Judgment :- S.K. Krishnan, J. As against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.955 of 2001, dated 1.1.2002, the first and second respondents as well as the third and fourth respondents in the above said Original Application, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have filed these Writ Petitions in W.Ps.No.7939 and 5192 of 2002 respectively. 2. Since both the Writ Petitions assailed the same order and issue involved in these petitions are one and the same, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience, we call the parties as arrayed in W.P.No.7939 of 2002. 3. The facts leading to the filing of these Writ Petitions are as follows: a. The first respondent was appointed as Fitter Mechanical Transport (A) (Skilled) (in short FMT(A)(SK)) on 16.8.1989 and has been working in the Second Petitioner Depot. b. The second respondent was appointed as Mechanical Transport Mechanic (A) (Skilled) (in short MTM (A)(SK))on 10.10.1986. c. The third and fourth respondents were appointed on 16.8.1989 and their seniority has been fixed in Mechanical Transport Mechanic (in short MTM Trade) from the date of their appointment. d. The second respondent was absorbed as FMT (A) (SK) with effect from 23.10.1989 on his passing of prescribed Trade Test and his seniority has been fixed from the date of his absorption in FMT(A) Trade. Subsequently, he has passed the Trade Test prescribed for FMT(A) HS-II. Thereafter, he gave several representations to fix his seniority on the basis of his initial appointment in MTM(A) on 10.10.1986 as there is no difference between FMT(A) and MTM(A) Trade. e. While so, the Ministry of Defence merged the MTM Trade with FMT Trade. Following such merger, the second respondent was placed at first position and the first, third and fourth respondents were placed at fourth, second and third positions in the revised seniority list. f. Thereafter, on the instructions of the first petitioner, the Review Departmental Promotion Committee, reviewed the matter and promoted the second respondent as FMT(A) HS-I with effect from 1.8.2000 and also the second, third and first respondents as FMT(A) HS-II with effect from 17.4.2001 and 29.6.2001. f. Thereafter, on the instructions of the first petitioner, the Review Departmental Promotion Committee, reviewed the matter and promoted the second respondent as FMT(A) HS-I with effect from 1.8.2000 and also the second, third and first respondents as FMT(A) HS-II with effect from 17.4.2001 and 29.6.2001. g. Aggrieved by the above recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, the first respondent approached the Tribunal by filing an application in O.A.No.955 of 2001 and the same was allowed by the Tribunal. h. As against the order of the Tribunal, the petitioners in the above said two Writ Petitions are before us. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that in view of the Policy decision taken by the Government of India by letter dated 28.7.2000, seniority of the respondents was refixed according to their date of joining in their respective units and therefore, the order of the Tribunal is not sustainable under law and the same has to be set aside. 6. Supporting the stand taken by the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 would submit that following the policy decision of the Government of India and also the relevant rules, the seniority of the respondents 2 to 4 was rightly fixed by the authorities concerned and therefore, the same cannot be interfered with. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 that since the common seniority list was prepared after thorough consideration by the department, the same cannot be challenged before this Court. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would contend that the Tribunal, after considering the materials available on record, has come to the conclusion that the seniority of the first respondent has to be refixed as it was fixed prior to 28.7.2000 and therefore, nothing calls for interference with the order of the Tribunal. 9. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the first respondent being a senior most person, who was appointed on 16.8.1989 directly as FMT(A)(SK), and also passed the required departmental test, he should have been promoted even prior to the second respondent. 10. 9. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the first respondent being a senior most person, who was appointed on 16.8.1989 directly as FMT(A)(SK), and also passed the required departmental test, he should have been promoted even prior to the second respondent. 10. It is further emphasised that in the absence of amended recruitment rules of FMT & MTM, the fixation of seniority and subsequent promotion to the respondents 2 to 4 given by the department could not be considered as the same are not in accordance with law. In this regard, instruction has already been given under Clause (iv) of the letter, dated 28.7.2000. Therefore, the fixation of seniority and subsequent promotion of the respondents 2 to 4 have to be set aside. 