the date on which they joined on deputation in C.M.D.A. that is to say, when they were transferred to C.M.D.A. along with their works. Such relaxation would be permissible by giving an extended meeting to the expression "employee" because as the works have come along and they have no posts to go back, in reality they do not have two masters. Such a relaxation, after examination of the position, that is to say, whether works in question have been transferred; whether they have any parent posts to go back to, can be relaxed in those cases and such relaxation is permissible under 11(1) of Regulations 11 and 12............." 32. Such adjudication, therefore, clearly upheld the decision contained in the 63rd Board meeting to absorb such transferee deputationist who having less than 3 years service were transferred to C.M.D.A. with the establishment who had no lien in their post and therefore, no place to go back. The present private respondents squarely fall into such category. Against the aforesaid judgment and order, the C.M.D.A. preferred the aforesaid two appeals. It does not appear the direct recruits either preferred any appeal or cross objection to such finding of the trial Court upholding the decision to absorb such transferee deputationist but had no lien with the State Government and no place to go back, from the date of their joining to C.M.D.A. The appeal court, however, set aside even the judgment of the trial Court striking down the decision taken in the 63rd Board meeting for giving weightage to some other category transferee deputationist. In such earlier writ proceedings therefore, entire decision of the 63rd Board meeting was upheld by the Court. 33. It is, therefore, not open to the writ petitioners to challenge the validity and legality of the impugned order in the matter of decision of absorption of the respondents no. 4 to 9 and other similar employees from date of entry in service the same being merely a consequential decision of the earlier 63rd Board meeting of the C.M.D.A. 34. That apart it also does not appear to this court that the decision of the C.M.D.A to treat such employees including the respondents no. 4 to 9 as absorbed from the date of their joining service and to reckon such date of their absorption for counting their seniority as arbitrary or illegal. That apart it also does not appear to this court that the decision of the C.M.D.A to treat such employees including the respondents no. 4 to 9 as absorbed from the date of their joining service and to reckon such date of their absorption for counting their seniority as arbitrary or illegal. As pointed out hereinbefore paragraph (8) of the Government Order itself provides, inter alia, that the period of service rendered by such employees employed in the worked charged establishment having less than 3 years service will be taken into account for such benefits as confirmation and absorption in the regular post and subject to such terms and conditions the C.M.D.A., in terms of the regulations and after considering all aspects of the matter and the report of the said service committee decided to absorb them from the date of their transfer to C.M.D.A., that is, from 1.1.1974. Such decision of the C.M.D.A. is quite in consonance with the universally accepted principles of counting seniority from the date of joining the service and not from the date of confirmation, which has been upheld time and again by the Apex Court. 35. It is true as pointed out hereinbefore by Mr. Basu the ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioners that what is the meaning of worked charged employees has been explained in the Govt. Order itself and some of the private respondents did appear in the selection held pursuant to advertisement inviting applications for appointment of Assistant Engineers to which the writ petitioners also applied and position of some of the respondents were below than those of the writ petitioners and they are subsequently. appointed after appearing in the Selection Committee on condition that they should resign from State Government Services. 36. But what are the conditions on• which the employees like the respondents no. 4 to 9 were transferred are clear from the aforesaid Government Order which also provided that such transfer would be subject to service conditions to be framed by the CMDA, and CMDA has' now decided what will be their service conditions. 37. True that some of the aforesaid private respondents did apply pursuant to such advertisement and were placed in the selection list below the writ petitioners, but admittedly they were not appointed pursuant thereto. 37. True that some of the aforesaid private respondents did apply pursuant to such advertisement and were placed in the selection list below the writ petitioners, but admittedly they were not appointed pursuant thereto. They admittedly were appointed subsequently being selected for absorption by the 2nd Selection Committee not constituted pursuant to the said advertisement but in terms of the Regulation 11 of the Service Regulation for deciding the question of absorption of such transferee employees who were treated as transferee deputationist. It has rightly been contended by the respondents that the stipulation in their letter of appointment that they would have to resign from Govt. service was a mistake as it was made clear in the said Govt. Order that such worked charged employees having less than 3 years service transferred to CMDA will have no lien in the Government and therefore the question of submitting resignation could not arise. 