KAUSHIK, MEMBER, J. ( 1 ) SHRI Chandan Kumar Maji has filed this Original application with the following prayers :-"i. To direct the respondents to reckon seniority as I. O. W. Gr. I from the date of ad hoc promotion (4. 6. 93 ). II. To direct the respondents to, recast the impugned seniority list of i. O. W. Gr. I accordingly. III. Any other order (s) as the Tribunal deems fit. " ( 2 ) WE have heard learned Counsel for representing the contesting parties. No one has represented the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 despite due service. We have carefully perused the pleadings and records of this case. ( 3 ) THE factual matrix of this case is at a very narrow compass. The applicant came to be initially appointed to the post of apprentice IOW Grade-Ill after qualifying the selection conducted by the Railway Recruitment Board and was posted in Khurda Road Division on 17. 12. 1979. He was given regular posting on the post of IOW Grade-Ill on 20. 12. 1980. Subsequently,. he was transferred from Khurda Road Division to Kharagpur Division on 11. 9. 1984 in administrative interest. The applicant enjoyed his further promotion to the post of IOW Grade-Ill with effect from 23. 11. 1987 on which he was regularised with effect from 1. 1. 1993. Thereafter, he enjoyed his promotion to the post of iow Grade-l (re-designated as Sectional Engineer) on ad hoc basis w. e. f. 4. 6. 1993 and on regular basis from 6. 6. 1996. He was given the regular promotion on passing the requisite selection. ( 4 ) THE further facts of the case are that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are junior to the applicant in every respect. They belong to Bilashpur Division and they were appointed as IOW Grade-Ill on 1. 6. 1983k and 2. 6. 1983, respectively, at a much later date than that of the applicant. The date of applicant's appointment to the said post being 17. 12. 1979. The post of IOW grade-ll and Grade-l are divisional control post and in Bilashpur Division. The selection to the post of IOW Grade-l was held on at an earlier date than that of the applicant. The private respondents were promoted to the post of IOW w. e. f. 8. 12. 1995. 12. 1979. The post of IOW grade-ll and Grade-l are divisional control post and in Bilashpur Division. The selection to the post of IOW Grade-l was held on at an earlier date than that of the applicant. The private respondents were promoted to the post of IOW w. e. f. 8. 12. 1995. In Kharagpur Division, during the period from 1992 to 1995, no selection was held for the post of IOW Grade-l and due to the fortunes circumstances, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 got their promotion at an early date on the post of IOW Grade-l. The Original Application has been filed on number of legal grounds complaining violation of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 300a of the Constitution of India. ( 5 ) THE respondents have filed a counter reply to the Original application wherein it has been mentioned that the applicant is claiming perfunctory relief without specifying any rule or provisions. Application suffered from non-joinder or necessary parties. The past history of the applicant has been narrated which is almost identical to that of the one narrated in the original Application. It has been averred that at the senior IOW Grade-ll whose lien were fixed in Kharagpur Division and working in Metro Railway and Construction Organisation etc. could not come on promotion to KGP division for their own non-sparing, the Authority Concerned take decision to issue ad-hoc promotion in exigency of the Administration with the approval of cpo/grc for some junior IOW Grade-ll. After setting all the disputes, the regular selection for the post of IOW Grade-l was held on 30. 11. 1995 followed by supplementary written examination on 19. 1. 1996. One cannot claim that the erstwhile junior should remain junior in everywhere and the senior will remain senior even after bifurcation in a separate seniority zone. Ad hoc promotion does not confer any right for claim for the seniority. The applicant has filed a rejoinder refuting the averments made in the statement of defence. ( 6 ) BOTH the learned Counsel for the contesting parties have reiterated the facts and grounds raised in their respective pleadings. The learned Counsel for the applicant has strived hard to persuade us regarding the delay in holding the selection test in the Kharagpur Division. ( 6 ) BOTH the learned Counsel for the contesting parties have reiterated the facts and grounds raised in their respective pleadings. The learned Counsel for the applicant has strived hard to persuade us regarding the delay in holding the selection test in the Kharagpur Division. He has also submitted that had the selection been conducted in time, the applicant would have got his promotion from a much earlier date than the private respondents and for none of the fault of the applicant, he has been made to suffer and has been made junior to his erstwhile juniors. ( 7 ) PER contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents has reiterated the facts and grounds mentioned in the reply and has submitted that the applicant has been granted his due seniority and no illegality has been committed been committed by the respondents. ( 8 ) WE have considered the rival submissions put forth on behalf of the both the parties. Before examining the crux of the matter, we find it expedient to tress the relevant rules, which would govern the seniority when a combined seniority is prepared. Para 320 of the IREM regulates the matter and the contents of the same are extracted as under :-"320. Relative seniority of employees in an intermediate grade belonging to different seniority units appearing for a selection/non-selection post in higher grade. When a post (selection as well as non-selection) is filled by considering staff of different seniority units, the total strength 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 as compared to another unconfirmed employee with longer length of continuous service. This is subject to the proviso that only non-fortuitous service should be taken into account for this purpose. Note :-Non-fortuitous service means the service rendered after the date of regular promotion after due process. " ( 9 ) WE may point out here that the applicant has admittedly working on the post of IOW Grade-l w. e. f. 4. 