11. It is pointed out that the Tribunal, while considering the case of the first respondent, it has categorically stated as follows: "that the absorption of 3, 4 and 5th respondents in FMT(A)(SK) trade was not in order, then their appearance in the trade test for promotion to the post of Highly Skilled Gr.II was also not in order and therefore, it is doubtful that their passing the test at that time will make them eligible for promotion to the post of HS-II in the FMT trade." 12. Emphasising the above stated reasons, the learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that no interference with the order of the Tribunal is warranted. 13. It is an admitted fact that while the first respondent was appointed as FMT (A)(SK) on 16.8.1999, the third and fourth respondents were appointed as MTM (A) (SK) on 16.8.1999, but the second respondent was appointed as MTM (A)(SK) on 10.10.1986. 14. After passing the required trade test, the respondents 2 to 4 were absorbed as FMT (A) (SK) with effect from 23.10.1989, 20.3.1998 and 24.3.1999 respectively. 15. In the above circumstances, the seniority of the respondents 1 to 4 should have been fixed as follows: 1. First respondents Munivelu - 16.8.1989 2. Second respondent Mathialagan - 23.10.1989 3. Third respondent Vijayakumaran- 20.3.1998 4. Fourth respondent Elavarasan - 24.3.1999 16. After the absorption, the second respondent gave a representation requesting the authorities to fix his seniority on the basis of the date of joining in the MTM Trade as there is no difference between the two trades in all aspects. Second respondent Mathialagan - 23.10.1989 3. Third respondent Vijayakumaran- 20.3.1998 4. Fourth respondent Elavarasan - 24.3.1999 16. After the absorption, the second respondent gave a representation requesting the authorities to fix his seniority on the basis of the date of joining in the MTM Trade as there is no difference between the two trades in all aspects. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer the letter, dated 13.5.1997, addressed by the HQ Maintenance Command, Nagpur to the second petitioner, which reads as follows: "FIXATION OF SENIORITY : CIVILIANS GP 'C' INDUSTRIAL; SHRI M. MATHIALAGAN FMT(A)(SKILLED)PA NO.35886. 1. Reference is made to your letter No.8BRD/3005/2/35886/PC dated 12.4.1997. 2. It is seen from the previous correspondence on the subject that the decision on the issue has already been given by Air Hqrs vide their letter No.AIR HQ/23049/Misc/MC/PC(DPC) dated 03 Aug 95. In this connection please refer this Hqrs letter No. of even reference dated 24 Aug. 95. 3. It may be noted that in case of transfer from one trade to another with an equivalent pay scale, any benefit of past seniority cannot be given as stated by Air HQ vide their letter No.AIR HQ/23064/JCM/PC-4 dated 23 Apr. 86 circulated vide MC/5901/PC dated 26 May 86. 4. The individual is transferred from MTM (Skilled) Rs.950-1500 to FMT (Skilled) Rs.950-1500 that to same grade. Since seniority is to be accrued from the date of absorption in the new trade in respect of individual transferred from the same grade and that no benefit of passed seniority for promotion etc. is given in such cases, therefore, his seniority will accrue from the date he became FMT (A) (Skilled) i.e. w.e.f.23 Oct. 89. " 17. Thereafter, the Government of India decided to merge the MTM Trade with the FMT Trade in Air Force. is given in such cases, therefore, his seniority will accrue from the date he became FMT (A) (Skilled) i.e. w.e.f.23 Oct. 89. " 17. Thereafter, the Government of India decided to merge the MTM Trade with the FMT Trade in Air Force. In this regard, the communication of Air HQ, dated 28.7.2000 reads as follows: "To The Chief of Air Staff REDESIGNATION OF MECHANICAL TRANSPORT MECHANIC AND MERGER IN THE TRADE OF FITTER MECHANICAL TRANSPORT IN AIR FORCE Sir, I am directed to convey the sanction of the President for re-designation of existing Mechanical Transport Mechanic (MTM) as Fitter Mechanical Transport (FMT) and subsequent merger in the trade of Fitter Mechanical Transport in Air Force with immediate effect as per details given below:- (i) The hitherto existing MTM will be re-designated as FMT and will stand merged in the trade of FMT in the same grade of Skilled, Highly Skilled Grade – II or Highly Skilled Grade-I as the case may be. (ii) A common seniority list will be maintained based on the unit seniority of the tradesman of both the trades of FMT and redesigned FMT in the respective units. (iii) The benefits of inter grade ratio and promotional grades as applicable to FMT from time to time will be commonly applicable to both the categories of tradesman. (iv) There will be no requirement in the trade of MTM in future. The Recruitment Rules of FMT & MTM will be amended in due course. 