38. Be that as it may as pointed out hereinbefore such decision of the CMDA already having held to be valid in the earlier writ proceedings, there is no scope in the present writ proceedings to re-open the said order. 39. This now takes as to the 2nd question, namely, whether because of such decision of the C.M.D.A. the writ petitioners' position in the gradation list now can be altered and the respondents no. 4 to 9 can be shown as seniors to the writ petitioners. 40. There cannot be any doubt that will be the obvious consequence of the aforesaid decision of the C.M.D.A. and the same may also cause hardship to the writ petitioners. 41. But at the same time it is well settled because of the pronouncement of the Apex Court that the employer has the right to change the service condition of an employee unilaterally and even retrospectively; but if the same is done retrospectively no vested right of an employee can be taken away retrospectively. 42. Mr. Basu has relied on an unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court presided over by the Hon'ble Justice Satyabrata Sinha in F.M.A. No. 115/92 and 116/92, where the question of inter se seniority of the direct recruits and worked charged Assistant Engineers in a Government department came for consideration. 42. Mr. Basu has relied on an unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court presided over by the Hon'ble Justice Satyabrata Sinha in F.M.A. No. 115/92 and 116/92, where the question of inter se seniority of the direct recruits and worked charged Assistant Engineers in a Government department came for consideration. As the writ petitioners in the said case who are such worked charged employees were shown as juniors to direct recruits the same were challenged in the aforesaid writ petition on ground that their seniority should be counted from the date of their appointment. 43. The question which arose before the said Court according to Their Lordships as to whether the writ petitioners not having been appointed in terms of the Recruitment Rules, the seniority should be counted from the date of their initial appointment. The answer of the appeal court was in the negative. 44. The aforesaid decision, however, is not applicable in the instant case as the same was decided under the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid case. 45. In the instant case the respondents no. 4 to 9 were admittedly transferred to C.M.D.A. along with their work, although they were employed in the Government department as worked charged employee on the terms and conditions as stated hereinabove and policy decisions have been taken to absorb them from the date of their appointment and to count their seniority from the said date which has been upheld in the earlier writ proceedings. 46. Lastly in the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Bola and Ors. vs. Saradana and Ors., reported in AIR 1997 SC 3127 , it has been held that a particular position in the seniority list within a cadre cannot be said to be vested right and losing the place in the seniority list within the cadre does not amount to reduction in the rank even though the promotion gets delayed. 47. Under such circumstances even though the impugned decision of the C.M.D.A. may change the service condition of the writ petitioners and fixing seniority of the respondents no. 47. Under such circumstances even though the impugned decision of the C.M.D.A. may change the service condition of the writ petitioners and fixing seniority of the respondents no. 4 to 9 over the petitioners retrospectively may cause hardship, the employer having the right to change service condition unilaterally and even retrospectively unless it affects the vested right of the employee, but the seniority of the petitioners not being a vested right as now held by the Supreme Court, the challenge of the petitioners against the impugned decision of the C.M.D.A. cannot be sustained. 48. Mr. Basu has argued strenuously contending that the decision of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case is not applicable. After carefully going through the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Bola and Ors. vs. Saradana and Ors. (supra), I have no doubt in my mind that the decision rendered by the Supreme Court therein that the position in the seniority list is not a vested right of an employee, is a clear and unambiguous pronouncement of law of the Supreme Court which is binding upon all under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 49. For the reasons aforesaid the writ application fails and the same IS hereby dismissed. All interim order stands vacated. 50. There will be no order as to costs. 51. Mr. Basu learned Advocate appearing for the respondent prays for stay of operation of the order. Such prayer is considered and refused. Xerox certified copy, if applied for, shall be given to the parties expeditiously. Writ application dismissed.