ORDER This appeal is directed against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") dated 10th May, 1990 allowing Original Application No. 375/88. One V. Arumugam had filed the application before the Tribunal claiming seniority over the two appellants in this appeal inter alia on the ground that he was appointed as a Junior Planner earlier on 4-2-1981 whereas the two appellants herein were appointed as Junior Planner on 9-11-1981 and 17-01-1982. The Tribunal taking into account the date of continuous service in the rank of Junior Planner allowed the application and held Arumugam to the senior to the present two appellants. It is against this order the present appeal has been preferred. 2. The two appellants were earlier in the trade of Welder whereas Arumugam was in the trade of Springsmith. The post of Welder and Springsmith carry the same scale of pay. It is also undisputed that the two appellants were appointed as Welders on 04-03-1976 whereas Arumugam was appointed as Springsmith w.e.f. 18-07-1980. The question for consideration therefore is when the people from different trade are brought into and appointments are made in a grade or post, as in the present case Junior Planner, what would be the principle for determination of their inter se seniority? 3. Mr. Venkataramani, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, contends that the inter se seniority in such cases will have to be governed by the criteria indicated in Railway Establishment Manual para 321. The said para 321 is quoted herein below in extenso: "When a post (selection as well as non-selection) is filled by considering staff of different seniority units, the total length of continuous service in the same or equivalent grade held by the employees shall be the determining factor for assigning inter seniority irrespective of the date of confirmation of an employee with lesser length of continuous service on compared of another confirmed employee with longer length of continuous service. This is subject to the proviso that only non-fortutious service should be taken into account for this purpose." 4. Mr. Mukherjee, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent who was the applicant before the Tribunal, on the other hand, contended that the Railway Establishment Manual para 302 would govern the case. Para 302 unequivocally indicates that unless otherwise indicated, the continuous length of service in the grade should be the determining factor. Mr. Mukherjee, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent who was the applicant before the Tribunal, on the other hand, contended that the Railway Establishment Manual para 302 would govern the case. Para 302 unequivocally indicates that unless otherwise indicated, the continuous length of service in the grade should be the determining factor. Thus, the crux of the matter is whether the provisions contained in para 321 can be held to be otherwise indicated". On the admitted position that the post of Junior Planner is being filled up by considering staff of different seniority units, in our considered opinion, the inter se seniority, in the cadre of Junior Planner has to be determined in accordance with para 321. Necessarily, therefore, the total length of service in the equivalent grade held by the employees would be the determining factor. Since the two appellants were holding the post of Welders since 04-03-1976 and the contesting respondent was holding the post of Springsmith w.e.f. 18.07.1980 and the posts of Welder and Springsmith are in the same grade, the two appellants must be held to be senior to the contesting respondent. The Tribunal therefore, committed error in declaring Arumugam senior to the two appellants. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and allow this appeal. Appeal allowed. **************** Parallel Citations of other Journals : B. Ram Mohan & Anr. v. Union of India, 2001(5) Supreme 719 : 2001 (5) JT 575 : 2001 (90) FLR 913 : 2001 (3) LLN 809 00022