Order : AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. 1. This petition is filed aggrieved of order dated 01.10.2021 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur (for short ‘the tribunal’). The bone of contention in litigation is fixation of seniority. The petitioner claims seniority above respondent No.5 who despite service has chosen not to appear before this Court. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in 1984 and promoted to Upper Division Clerk and Assistant in 1989 and 2000 respectively. After promotion to the post of Office Superintendent in March 2003, the petitioner became Administrative Officer Grade-II (hereinafter referred to as ‘AO’) in the year 2007. As per All India Seniority List dated 31.03.2011, the petitioner was senior to respondent No.5 being at serial No.27 against serial No.51 of respondent No.5. In the seniority list issued in 2013, the petitioner was kept at serial No.15 and respondent No.5 was at serial No.3, the Original Application filed by petitioner challenging the seniority dated22.04.2013 was dismissed by the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was promoted as Assistant in the year 2000 and the tribunal erred in relying upon the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the tribunal dated 18.05.2009 titled as Bal Krishan and Ors. versus Union of India, passed in TA No.36/JK/2005 (SWP No.639/2002). The dispute therein was with regard to promotions made in the year 2002 of 418 persons from the post of UDC to Assistant whereas petitioner was promoted in year 2000. 4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that the affected persons were not arrayed as party before the Tribunal. 5. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant in the year 2000 and respondent No.5 in the year 2002. The promotion of petitioner to the post of A.O. Grade- II was in 2007 whereas respondent No.5 got promotion in the year2009. The Tribunal while passing the impugned order has not taken into account the facts regarding date of promotion of the petitioner viz-a-viz the respondent No.5 for determining the seniority in 2013. The Tribunal misconstrued that the petitioner was aggrieved of the promotion of the respondent No.5 and erred in relying on the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal. The Tribunal while passing the impugned order has not taken into account the facts regarding date of promotion of the petitioner viz-a-viz the respondent No.5 for determining the seniority in 2013. The Tribunal misconstrued that the petitioner was aggrieved of the promotion of the respondent No.5 and erred in relying on the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal. The petitioner was not against the promotion of the respondent No.5 but was posing challenge to seniority list wherein petitioner was placed below respondent No.5 inspite, of having been promoted prior to respondent No.5 right from the post of Assistant onwards. 6. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the OA afresh in accordance with law. 7. The writ petition is allowed.