JUDGMENT : (N. Unni Krishnan Nair. J) : Heard Mr. G. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Dr. G. J. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 13. 2. The present writ petition has been instituted by the petitioners, assailing the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2018, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench in Original Application No. 040/00382/2016. 3. The respondent nos. 1 to 13, who were selected for appointment against the posts of Traffic Apprentices, vide the select dated 03.08.2005, were thereafter, deputed for training at the Zonal Railway Training School, Alipurduar for 24 months in the year 2008. On completion of their respective training course, the respondent nos. 1 to 13 had joined against their working posts on 26.04.2010. The respondent nos. 1 to 13, being aggrieved by the seniority positions assigned to them in the seniority list dated 12.03.2013 and 22.07.2015 in the cadre of SM/ASM/YM/TI-3 in the Pay Band of Rs. (9300-34800)+4200 Grade Pay below that of the respondent nos. 14 to 20, had instituted the above noted Original Application before the learned CAT, Guwahati Bench. 4. The respondent nos. 1 to 13, in the said Original Application had contended that they had joined as Traffic Apprentices in the year 2008 itself; and thereafter, were sent for training. The posts against which the petitioners were so selected and appointed, had arisen in the year 2001, inasmuch as, the process of recruitment involved was so initiated vide the Employment notice No. 01/2001 dated 09.06.2001. During the period the petitioners were under training, the Government had implemented the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission (VI CPC) and the Pay Scale of Rs. 5500-9300, authorized to the posts of Traffic Apprentices, against which the respondents no. 1 to 13 were so appointed was revised to Rs. (9300-34800)+4200 Grade Pay. 5. The 6th CPC had recommended the merger of the Pay Scale of Rs. 5000-8000 and 5500-9000 into one grade of Rs. (9300-34800) with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200. It was contended by the respondent nos. 1 to 13 before the learned CAT, Guwahati Bench that the respondent nos. 14 to 20, who were placed in the lower Pay Scale of 5000-8000, on account of merger of the said Pay Scale with that of Rs. 5500-9000, came to be placed in the revised Pay Band of (9300-34800)+4200 Grade Pay. It was contended by the respondent nos. 1 to 13 before the learned CAT, Guwahati Bench that the respondent nos. 14 to 20, who were placed in the lower Pay Scale of 5000-8000, on account of merger of the said Pay Scale with that of Rs. 5500-9000, came to be placed in the revised Pay Band of (9300-34800)+4200 Grade Pay. On such merger of the Pay Scale of the 6th CPC and the placement in the common Pay Band of Rs. (9300-34800)+4200 Grade Pay, an issue had arisen with regard to fixation of seniority of such incumbents who were placed earlier in different Pay Scales, which were subsequently merged. The respondent nos. 1 to 13, on completion of their respective training courses had joined their respective posts w.e.f., 26.04.2010. 6. The respondent authorities, in view of the directions issued in the matter by the Railway vide the Circular no. RBE No. 107/2012 dated 26.09.2012, proceeded to place the respondent nos. 1 to 13, herein, enbloc below the respondent nos. 14 to 20. The respondent nos. 1 to 13 before the learned CAT, Guwahati Bench had contended that the respondent nos. 14 to 20 having been earlier placed in Pay Scales lower than that authorized to the respondent nos. 1 to 13, could not have been assigned seniority position above the respondent nos. 1 to 13. 7. The said matter was contested by the Railway respondents before the learned CAT, Guwahati Bench and it was contended on behalf of the Railway respondents that the seniority of the respondent nos. 1 to 13, in terms of the provisions of Para 302 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM), can be reckoned only from the date they had joined their respective posts after completion of their training courses. It was further contended that on account of the merger of different Pay Scales taking place, the seniority of the members of the service working in the various Scales of Pay, were so fixed in terms of the provisions of the Circular of the Railway Board, dated 26.09.2012. 8. In terms of Clause 2(iii) of the said Circular dated 26.09.2012, the respondent nos. 1 to 13 having joined against their working posts, on completion of their respective training courses, only w.e.f., 26.04.2010, they were assigned seniority below the persons who figured in the Scale of Pay of Rs. (9300-34800)+4200 Grade Pay as on 04.09.2008. 9. 8. In terms of Clause 2(iii) of the said Circular dated 26.09.2012, the respondent nos. 1 to 13 having joined against their working posts, on completion of their respective training courses, only w.e.f., 26.04.2010, they were assigned seniority below the persons who figured in the Scale of Pay of Rs. (9300-34800)+4200 Grade Pay as on 04.09.2008. 