JUDGMENT : KALYAN RAI SURANA, J. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. R. Goswami and Mr. B.K. Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Bora, learned standing counsel for the Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC), i.e. respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. S. Kataki, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. 2. This is a seniority dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking the correct determination of his seniority, vis-à-vis, respondent No. 3; for setting aside the gradation list No. GPR/7/2005/94/2174 dated 16.05.2015; with a further direction to the GMC authorities to publish a fresh gradation/seniority list showing the correct position of the petitioner and respondent No. 3; for a direction for granting all financial and other benefits from the date the petitioner was superseded by his juniors. 3. The case projected by the petitioner is that he was initially appointed in the GMC in the year 1978. Thereafter, by order dated 05.04.1979, the service of the petitioner was regularized and he was posted in the Animal Tax Branch w.e.f. 21.02.1979 in the scale for Rs. 190-250 per month. By order dated 04.08.1979, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Animal Tax Collector in the scale of Rs. 240-380 per month w.e.f. 01.06.1979. It is claimed that although the scale of pay was revised to Rs. 275-475 per month in the year 1979, the petitioner was not given the benefit of the pay revision. It is further projected that by the said order dated 04.08.1979, 59 employees of GMC, whose pay scale was Rs. 190-250 were appointed to the post of LDA, Toll Collector, Supervisor, M.P., Animal Tax Collector, Handyman and welder thereby seeking to project that all this posts were in the same rank. Thereafter, by order dated 26.03.1985, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Tax Collector in the pay scale of Rs. 500-875 per month, but once again the petitioner was not given the benefit of the revised pay scale. It is projected that the said scale of pay did not correspond with any other post and, as such, such promotion was only a paper formality, without any financial benefit being given to the petitioner. 500-875 per month, but once again the petitioner was not given the benefit of the revised pay scale. It is projected that the said scale of pay did not correspond with any other post and, as such, such promotion was only a paper formality, without any financial benefit being given to the petitioner. It is projected that the petitioner was deprived of his promotion to the next higher rank of UDA/Assistant Tax Superintendent. In this regard, it is submitted that with other who are similarly situated to the petitioner were promoted as UDA in the year 1992. It is projected that although the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Tax Superintendent w.e.f. 28.08.1997, but his promotion was due w.e.f. 17.02.1992, which is the date when others similarly situated person was promoted to the rank of UDA. The petitioner has also projected that the respondent No. 3, whose service was regularized after regularization of service of the petitioner, was promoted to a rank higher than the petitioner by order dated 24.05.2007. Accordingly, it is projected that the orders dated 24.05.2007 and 09.07.2007 and 20.10.2008 was discriminatory against the petitioner. It is projected that the petitioner was thereafter promoted as Deputy Assessment Officer by order dated 05.07.2008, and he was posted in the Central Zone Office of GMC. 4. Feeling deprived, the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 04.02.2008 to the Commissioner, GMC and thereafter served Advocate's notice dated 28.08.2009. It is projected that on receipt of his advocate's notice, the Joint Commissioner, GMC by a note dated 16.11.2009, opined that the seniority of the petitioner be re-determined, and that the petitioner be promoted to the rank of Assistant Tax Superintendent notionally from 17.02.1992, and to notionally promote to further higher ranks without any financial benefits or any arrear salary so that his seniority is not lost. Accordingly, by order dated 24.02.2011, the Commissioner, GMC had promoted the petitioner to the post of Assistant Tax Superintendent with retrospective effect from 17.02.1992 when his immediate junior was promoted to the rank of UDA. He was also promoted to the post of Deputy Assessment Officer with retrospective effect from 09.07.2007, the date when his junior was promoted and thereafter he petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Assessment Officer w.e.f. 05.07.2008, when his immediate junior was promoted. He was also promoted to the post of Deputy Assessment Officer with retrospective effect from 09.07.2007, the date when his junior was promoted and thereafter he petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Assessment Officer w.e.f. 05.07.2008, when his immediate junior was promoted. It was ordered that the pay on promotion would be fixed notionally but no arrear of salary would be paid. The petitioner had submitted his representation against the denial of financial and consequential benefits while granting promotion. Thereafter, by a notification dated 31.05.2014, the GMC had