Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur dated 8th March, 2002. 3. The original application was filed on behalf of three petitioners namely, Bhanwarlal Bharti, Pannalal and Sohan Singh. All the three petitioners were working at the time of filing the original application as Air Condition Fitter Grade-III in the office of Air Conditioning, Loco Shed, Northern Railway, Jodhpur. 4. The grievance of the petitioners-applicants was directed against promotion given to the respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 on the post of ACCF-II namely, Harish Chand Pal, Anil Saxena and Om Prakash who were simultaneously called for the Trade Test for promotion on 30th December, 1999 alongwith petitioners and two other persons. In pursuance of the said Trade Test, the abovesaid three respondents were given promotion vide order dated 29th May, 2000. However, the petitioners-applicants having not found their names in the promotion list, notwithstanding clearing the Trade Test, raised a grievance that notwithstanding they being senior and having passed the Trade Test have not been promoted and the juniors have been promoted, therefore, claimed promotion. 5. This claim was founded on the facts succinctly stated that the three petitioners- applicants Pannalal, Sohan Singh and Bhanwarlal, in that order, who were earlier employed in the Steam Loco Shed have been declared surplus in their parent Department and absorbed in the Electrical Department vide order dated 12th August, 1996 (Annexure A/2 to O.A.) dated 25th February, 1997 (Annexure A/3 to O.A.) and dated 11th March, 1997 (Annexure A/4 to O.A.) respectively. The case of the petitioners-applicants is that they were absorbed vide orders mentioned above whereas the three respondents named above were also declared surplus on their own request and were absorbed in the Electrical Department by order dated 15th September, 1997, after the absorption of the petitioners. The petitioners-applicants were working in the Steam Loco Shed as Skill Fitter Grade-III and on their absorption they remained in the Grade-III and the respondents on their absorption were absorbed as AC Fitter Grade-III with effect from 15th September, 1997. The inter se seniority was to be made on the basis of date of absorption in the absorbing Department and not on the basis of date of initial appointment on the respective posts. 6. The inter se seniority was to be made on the basis of date of absorption in the absorbing Department and not on the basis of date of initial appointment on the respective posts. 6. The respondents plea was that actual deployment of the petitioners-applicants took place on 28th December, 1998, after they have completed their training under the Electrical Department and, therefore, they can be assigned seniority with effect from the date of their completion of training and when they were given posting which according to the respondents is the date of re-deployment under Electrical Department. 7. While the orders passed in respect of Pannalal, Sohan Singh and Bhanwarlal respectively on 12th August, 1996 (Annexure A/2 to O.A.) dated 25th February, 1997 (Annexure A/3 to O.A.) and dated 11th March, 1997 (Annexure A/4 to O.A.) were not in dispute. The date of absorption of the respondents services in Electrical Department as 15th September, 1997 was also not in dispute. It was also not in dispute that their inter se seniority in the Electrical Department was fixed on their coming into service on re-deployment. 8. The only question, therefore, which remains bone of contention is that whether the petitioners-applicants seniority should be considered from their date of re-deployment in the Electrical Department when they were declared surplus and they were sent to the Electrical Department or whether they should be considered for seniority from the date of giving them posting on completion of training. 9. While the factual position was not in doubt, the order dated 28th December, 1998 has not been produced before the Tribunal despite it was called by the Tribunal. The Tribunal ultimately founded its decision on the letter dated 3rd May, 2000, in which the petitioners-applicants had stated that the date of their absorption in Electrical Department is 28th December, 1998. Relying on this admission by the petitioners-applicants, it was taken by the Tribunal that since the petitioners-applicants have admitted their absorption in Electrical Department on 28th December, 1998 only, which was after the absorption of the respondents on 15th September, 1997, and there being no claim of seniority on the basis of which the seniority was finalised. The applicants claim fails and accordingly the original application was dismissed. Hence, this writ petition. 10. The same contentions have been raised before us. 11. The applicants claim fails and accordingly the original application was dismissed. Hence, this writ petition. 10. The same contentions have been raised before us. 11. The learned Counsel for the respondents buttressed the contention with reference to the decision of Honble Supreme Court in V.K. Dubey & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., 1997 (5) SCC 81 , for the purpose of contending that the inter se seniority between the employees of one Department and persons coming from other Department on being declared surplus by absorption has to be determined with reference to the date of re-deployment in the new cadre and not from the date of initial appointment in the parent Department. Since, in the present case, all the petitioners-applicants were absorbed on 28th December, 1998 after the respondents No. 4, 5 and 6, the petitioners-applicants were not superseded on the basis of seniority and the respondents were rightly promoted according to their seniority. 12. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and material placed before us. 13. First thing which is clear in this case is that this was not a case of determining the petitioners seniority vis-à-vis the persons directly recruited in the Electrical Department prior to their absorption on the basis of continuous officiation. The petitioners are not claiming any seniority over the persons employed in Electrical Department prior to their coming to Electrical Department. Their claim is with regard to seniority over the respondents No. 4, 5, and 6 who have come to the Electrical Department by way of same method of being surplus in their parent Department and absorbed in the Electrical Department. In that view of the matter, the real question which arises for the consideration is that whether the seniority could be fixed when the persons came to be re-deployed in the Electrical Department or whether from the date of assignment of the posting or whether from the date of the appointment under Electrical Department? The best evidence in this regard can only be orders by which the petitioners-applicants have been placed or have been sent away from their parent Department and directed to be placed under different Department. The orders under which they have been placed under the Electrical Department have been placed on record as Annexures-A/2, A/3 and A/4. 14. The best evidence in this regard can only be orders by which the petitioners-applicants have been placed or have been sent away from their parent Department and directed to be placed under different Department. The orders under which they have been placed under the Electrical Department have been placed on record as Annexures-A/2, A/3 and A/4. 14. In the case of petitioner-applicant Pannalal, the order dated 12th August, 1996 (Annexure A/2) has been issued and the subject matter was transfer with reference to Steam Surplus/Rehabilitation/Electrical. The reference is related to the previous letter dated 2nd July, 1997 of the Assistant Personnel Officer which emanated from the Diesel Shed, Northern Railway, Jodhpur and it says that the following seven employees are being relieved from the Diesel Shed and sent to the Electrical Department for the utilization. It further says that until 2nd August, 1996, their emoluments have been paid by the Diesel Shed and future emoluments shall be paid by the Electrical Department. Amongst the seven persons shown in the letter which includes the name of Pannalal as Loco Fitter at Sl. No. 4 have been sent away from their parent Department of Electrical Department in pursuance of letter referred to above is not in dispute. 15. In the case of petitioner-applicant Sohan Singh Order Annexure A/3 dated 25th February, 1997 has been issued with reference to the letter of Assistant Personnel Officer, Jodhpur. The subject of the order dated 12th August, 1996 (Annexure-A/2) in the case of petitioner-applicant Pannalal has been stated to be transfer, whereas the subject of letter dated 25th February, 1997 (Annexure-A/3) has been stated to be “Absorption of Steam Surplus in the Electrical Department”. By order dated 25th February, 1997 (Annexure A/3), the services of petitioner-applicant Sohan Singh amongst others were sent for joining under the Divisional Electrical Engineer stating them to be Steam Surplus staff . Thus, the order dated 25th February, 1997 (Annexure A/3) in respect of petitioner-applicant Sohan Singh, at Sl. No. 3 as Fitter-III, was an order of absorption in the Electrical Department emanating from the Diesel Shed by describing the petitioner-applicant as Steam Surplus staff . 16. Lastly, in the case of third petitioner-applicant Bhanwarlal letter dated 11th March, 1997 (Annexure A/4) has been issued. No. 3 as Fitter-III, was an order of absorption in the Electrical Department emanating from the Diesel Shed by describing the petitioner-applicant as Steam Surplus staff . 16. Lastly, in the case of third petitioner-applicant Bhanwarlal letter dated 11th March, 1997 (Annexure A/4) has been issued. The subject of this letter has been stated to be the training of Steam Surplus for the purposes of their absorption in the Electrical Department and by this letter Annexure-A/4 he has been sent to Electrical Department for conversion training for six months. 17. Thus, all the three petitioners-applicants have come to Electrical Department by different methodology. While the methodology adopted by the parent Department for putting the petitioner-applicant No. 2 Pannalal under the Electrical Department, the term transfer has been used. For petitioner-applicant No. 3 Sohan Singh, it has been stated to be a case of absorption and in the case petitioner-applicant No. 1 Bhanwarlal, he has been sent for conversion training under Electrical Department for six months, before his services could be utilized by Electrical Department. However, for treatment of these applicants the Union of India has taken a similar stand as evidenced in Paras 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 of reply to the O.A. submitted before the Tribunal. It has been specifically submitted regarding each of these applicants Pannalal, Sohan Singh and Bhanwarlal that after being declared surplus as Loco Fitter-III, he was accommodated in Electrical Department for utilization and for each of them it has been stated that after undergoing training, he was declared suitable/fit and then was absorbed on the post on 212.1998 after receipt of Head Office communication and was assigned seniority from that date. 18. In view of the clear indication coming from the orders (Annexures- A/2, A/3 and A/4), the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent that all the petitioners-applicants were re-deployed in Electrical Department only on 28th December, 1998 when they were given postings, cannot be accepted. 19. So far as petitioners-applicants No. 2 and 3 are concerned, the orders are clearly of the nature that they got immediately relieved from their parent Department and delinked and became employee of Electrical Department, there is no hiatus in the case of petitioners-applicants No. 2 and 3. 