9. The learned CAT, Guwahati Bench, upon considering the rival submissions of the parties and also by relying upon a decision rendered in the matter by the Hyderabad Bench of the learned Tribunal, proceeded vide order dated 22.11.2018 to dispose of the said Original Application by interfering with the provisions of Clause 2(iii) of the Circular dated 26.09.2012. Consequently, the Railway authorities were directed to restore the original seniority of the respondent nos. 1 to 13 with all consequential benefits. Being aggrieved, the Railway respondents have, as petitioners, instituted the present proceeding. 10. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 11. The learned counsel for the parties have reiterated the contentions raised by them before the learned CAT, Guwahati Bench and have contended that the seniority of the respondents, herein, is required to be fixed by reckoning the provisions of Para-302 of the IREM. The provisions of Para-302 of the IREM, being relevant, the same is extracted herein below:- “302. Seniority in initial recruitment grades: Unless specifically stated otherwise, the seniority among the incumbents of a post in a grade is governed by the date of appointment to the grade. The grant of pay higher than the initial pay should not, as a rule, confer on railway servant seniority above those who are already appointed against regular posts. In categories of posts partially filled by direct recruitment and partially by promotion, the criterion for determination of seniority should be the date of regular promotion after due process in the case of promote and the date of joining the working post after due process in the case of direct recruit, subject to maintenance of inter-se-seniority of promote and direct recruits among themselves. When the dates of entry into a grade of promoted railway servants and direct recruits are the same they should be put in alternate positions, the promotee being senior to the direct recruits, maintain inter-se-seniority of each group.” 12. When the dates of entry into a grade of promoted railway servants and direct recruits are the same they should be put in alternate positions, the promotee being senior to the direct recruits, maintain inter-se-seniority of each group.” 12. A perusal of the provisions of Para-302 of the IREM, would go to reveal that in categories of posts partially filled up by direct recruitment and partially by promotion, the criterion of determination of seniority should be the date of regular promotion after due process in the case of promotee and the date of joining the working post after due process in the case of direct recruit, subject to maintenance of inter-se-seniority of promotee and direct recruits amongst themselves. 13. The note appended to Para-302 of the IREM, on perusal would go to reveal that in case the training period of a direct recruit is curtailed in the exigencies of service, the date of joining against the working posts in case of such direct recruits, shall be the date he would have normally come to a working post after the completion of the prescribed period of training. In other words, a direct recruit like the respondent nos. 1 to 13 in terms of the provisions of Para-302 of the IREM, would be entitled to reckon their seniority against the posts they were so appointed only w.e.f., the date they had joined the said posts after completion of the training programme so prescribed in their case. 14. In the case on hand, the respondent nos. 1 to 13 admittedly, had joined their respective posts on completion of their training course only on 26.04.2010. The respondent nos. 14 to 20 on account of the merger of the Pay Scale of Rs. 5000-8000 and 5500-9000 came to be placed in the revised Scale of Pay of Rs. (9300-34800)+4200 Grade Pay, by 04.09.2008. Accordingly, in terms of the provisions of the Circular dated 26.09.2012, more specifically, Para-2 (iii) thereof, the respondent nos. 1 to 13 having joined their respective posts after 05.09.2008; applying the provisions of Para-302 of the IREM, they would only be entitled to be assigned seniority positions enbloc below the respondent nos. 14 to 20, who already existed in the revised Scale of Pay of Rs. (9300-34800)+4200 Grade Pay as on 04.09.2008. 15. 1 to 13 having joined their respective posts after 05.09.2008; applying the provisions of Para-302 of the IREM, they would only be entitled to be assigned seniority positions enbloc below the respondent nos. 14 to 20, who already existed in the revised Scale of Pay of Rs. (9300-34800)+4200 Grade Pay as on 04.09.2008. 15. The learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kuttiyappan V. