JUDGMENT : AMIT RAWAL, J. Present Original Petition is filed against the order of Tribunal dated 04.04.2024 in O.A No.259 of 2023, whereby the claim of the respondent/applicant to consider the period she rendered as Helper with effect from 20.06.2013 till attainment of disability, de-categorization and absorption in the department of House Keeping, for the purpose of appointment on promotion as Junior Clerk in the Medical Department through limited departmental competitive examination, has been allowed noticing that the 6 th respondent was junior to the applicant. 2. Facts in brief for adjudication of the lis are enumerated herein below; Respondent No.1/applicant, Smt.Jalajamole G.R was appointed as Helper in the Electrical Department of Southern Railway whereas the respondent No.6 in the O.A, Sri.G.Vijayakumar, had joined as House Keeping Assistant in the Medical Department of Southern Railway on 11.10.2014. On 17.10.2017, respondent No.1/applicant met with an accident. Noticing that the applicant could not discharge the duties of a Helper in the Electrical Department, was relocated as House Keeping Assistant in the Medical Department with effect from 25.01.2021. Both the persons, the applicant and the respondent No.6 in the O.A, had appeared in the LDC examination and qualified for the purpose of appointment on promotion to the post of Junior Clerk. However, appointment was given to the respondent No.6 as he was senior to respondent No.1/applicant, because, on relocation, the respondent No.1/applicant had joined the Medical Department as House Keeping Assistant only with effect from 25.01.2021. 3. The aforementioned action gave a cause of action to respondent No.1/applicant to knock the doors of the Tribunal vide O.A aforementioned. Before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the applicant relied upon Paragraph 1309 of Indian Railways Establishment Manual (IREM), Annexure A3, which envisages that a disabled/medically decategorised Railway servant absorbed in an alternative post, will, for all purposes, have his/her past service treated as continuous with that in the alternative post. Similarly, reliance was also placed to paragraph 1310 of the aforementioned Manual which envisages the fixation of seniority of the disabled/ medically decategorised staff absorbed in the alternative post. 4. Similarly, reliance was also placed to paragraph 1310 of the aforementioned Manual which envisages the fixation of seniority of the disabled/ medically decategorised staff absorbed in the alternative post. 4. Petitioners herein relied upon Paragraph 4.2 of the notification dated 07.04.2022 to contend that service rendered in the old Cadre/Unit in respect of employees who have come to Headquarters seniority unit on request transfer will be counted for qualifying service for the purpose of the above selection subject to the condition that the category in which he/she was working in the old unit is eligible for the selection/post in the new unit. In other words, an attempt was made to negate the plea of seniority as well as continuity of the service. 5. Learned Tribunal on appreciation of the aforementioned notification and IREM, allowed the O.A in the following manner:- “22. The respondents have taken pain to justify the preference given to 6 th respondent, an apparent junior to the applicant, stating that the service rendered by her in an ineligible category, other than House Keeping Assistant cadre, could not be reckoned. We are unable to find justifications for such a course adopted by the respondents. Annexures R-1, R-2 and R-3 do not support that stand of the respondents. Annexure R-1 deals with determining inter-se seniority between direct recruits and promotees. That has no bearing in the facts of the case. Similarly, there is nothing in Annexure R-2 which strengthens the contentions of the respondents that the total length of service of a medically decategorized employee cannot be reckoned for the purpose. Annexure R-3 also has little relevance to the issue in dispute. 23. Provisions in IREM 302 do not have an overriding effect on provisions in IREM 1309 and 1310. In our considered view, the mandate under IREM 1309 & 1310 cannot be diluted. Despite medical de-categorisation, seniority of the applicant should remain intact. 24. We find that the contentions of the applicant are formidable. The respondents are trying to make an artificial seniority distinction like headquarter seniority and division seniority. Seniority of the applicant should not have been ignored in a light hearted manner. Seniority is seniority, wherever it is. We cannot perceive any such distinction between headquarter seniority and division seniority. 