published a draft seniority list of “Senior Grade Officer” of GMC. As per the said draft seniority list, while the petitioner was placed at ninth position, the respondent No. 3 was placed above him in the fourth position, as such, the petitioner submitted his objection dated 27.07.2014 against the draft seniority list. Moreover, the petitioner had also served an advocate's notice dated 21.12.2014, on the GMC for determining his seniority. Thereafter, by a notice dated 09.01.2015, the petitioner was asked to appear before the Joint Commissioner, GMC on 13.01.2015 for a personal hearing on his objection. It is projected that only the attendance of petitioner was taken, but no hearing took place on his objection. Thereafter, by a RTI information dated 29.01.2015, the petitioner was informed that his claim for release of back wages cannot be considered in terms of order dated 24.02.2011 passed by the Commissioner, GMC. The GMC authorities, by order dated 12.05.2015, had projected that all objections in respect of the draft gradation list was disposed of and accordingly, a final gradation list/seniority list was published on 16.05.2015. The petitioner has projected that the said order dated 12.05.2015 was not communicated to him. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the petitioner was deprived of his promotion from the initial stages of the regularization of his service, by order dated 24.02.2011, the petitioner was given retrospective promotion by creating supernumerary post in the following manner, viz., (i) Asst. Tax Officer from 17.02.1992 to 08.02.2007, (ii) Dy. Assessment Officer from 09.07.2007 to 04.07.2008, and (iii) Sr. Assessment Officer from 05.07.2008 till a regular vacancy is available. It is submitted that although the said promotions were made notionally, but without any financial benefits. Tax Officer from 17.02.1992 to 08.02.2007, (ii) Dy. Assessment Officer from 09.07.2007 to 04.07.2008, and (iii) Sr. Assessment Officer from 05.07.2008 till a regular vacancy is available. It is submitted that although the said promotions were made notionally, but without any financial benefits. It is further submitted that although the petitioner had submitted his representation against the draft gradation list that was notified on 31.05.2014, but the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not provide a copy of the order dated 12.05.2015, by which his objection was rejected. Hence, it is submitted that the GMC authorities had withheld material information from the petitioner about owing the reasons on which his objection was rejected. It is further submitted that as the petitioner once given three promotions, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his due seniority position because he has now been placed as junior to the respondent No. 3, whose service was admittedly regularized after the petitioner and, as such, it is submitted that the consequential seniority of the petitioner should be restored. It is submitted that the respondent No. 3 was promoted as Inspector of Monitoring Cell having a scale of pay higher than UDA w.e.f. 24.12.1985. However, there is no post of Inspector of Monitoring Cell in the schedule of posts of GMC and, as such, it is submitted that the post held by the respondent No. 3 was an ex-cadre post. It is submitted that w.e.f. 24.05.2007, the respondent No. 3 was directly promoted as Senior Licence Officer by skipping the position of “Deputy Rank Officer”, which was in violation of the service norms. 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that no service rules has been framed by the GMC, but in this case, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had taken a stand that the seniority position is maintained branch wise. In this context, it is submitted that assuming in one branch there may be a scope of three promotions but in another branch there may be scope of only two promotions. Therefore, after the initial date of entry in service, in the absence of any equation and/or rationalization of posts, one employee in the GMC cannot keep a track of promotion of any other employee working in another branch of GMC. Therefore, after the initial date of entry in service, in the absence of any equation and/or rationalization of posts, one employee in the GMC cannot keep a track of promotion of any other employee working in another branch of GMC. Accordingly, it is submitted that in the absence of any codified service rules, the only relevant factor and/or the best policy for determining seniority should be the date of entry in service book. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of (i) Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chandar Shekhar, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 611 (para 23), and (ii) A.P. Cooperative Oil Seeds Growers Federation Ltd. v. D. Achyuta Rao, (2007) 13 SCC 320 (para 57 and 58). 