6. 1993 on ad hoc basis whereas the respondents are working on the said post and grade from 8. 2. 1995. He was given the ad hoc promotion as per the rules in force and as per his turn/seniority position. 6. 1993 on ad hoc basis whereas the respondents are working on the said post and grade from 8. 2. 1995. He was given the ad hoc promotion as per the rules in force and as per his turn/seniority position. The same has to be construed as rendering a non-fortuitous service. Keeping in view the provisions of the aforesaid rules when a combined seniority prepared in respect of all the Divisions by taking into account the various seniorities, the concept of continuous working on the relevant post would dominate the scene and shall be the precise criterion for reckoning the seniority. If that be so, there is hardly any adjudication required on this point and since the applicant has been working on the said post from a much earlier date than the private respondents, he would necessarily be considered to be senior in the light of the aforesaid rule. In this view of the matter, the applicant's seniority position has to be above the private respondents and the Original application deserves to be succeeds on this count alone. ( 10 ) NOW adverting the matter from yet another angle, perhaps the respondents are not aware of the zonal concept of seniority. We may point out that when a person is appointed on the post of IOW, his appointment is on zonal basis inasmuch as the divisions to them are allotted at the time of their initial appointment by the General Manager. The possibility of the changes in seniority in the particular division, cannot be ruled out. One may be transferred from one division to another some times on mutual basis, some times on request and the seniority may get changed. The other reason is once division, one make on promotion from an earlier date and another division, one may not be on promotion on such date. One of the reason may be that there may not be sufficient vacancies. There may be some other reason as well. But when the question of zonal seniority comes, the changes, which come due to the aforesaid reasons, would not be regulating the matter and on zonal level their seniority has to be regulated as per the initial grade for the particular cadre in which they have been appointed. There may be some other reason as well. But when the question of zonal seniority comes, the changes, which come due to the aforesaid reasons, would not be regulating the matter and on zonal level their seniority has to be regulated as per the initial grade for the particular cadre in which they have been appointed. ( 11 ) THE similar issue came up for adjudication before a coordinate bench of this Tribunal at Jodhpur in case of V. K. Saxena v. Union of India, reported in (1990)13 ATC 796, and has been well settled, wherein keeping in view the Railway Board Circulars, the Tribunal was pleased to held as under :-"it is only for purposes of confirmation and promotion, etc. , in the new division that the revised seniority becomes relevant and, therefore, when promotions are made on the basis of inter se seniority in the zone, the original inter se seniority based on merit list in the zone must prevail. There, the public interest is not infringed by the interest of other incumbents in the zone or division. The position in fact was recognised by the respondent Railways through the contents of their letter, dated February 1, 1980 and G. M's circular, dated July 25, 1969. "that was a case when their seniority got changed due to the transfer from one division to another on request basis and when the question of eligibility/seniority on zonal level came it was held in unequivocal terms that circumstances shall not make in difference and their original seniority shall regulate from their basic grade i. e. IOW Grade-ll on zonal basis. Thus, there is force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant and the impugned seniority cannot be sustained in its present form. ( 12 ) THE upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that this Original application is well founded and the same deserves to be allowed. The original Application is hereby allowed. The impugned seniority list dated 10. 6. 1998 at Annexure A/4 is hereby quashed in toto. The respondents are directed to recast the combined seniority list (at zone) for the post of iow Grade-l i. e. Sectional Engineer, strictly, on the basis of the base grade seniority i. e. the seniority in IOW Grade-Ill, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents are directed to recast the combined seniority list (at zone) for the post of iow Grade-l i. e. Sectional Engineer, strictly, on the basis of the base grade seniority i. e. the seniority in IOW Grade-Ill, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The applicant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. No costs.