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1996) 10 SCC 340 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision had interpreted the provisions of Para-302 of the IREM. The conclusions drawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to the provisions of Para-302 of the IREM, being relevant is extracted herein below:- “A reading of these Rules would clearly indicate that the process of selection bears no relevance. What is material in determination of the inter-se-seniority between regularly promoted in-service candidates and those selected by direct recruitment during the process of selection is that in the case of the former the seniority starts from date on which they joined the working post after completion of the process while in the case of direct recruits their inter-se-seniority would start from the date of their entry into the grade. Therefore, as regards the direct recruits, the date of first entry and joining the post is the criteria, in the case of the promotes it would be the date on which they start working in the post after completion of the process. It is not in dispute that training is one of the conditions for completion of the process. Unless the training is completed, they cannot work on regular basis in the promotional post.” 16. A perusal of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, more particularly, the conclusions drawn by it in Paragraph-4, would go to reveal that a direct recruit can be said to have started working in the post only after successful completion of the training prescribed. 17. In view of the above conclusions drawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to Para-302 of the IREM, we are of the considered view that the seniority of the respondent nos. 1 to 13, herein, would be reckonable in the grade coming into being upon merger of the earlier posts carrying different Scales of Pay, only w.e.f., 24.06.2010. 18. The respondent nos. 1 to 13, herein, would be reckonable in the grade coming into being upon merger of the earlier posts carrying different Scales of Pay, only w.e.f., 24.06.2010. 18. The respondent nos. 14 to 20 being placed in the revised Scale of Pay of Rs. (9300-34800)+4200 Grade Pay, immediately, w.e.f., the date of implementation of the 6th CPC recommendations as adopted by the Railways vide RBE. No. 103/2008 dated 04.09.2008, the respondent nos. 14 to 20 would rank senior to the respondent nos. 1 to 13, herein. 19. The learned CAT, Guwahati Bench having not appreciated the provisions of Para-302 of the IREM, while examining the issue of seniority between the respondents, herein, erred in reaching the conclusions as reached vide the Judgment and Order, dated 22.11.2018; and accordingly, we are of the considered view that the decision of the learned CAT, Guwahati Bench being erroneous, would require an interference. 20. At this stage, it is to be noted that the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 13, in addition to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kuttiyappan (supra), had also placed reliance in the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association Vs. State of Maharashtra [ (1990) 2 SCC 715 ] and State of West Bengal Vs. Aghore Nath Dey [ (1993) 3 SCC 371 ]. 21. We have perused the said Judgments, however, in view of the conclusions reached by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kuttiyappan (supra), the other decisions as relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 13 would not advance the case of the said respondents and accordingly, the same are not discussed further. 22. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 13 had also placed reliance on the provisions of Para-307 of the IREM. For ready reference, the provisions of Para- 307 of the IREM, is extracted herein below:- “307. When confirmation follows a specified probationary period if any, without break, the date of appointment to the grade is reckoned from the date of commencement of such probationary period” 23. A perusal of the Para-307 of the IREM, would go to reveal that the same is in relation to an employee appointed on probation followed by his confirmation. When confirmation follows a specified probationary period if any, without break, the date of appointment to the grade is reckoned from the date of commencement of such probationary period” 23. A perusal of the Para-307 of the IREM, would go to reveal that the same is in relation to an employee appointed on probation followed by his confirmation. In the said context, the said provision mandates that the date of appointment to the grade is to be reckoned from the date of commencement of such probationary period. The said provisions would not be applicable herein, inasmuch as, the respondent nos. 1 to 13 in terms of the provisions of Para-302 of the IREM, can be deemed to have joined in the working posts only after completion of their training course i.e., w.e.f., 26.04.2010. In that view of the matter, the provisions of Para-307 of the IREM, would not advance the case of the respondent nos. 1 to 13. 24. In view of the conclusions reached by us herein above, the impugned Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2018, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench in Original Application No. 040/00382/2016, stands set aside and accordingly, writ petition stands allowed.