7. Per-contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 has submitted that in the absence of any service rules, the date of entry in a particular post/cadre would be a safe criterion to fix inter-se seniority. It is submitted that in paragraph 16 of the writ petition, it has been admitted by the petitioner that the respondent No. 3 was appointed as Inspector of Monitoring Cell w.e.f. 24.12.1995, having pay higher than UDA. In the said context, it is submitted that while the respondent No. 3 was promoted to the post of UDA on 24.12.1985, the petitioner was promoted to the post of UDA w.e.f. 17.02.1992 and, as such, by the time the petitioner was borne in the cadre of UDA, the respondent No. 3 was already holding the post of UDA and accordingly, placed senior to the petitioner. 8. It is further submitted that by virtue of order dated 24.02.2011, by which the petitioner was notionally granted three promotions, viz., (i) he was notionally promoted to the post of Assistant Tax Superintendent w.e.f. 17.02.1992, when his immediate junior Abdul Mazid Saikia was promoted to the rank of UDA; (ii) he was also notionally promoted to the post of Deputy Assessment Officer w.e.f. 09.07.2007, when his junior Sri. Mujibur Rahman was promoted as Deputy Assessment Officer; and (iii) he was again notionally promoted to the post of Senior Assessment Officer w.e.f. 05.07.2008, the date when his junior Sri. Duryodhan Nath was promoted to the post of Senior Assessment Officer. Mujibur Rahman was promoted as Deputy Assessment Officer; and (iii) he was again notionally promoted to the post of Senior Assessment Officer w.e.f. 05.07.2008, the date when his junior Sri. Duryodhan Nath was promoted to the post of Senior Assessment Officer. It is further submitted that in the said order dated 24.02.2011, the Commissioner, GMC has provided that the seniority of the petitioner will accordingly be fixed in the respective cadre. Hence, it is submitted that as per the said order dated 24.02.2011, the petitioner was borne in the cadre of UDA w.e.f. 17.02.1992, but by the said time, the respondent No. 3 was posted as an Inspector and that he was drawing a scale higher than the UDA. It is submitted that as the petitioner had accepted the order dated 24.02.2011, without any demur, his seniority could only be fixed in the respective cadre of (i) Assistant Tax Superintendent, (ii) Deputy Assessment Officer, and (iii) Senior Assessment Officer from the dates given in the said order dated 24.02.2011. Accordingly, it is submitted that the seniority position of the respondent No. 3 cannot be disturbed. By referring to the order No. GPR/33/2004/91/404 dated 24.05.2007, it is submitted that the respondent No. 3, working as Inspector in the Enforcement Branch was promoted to the post of Senior Licence Officer and he was posted in the West Zone Office of GMC. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner was bestowed the “Senior Grade” w.e.f. 24.05.2007, whereas the petitioner got promoted to the post of “Senior Assessment Officer”, which was a “Senior Grade” post w.e.f. 05.07.2008. In the said connection, it is submitted that as the petitioner had accepted his position without challenging the said order dated 24.05.2007, the seniority position of the respondent No. 3, that was always placed as senior to the petitioner, ought not to be disturbed. 9. Referring to the writing contained in the note-sheet dated 16.11.2009, on which the petitioner had placed reliance, it is submitted that the said note was the basis of granting three promotions to the petitioner by order dated 24.02.2011. It is submitted that in the said note-sheet dated 16.11.2009, it was mentioned as follows - “… as a practice, equivalence of posts has been determined on the basis of pay-scale attached to the post in question. It is submitted that in the said note-sheet dated 16.11.2009, it was mentioned as follows - “… as a practice, equivalence of posts has been determined on the basis of pay-scale attached to the post in question. Higher post and promotional avenues to such higher posts from the feeder posts have been identified likewise on the basis of pay scale …” 10. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 had referred to the order No. M.A.222/83/262 dated 19.07.1989, passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Municipal Administration Department. It is submitted that it has been mentioned therein that on 24.12.1985, the respondent No. 3 and four others were promoted to the created post of Inspector in Monitoring and Co-ordination Cell, GMC on branch-wise basis and that they had joined on the same date. It is submitted that in the said order, the appellate authority had recorded that the Commissioner, GMC by letter No. GPR/187/85/37 dated 04.03.1986 had admitted that the promotion to employees in GMC are granted mostly on branch-wise basis and it was also admitted that the duties and functions of Inspector in Monitoring and Co-ordination Cell are not similar to the duties and functions preformed by L.D.A. in general, and accordingly, the promotion of the petitioner and others were held to be justified considering that the promotions in GMC is affected branch wise. It is further submitted that the said order dated 19.07.1989 passed by the Municipal Administration Department was assailed by the GMC before this Court by filing a writ petition, which was registered and numbered as Civil Rule 945/1990, and aggrieved by the order dated 28.06.1991, passed by this Court in the said writ petition, the GMC had approached the Supreme Court of India by filing petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 12024/1991, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India by order 05.08.1991 by permitting the GMC to move the Government, if so advised. Accordingly, it is submitted that the fact that promotions were given branch wise is a prevailing practice and that the scale of pay drawn by an employee determines the seniority position is also of the prevailing practice. It is again reiterated that as the petitioner had accepted his seniority position in terms of order 24.02.2011, the promotion already availed and enjoyed by the respondent No. 3 ought not to be interfered with. It is again reiterated that as the petitioner had accepted his seniority position in terms of order 24.02.2011, the promotion already availed and enjoyed by the respondent No. 3 ought not to be interfered with. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has relied on the case of D.K. Mitra v. Union of India, 1985 Supp SCC 243 (para 23). 11. The learned Standing Counsel for the GMC has adopted the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and it is submitted that the office note dated 16.11.2009 was not written by the Joint Commissioner of GMC, but the said note-sheet was written by the then learned standing counsel for the GMC. He has specifically submitted that he was fully acquainted with the signature of the said learned counsel. Moreover, it is submitted that the petitioner had not raised any grievance against the seniority position of the respondent No. 3 and, as such, this is not a fit case for disturbing the inter-se seniority position in terms of the final seniority list of the “Senior Grade” officer vide order dated 16.05.2015. 12. From the note dated 16.11.2009, which was the precursor to the order dated 24.02.2011, by which three promotions was granted to the petitioner, it appears that, the GMC had been determining equivalence of posts on the basis of pay-scale attached to the particular post, and that the feeder posts for filling up the promotional posts was being identified on the basis of pay scale. The Court is conscious that writings made in the note-sheets are mere opinion of the person authoring it, but in this case, the said note had become the source of promotion to the petitioner and moreover, the petitioner has relied heavily on the said note. This reflects that the GMC had been considering seniority position on the basis of pay-scale attached to a particular post and moreover, the promotional avenues were generally branch-wise. 13. It is seen from the order No. M.A.222/83/262 dated 19.07.1989, passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Municipal Administration Department that amongst others, the respondent No. 3 had been promoted to the created post of Inspector in Monitoring and Co-ordination Cell, GMC on 24.12.1985 on branch-wise basis. Thus, the respondent No. 3 got the rank of Inspector on 24.12.1985, having pay higher than UDA. of Assam, Municipal Administration Department that amongst others, the respondent No. 3 had been promoted to the created post of Inspector in Monitoring and Co-ordination Cell, GMC on 24.12.1985 on branch-wise basis. Thus, the respondent No. 3 got the rank of Inspector on 24.12.1985, having pay higher than UDA. It is further seen that by virtue of order dated 24.02.2011, the petitioner got notionally promoted to the post of Assistant Tax Superintendent (i.e. rank of UDA) w.e.f. 17.02.1992, thereafter he was notionally promoted to the post of Deputy Assessment Officer w.e.f. 09.07.2007, and the petitioner was again notionally promoted to the post of Senior Assessment Officer w.e.f. 05.07.2008. There is also no doubt that for all intents and purpose, the petitioner had accepted his position in terms of the order dated 24.02.2011, passed by the Commissioner, GMC whereby it was provided that the seniority of the petitioner will be fixed in accordance thereof in the respective cadre. Thus, the seniority position shall be counted on and from such date on which the petitioner was borne in the respective cadre of (i) UDA i.e. Assistant Tax Superintendent w.e.f. 17.02.1992, (ii) Deputy Assessment Officer w.e.f. 09.07.2007, and (iii) Senior Assessment Officer w.e.f. 05.07.2008. 14. Accordingly, it appears that in GMC, promotions were given branch wise. Moreover, the scale of pay drawn by an employee appears to be the criteria to determine the seniority position. 15. The fact situation in the present case in hand is distinguishable from the facts of the case of A.P. Coop. Oil Seeds Growers Federation Ltd. (supra), because in the said case, the Federation had started its operation under two-tier structure, namely, Federation at the State level and co-operative societies in the village level. Subsequently, its operations were under three-tier system, with Federation at the top and two Regional Unions in the second tier and in the third tier were the co-operative societies at the village level. The employees of Federation and Regional Unions were having common seniority list. In course of time, many employees were surplus and, as such, some employees were sought to be retrenched by VRS scheme. Under such facts, paragraphs 57 and 58 thereof are quoted below:— “57. The instant case has another facet. The employees of Federation and Regional Unions were having common