24. We find that the contentions of the applicant are formidable. The respondents are trying to make an artificial seniority distinction like headquarter seniority and division seniority. Seniority of the applicant should not have been ignored in a light hearted manner. Seniority is seniority, wherever it is. We cannot perceive any such distinction between headquarter seniority and division seniority. From the references made about seniority in various materials and documents noticed above, it is only total length of service effective from the date of commencement of service. The attempts of the respondents to import a different interpretation that seniority in the cadre of House Keeping Assistant is what matters, cannot be upheld. Such an argument has no legs to stand upon. Other parameters remaining the same, the seniority of the applicant strengthened by paragraphs 1309 and 1310 of IREM cannot be ignored. 25. As a necessary corollary, preparation of Annexure A-6 panel and Annexure A-10 order of appointment ignoring the legitimate claims of the applicant are liable to be interfered with. The 6 th respondent is junior to the applicant. The applicant has also secured bench mark score in the selection process. Therefore, preparing the promotion panel ignoring her seniority cannot stand judicial scrutiny. Annexures A-6 and A-10 are quashed to the extent of selecting and appointing the 6 th respondent who is junior to the applicant. 26. Resultantly, the respondents are directed to re-draw the panel within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Original Application is allowed as above. We make no order as to costs.” 6. Sri.Prenjith Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India/petitioner herein contented that on de-categorization the respondent No.1/applicant was absorbed in the Medical Department as House Keeping Assistant with effect from 25.01.2021, whereas respondent No.6 in the O.A, Sri.G.Vijayakumar, was concededly appointed as House Keeping Assistant with effect from 11.10.2014 and was senior and on having qualified the LDC examination, was liable to be given appointment on promotion to the post of Junior Clerk. Paragraph 4 of the Annexure A4 Notification, would prevail over the IREM, therefore the findings of the Tribunal are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. Paragraph 4 of the Annexure A4 Notification, would prevail over the IREM, therefore the findings of the Tribunal are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. On the other hand, Ms.Shameena, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1/applicant countered the aforementioned argument and contended that the Notification cannot override the statutory I.R.E.Manual, particularly paragraph 1309 and 1310, which have kept the seniority as well as the continuity of the service of the relocated staff on de- categorization intact and precisely, this is what the Tribunal had noticed. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and apprised the paper book. 9. No doubt, the Tribunal has extracted the paragraphs relevant for consideration. For the sake of brevity, we also deem it appropriate to extract paragraphs 1309 and 1310 of the IREM. The same reads as under: “1309. Benefit of past service to be allowed: A disabled/medically decategorised Railway servant absorbed in alternative post, will for all purposes, have his past service treated as continuous with that in the alternative post. 1310. Fixation of seniority of disabled/medically decategorised staff absorbed in alternative employment: The disabled/medically decategorised staff absorbed in alternative posts should be allowed seniority in the grade of absorption with reference to the length of service rendered on non-fortuitous basis in the equivalent or corresponding grade before being declared medically unfit. This is subject to the proviso that if a disabled/medically decategorised employee happens to be absorbed in the cadre from which he was originally promoted, he will not be placed above his erstwhile seniors in the grade of absorption.” 10. We also deem it appropriate to extract paragraph 4.2 of the notification dated 07.04.2022, relied upon by the petitioner/respondent before the Tribunal. The same reads as under: “4.2 Service rendered in the old Cadre/Unit in respect of employees who have come to Headquarters seniority unit on request transfer will count for qualifying service for the purpose of the above selection subject to the condition that the category in which he was working in the old unit is eligible for the selection/post in the new unit also as per Railway Boards letter No. E(NG)-2006/CFP/9 dt. 27.7.06.” 11. 27.7.06.” 11. On comparative reading of the aforementioned paragraphs of the Manual and the Notification, we are of the view that the finding of the Tribunal,as noticed above, is in tandem with the IREM which have a statutory force over the notification. Even otherwise, paragraph 4.2 do not take away the statutory right of the employees, who had during their service rendered incapacitated, owing to the disability while in service and posted on basis of decategorization and their seniority and the continuous service has been kept in tact. We do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings under challenge. No ground for interference is made out. O.P (CAT) stands dismissed.