Judgment 1. The petitioner Ajit Singh Ahluwalia, applied for the post of A.I.O.W. After interview, he was declared successful for that post and was appointed on that post, but was asked to perform the work of Estimator in the Office in 1973. He worked on that post till 1983. 2. When he was transferred by order dated 18.07.1983, the condition was imposed that he will have to accept the position in the seniority list of I.O.W. scale of Rs. 425-700 (R) below that of the existing confirmed, officiating and temporary I.O.Ws. at Jaipur Division. Accepting that condition he was transferred and joined his duties at Jaipur as I.O.W. He was put at the bottom in the seniority list on transfer at Jaipur. Thus, he lost the seniority period from 1973 to 1983. In seniority list, the seniority was determined taking into account the condition imposed on his transfer. 3. Now he challenge that the period of service from 1973 to 1983 be counted for the purpose of seniority over the persons, who joined later. 4. The Tribunal while taking into account the fact that when he was transferred in 1983 the condition was imposed that he will be put at bottom of the official/employees working on post of I.O.W. in Jaipur Division and when he accepted that condition and joined in Jaipur, now he cannot claim the seniority on the basis that he was appointed in 1973, therefore, the seniority is to be counted and seniority be given taking into account the condition imposed in 1983 on his transfer at his request. 5. This aspect has been considered by the Tribunal in Para 5, which reads as under:-“After hearing the arguments, we perused the records. The applicant has not produced his appointment order of the year 1973. He contended that in pursuance of the call letter dated 012.1971 vide Annexure A-2, he was to be appointed as A.I.O.W., but not as Estimator but on the ground that there was no vacancy on the post of A.I.O.W., the applicant was asked to perform the duties of Estimator. But in the absence of the appointment order, the contention of the applicant cannot be believed. The fact also remains that on his appointment on 30.07.1973, he started working as Estimator only. But in the absence of the appointment order, the contention of the applicant cannot be believed. The fact also remains that on his appointment on 30.07.1973, he started working as Estimator only. In the seniority list dated 06.06.1983 vide Annexure A-7, his name is found in the seniority list of Estimator, clearing stating that his lien was maintained in the department as Estimator from 30.07.1973. From this it follows that he was appointed as estimator, and he was working as Estimator right from the year 1973, and he was transferred to I.O.W. with effect from 1983 on his request, with the bottom seniority. His earlier representations vide Annexure A-3 in the year 1973 and Annexure A-6 and A-8 etc., cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the applicant has not produced any acknowledgment to show that these representations were made to the respondents, since the respondents have denied receipt of such representations. At any rate, vide order dated 18.07.1983 (annexure A-9), he was transferred on the post of I.O.W. (Gr. III) with the condition that “he will have to accept the position in the seniority list of IOW scale Rs. 425-700 at Jaipur Division and will seek his chances for further promotion in the avenue of IOW category only.” Though the respondents have denied this Annexure A-9 dated 18.07.1983 as fabricated, since the reference letter shows a letter dated 21.06.1985, but taking this Annexure A-9 as per its contents, it is clear that the applicant was transferred from the post of Head Estimator to the post of I.O.W. (Gr. III) by assigning him bottom seniority. The applicant has joined the post of I.O.W. by accepting the said condition. If the conditions contemplated vide Annexure A-9 was not acceptable, the applicant should not have joined on the post of I.O.W. Therefore, the applicant is estopped from contending contrary to the conditions imposed by Annexure A-9. III) by assigning him bottom seniority. The applicant has joined the post of I.O.W. by accepting the said condition. If the conditions contemplated vide Annexure A-9 was not acceptable, the applicant should not have joined on the post of I.O.W. Therefore, the applicant is estopped from contending contrary to the conditions imposed by Annexure A-9. In the impugned order vide Annexure A-1, it is further stated that in his representation dated 22.01.1982 he had given an undertaking that he was ready to accept bottom seniority if he was transferred from the post of Estimator to the post of I.O.W. Accordingly, the applicant was transferred to the post of I.O.W. In these circumstances, it is clear that the application cannot now go back and contend that his services as Estimator from 1973 to 1983 should be treated as if he worked as I.O.W., cannot be accepted. Moreover, the seniority list filed by the applicant vide Annexure A-11 dated 25.08.1988, clearly shows that the applicant was appointed in the year 1973 as Estimator, and on his request, he was transferred to the post of I.O.W. with effect from 19.07.1983. This seniority list of the year 1988 also, the applicant has not challenged. At any rate, his further representation dated 06.03.1990 has been rejected by the department vide order dated 07.05.1990 (Annexure A-13), stating that the applicant was not entitled for counting his services on the post of Estimator in his present cadre of I.O.W. If the applicant was really aggrieved by that order dated 18.07.1983 (Annexure A-9), he should have challenged the same within the prescribed period of one year. He has also not challenged the order dated 07.05.1990 (Annexure A-13). Therefore, his cause is barred by time. It is stated in the impugned order that his earlier representations have been rejected in the year 1990 and 1991 by duly communicating to him. Consequently, his further representation dated 011.1994 also was rejected.” 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he was not in a bargaining position with the employer, therefore, he accepted the condition to accept the bottom seniority at Jaipur. 7. There is no question of bargaining. It is a rule when the employee is transferred from one place to another place, on his request, in the seniority he cannot be put above the persons, who were already working on similar post in that department at that place. 8. 7. There is no question of bargaining. It is a rule when the employee is transferred from one place to another place, on his request, in the seniority he cannot be put above the persons, who were already working on similar post in that department at that place. 8. In view of above, we see no substance in this writ petition. The writ petition stands dismissed.