2. This issues with the concurrence of Ministry of Defence (Finance) vide their UO No.797/Org/S/AF dated 17 Jul. 2000. " 18. In the above communication, it is made clear regarding seniority that a common seniority list will be maintained based on the unit seniority of the tradesman of both the trades of FMT and re-designated FMT in the respective units. 19. As already stated above, the respondents 1 to 4 are the tradesmen of FMT (A) (SK) when the merger was given effect to. For convenience, we reproduce the list of the respondents in FMT(A)(SK). 1. First respondents Munivelu - 16.8.1989 2. Second respondent Mathialagan - 23.10.1989 3. Third respondent Vijayakumaran- 20.3.1998 4. Fourth respondent Elavarasan - 24.3.1999 20. 19. As already stated above, the respondents 1 to 4 are the tradesmen of FMT (A) (SK) when the merger was given effect to. For convenience, we reproduce the list of the respondents in FMT(A)(SK). 1. First respondents Munivelu - 16.8.1989 2. Second respondent Mathialagan - 23.10.1989 3. Third respondent Vijayakumaran- 20.3.1998 4. Fourth respondent Elavarasan - 24.3.1999 20. According to the communication dated 28.7.2000, the seniority of the above persons should not have been altered for the reason that the seniority of the respondents 1 to 4 is in order and that too as they were already in the merged unit as on 28.7.2000, and therefore, there is no need to refix their seniority. 21. However, on a perusal of the common seniority list, Air Headquarters, New Delhi-11, by letter dated 19.3.2001 has observed as follows: "(a) Under provisions of para (ii) of Govt. letter No.Air HQ/23049/FMT/PC-4/US(L)/MOD/D (Air-III) dated 28.7.2000, it has been stipulated that a common seniority list will be maintained based on the unit seniority of the tradesmen of both the trades of FMT and MTM (redesignated as FMT) in the respective units. It means that a tradesman who has been appointed initially whether as MTM or FMT in a unit will get the seniority in the common seniority list of FMT, from the date of initial joining in the unit. (b) 8 BRD has wrongly placed Shri M. Mathiazhagan, shri V. Vijayakumaran and Shri R. Elavarasan in the common seniority list of FMT from the date of their change of trade from MTM to FMT. They should have been given the seniority from the date of their initial appointment in the trade of MTM to FMT. (c) The change of trade of the aforesaid individuals from MTM to FMT by the unit was not in order since the relevant RRs did not provide for the provision of either promotion or change of trade from MTM to FMT. 3. You are requested to instruct 8 BRD to revise the common seniority list of FMT in accordance to provisions of para (ii) of Govt. letter No.Air HQ/23049/FMT/PC-4/US(L)/MOD/D(Air III)dated 28 Jul 2000 under intimation to Air HQ. " 22. After the issuance of the above said letter dated 19.3.2001, in the seniority list, the first respondent was placed as fourth, whereas the second respondent was placed as first. letter No.Air HQ/23049/FMT/PC-4/US(L)/MOD/D(Air III)dated 28 Jul 2000 under intimation to Air HQ. " 22. After the issuance of the above said letter dated 19.3.2001, in the seniority list, the first respondent was placed as fourth, whereas the second respondent was placed as first. Aggrieved against the fixation of seniority, the first respondent Munivelu gave representations to the department on 11.10.2000 and 16.8.2001. 23. It is pointed out in the representation dated 11.10.2000, that all the three persons, who were absorbed subsequently as FMT (A)(SK), are junior to the first respondent by virtue of date of absorption. 24. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent emphasised that the first respondent made a representation dated 16.8.2001 stating that even though the second respondent was absorbed as FMT (A)(SK) only on 23.10.1989, he was placed as first in the common seniority list and was given promotion as HS-Gr.II on 1.8.2000 and in such circumstances, when such fixation of seniority and promotion of the second respondent are not based on the amended recruitment rules, the same are not sustainable under law and are liable to be set aside. Likewise, the fixation of seniority and promotion in respect of the respondents 3 and 4 are also liable to be set aside for the reasons stated above. 