seniority list. In course of time, many employees were surplus and, as such, some employees were sought to be retrenched by VRS scheme. Under such facts, paragraphs 57 and 58 thereof are quoted below:— “57. The instant case has another facet. While the employees were transferred to the Unions much earlier and were granted promotions in due course in the Unions, the question of their seniority inter-se and the principles to be applied in determining seniority were evolved for the first time when the closure of the Unions was being considered necessitating retrenchment of surplus employees. It was at this stage that the cadre strength was first determined and thereafter norms were sought to be evolved in the light of which seniority was to be determined and junior employees in excess of the determined cadre strength to be given the benefit of VRS. It was really a process of working backwards. Rules and norms were sought to be evolved later governing promotions which were granted much earlier without reference to such rules or norms, but which were to determine the inter-se seniority of the employees for the purpose of retrenchment. 58. We are, therefore, satisfied that the High Court was right in holding that the promotions earlier granted in the Unions and the norms later laid down by the Federation could not be applied to determine the inter-se seniority of the employees of the Federation. The only rule which, in the facts of the case, could be safely applied to determine seniority was to reckon seniority by reference to length of service in the Federation. As a necessary corollary, the date of initial appointment in the Federation was decisive in determining seniority. Thus applied, seniority must be determined by reference to the date of initial appointment and not by reference to dates of promotion granted in the Unions unguided by rules framed or norms declared which could be said to be fair and reasonable applying the test of Articles 14 and 16.” 16. The three Judge bench of the Supreme Court, in the case of D.K. Mitra (supra), had held in paragraph 23 as follows:— “23. The three Judge bench of the Supreme Court, in the case of D.K. Mitra (supra), had held in paragraph 23 as follows:— “23. The respondents point out that the impugned Seniority List was prepared in 1979 when the Rules of 1978 were in force, and therefore the principle of seniority-cum-merit, was made the basis of the Seniority List. It is immaterial, in our opinion, that the Seniority List was prepared in 1979. The inter se seniority between the members of a service will ordinarily depend on the date of entry into the grade. That is an event governed by the rules of recruitment, whether it be direct recruitment or promotion on the basis of selection on merit or on the basis of seniority in the lower grade or some other factor. Where seniority is fixed in a grade according to the length of service in that grade, that implies a reference back to the date of entry. It is wholly immaterial when the Seniority List is prepared.” 17. Thus, considering that in the present case in hand, there is no service rule in the GMC, and the stand taken by the respondents No. 1 and 2 that the seniority position is maintained branch wise. Therefore, when all the employees of GMC had accepted the said policy, the said position cannot be disturbed by issuing a direction that the date of seniority must be determined by reference to the date of initial appointment and not by reference to the dates of promotion. It is also pertinent to mention herein that all the employees of GMC, who may be adversely affected by such a direction and a possible alteration in their respective seniority position are not parties in this writ petition, either in person or in the representative capacity. 18. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner was borne in the respective cadre of (i) Assistant Tax Superintendent w.e.f. 17.02.1992, (ii) Deputy Assessment Officer w.e.f. 09.07.2007, and (iii) Senior Assessment Officer w.e.f. 05.07.2008, whereas, the respondent No. 3 got the rank of Inspector on 24.12.1985, having pay higher than UDA, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. 19. 19. However, the Court is of the considered opinion that a pertinent issue has been raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that assuming if in a particular branch of GMC there is a scope of three promotions but in another branch of GMC, there may be scope of two promotions, the employees in GMC may not be able to track the seniority position of other co-employees after branch-wise promotions were made without determining equivalent position of a particular post in a particular with that of other post in another branch. Thus, in view of the prevailing situation, the Court is of the considered opinion that it is desirable the Commissioner, Guwahati Municipal Corporation should undertake an exercise of determining equivalent posts and/or rationalization of posts in all branches of GMC and thereafter to give common pay-scale, grade-pay, etc. to all equivalent posts so that all the employees get equal opportunity in the matter of considering their respective cases for promotion. 20. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands dismissed. 21. No cost.