20. 19. So far as petitioners-applicants No. 2 and 3 are concerned, the orders are clearly of the nature that they got immediately relieved from their parent Department and delinked and became employee of Electrical Department, there is no hiatus in the case of petitioners-applicants No. 2 and 3. 20. So far the petitioner-applicant No. 1 Bhanwarlal is concerned, the order Annexure A/4 does not use the same phraseology as employed in Annexures A/2 and A/3 for applicants No. 2 and 3 respectively, the fact remains that the order Annexure A/4 has also been passed on the subject of training for the purpose of absorption of the Steam Surplus Employees in the Electrical Department and he has been purportedly sent for six months conversion training. However, regarding him also, the respondents have clearly pleaded in Para 4.3 of their reply before the Tribunal that: - “4.3 That the applicant No. 1 Shri Bhanwarlal Bharti on being declared surplus as Loco Fitter-III was accommodated in the Electrical Department for the purpose of utilizing of his services and after undergoing training for different wings he was declared fit for the post of ACCF-II on 26.05.1998.” 21. Even if he was sent in the name of conversion training, the fact remains that he was already declared surplus as Loco Fitter-III in the Steam Department and he was accommodated in the Electrical Department where, of course, he was imparted training. However, this training has been imparted to the other surplus declared persons like the applicants No. 2 and 3 also and thereafter they have been declared fit for the post of ACCF-II, the fact remains that so far the delinking from the parent Department and becoming employee of Electrical Department, there is no hiatus in the case of petitioner No. 1 either. 22. That being the position, accepting the principle of fixing inter se seniority between the petitioners-applicants and the respondents is concerned, it cannot be doubted that so far as petitioners are concerned, they were absorbed in the Electrical Department on the respective dates of the orders by which they were placed under the Electrical Department for utilization of their services or for their absorption after delinking from their parent Department. 23. 23. The decision in V.K. Dubey (Supra), was clearly founded on the principle that consequent upon the gradual displacement of diesel engines, instead of retrenching them from service they were sought to be absorbed by giving necessary training in the trains operating on electrical energy. As a consequence, they were shifted to a new cadre. Under these circumstances, they cannot have a lien on the posts on diesel side nor can they be entitled to seniority over the staff regularly working in the electrical locomotives Department Since, in the present case the petitioners-applicants were absorbed in the Electrical Department under different methodology and by different orders and they did not claim seniority over the regularly recruited employees in Electrical Department but their claim is limited against the respondents who have also come to Electrical Department by same way. In view thereof , by whatever methodology, the persons working in different sectors are brought in the Electrical Sector for the purposes of their absorption in Electrical Department, their seniority for the purposes of new cadre will be fixed when they come to Electrical Department, it does not affect the date of the re-deployment in Electrical Department after completion of training given to the newly recruited employees for making them suitable for their job which is also a part of the Electrical Department itself , therefore, sending a person for training who has been placed at the disposal of Electrical Department results in severance of his ties with parent Department and he works as its employee, even if undergoing the training. 24. The ratio of decision in V.K. Dubey case (Supra), is limited to the extent of the cases which were referred for determining the inter se seniority of the persons brought in the new cadre that they cannot claim seniority over the regularly recruited employees working in the Electrical Department. The Honble Supreme Court was not concerned with the controversy when the question of seniority arises when some persons were sent from their parent Department on being declared surplus to Electrical Department and some of them have been sent for training for the purposes of making them suitable for the new cadre. All the same, they at once became the employees of the Electrical Department because they do not remain members of their parent Department. All the same, they at once became the employees of the Electrical Department because they do not remain members of their parent Department. It cannot be said that after delinking from the parent Department and till completion of training they were lying in lurch, not employed anywhere. 9.25. In that view of the matter, there being no dispute that the petitioners-applicants otherwise are eligible to be promoted when the respondents No. 4 to 6 were promoted though junior to them. They are entitled to be promoted with effect from the date their junior i.e., respondents were promoted as ACCF Grade-II. 10.26. The petition is allowed, Judgment under appeal is set aside and the original application filed by the petitioners-applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners-applicants for their promotion to the post of ACCF Grade-II with effect from the date their juniors were given promotion as a result of declaring them successful in Trade Test in which petitioners-applicants have also participated. We are further told that so far as respondent No. 4 Harish Chand Pal and respondent No. 6 Om Prakash are concerned, they have further progressed in their career through open channel promotions as Junior Engineer (Electrical), no competitive claim of theirs survives with the petitioners. 27. There shall be no order as to costs