25. As far as the case on hand is concerned, we are of the view that when it is stated that a common seniority list will be maintained based on the unit seniority of the tradesman of both the trades of FMT and MTM (redesignated as FMT) in the respective units, seniority of the tradesman cannot be fixed on the basis of the date of initial joining in the unit as stated in the communication dated 19.3.2001 under para (a), when especially, the persons working in the merging unit are beneficiaries because of such merger, they should not be placed above the persons already working in the merged unit merely on the basis of their date of joining in the merging unit. While giving concession to a particular section in the event of merger, the position and status being enjoyed by a particular section should not be taken away. When the process of merger is a complicated and inevitable one, the procedures for such merger should be framed so that either benefit or loss should equally be shared. While giving concession to a particular section in the event of merger, the position and status being enjoyed by a particular section should not be taken away. When the process of merger is a complicated and inevitable one, the procedures for such merger should be framed so that either benefit or loss should equally be shared. In other words, no particular section or individual should be allowed to be prejudiced. 26. In the light of the above, we see the interpretation given by the Air Headquarters in its communication dated 19.3.2001 under para (a) suffers from infirmity. Such strict and direct formula cannot be applied to the case on hand for the following reasons. a. Admittedly, prior to the merger, the first respondent was the senior most person in FMT (A) (SK). b. Subsequently, the respondents 2 to 4 were absorbed into the FMT (A)(SK) Trade and naturally they should have been placed below the first respondent as stated above. c. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent, when the merger was given effect, no respondent was in MTM Trade and therefore, no question would arise with regard to fixing their seniority as per the communication dated 28.7.2000 as they were in their respective seniority in FMT Trade. d. Normally, in the event of merger, the persons working in the concerned trade or category in the merging unit would be placed below the persons working in the same category or trade in the merged unit so as not to cause any prejudice to the persons working in the merged unit, when especially, merging is beneficial to the persons working in the merging unit. In some cases, when a person is prejudiced in respect of his seniority, the same would be compensated by one way or other. f. No doubt, in the case on hand, prior to the merger, the persons, working in the MTM Trade, have to get through the required trade test to get absorbed in the FMT Trade. In such a case, in the event of merger, when they are allowed to get absorbed in the FMT Trade without getting through the required examination is really a benefit to the persons working in the MTM Trade. In such a case, in the event of merger, when they are allowed to get absorbed in the FMT Trade without getting through the required examination is really a benefit to the persons working in the MTM Trade. In contra, in the event of merger, mere on the basis of initial date of joining, if the persons working in the merging unit are placed above the persons working in the merged unit is really an act of bias and it leads to anomaly. g. Even there is no need to apply the above said formula for the reason that on the date of effect of merger, the respondents were working in FMT (A) (SK) Trade in their respective seniority and in such circumstances, it is not proper to refix their seniority on the basis of date of their joining in their respective units. Assuming for the sake of argument, in the event of such merger, when the persons working in the MTM are prejudiced in fixing their seniority and promotion, especially, in respect of the persons, who were getting absorbed as FMT(A)(SK) after passing the required trade test, such prejudice or anomaly can be justified or accepted by the respondents 2 to 4. 27. It is further emphasised by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent that in spite of several representations given by the first respondent, the same were not considered by the authorities concerned. 28. It is pointed out that even after the completion of 13 years of service, the first respondent is still holding the same post without any promotion. 29. When considering the fixation of seniority as well as absorption and subsequent promotion given the respondents 2 to 4, who were appointed on the date of the appointment of the first respondent, whereas the first respondent was prevented from getting his seniority and promotion by way of not considering his representations in a proper manner, which is evident from the perusal of the rejection order dated 30.8.2001, as rightly contended by the counsel for the first respondent, such act of the department is not only unjustifiable but also a clear violation of principles of natural justice. 30. In the light of the discussions held above, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. 30. In the light of the discussions held above, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. However, we grant two months time to the petitioners in W.P.No.7939 of 2002 to comply with the direction of the Tribunal from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 31. In result, both the Writ Petitions fail and are dismissed. No costs.