We were appointed in a Public Sector Port Organisation in 1996-98, as clerks, on merit basis. At the time of publishing the select list, the seniority of the selected candidates was maintained as common. The selected candidates were posted in different departments.
The candidates who got recruited along with us have got up to three promotions since department-wise was considered, not the common seniority list. A bunch of people like us were left with no promotion and have to wait for years. Can we insist the administration to prevail upon the “Common Seniority” now or any other possible solution?
— B S ANAND
Normally a common seniority list prepared at the time of initial recruitment is valid for all times. But however if there are special rules providing for separate seniority in respect of separate departments, then you cannot complain about being bypassed. You have missed the bus.
2 In 2010-11, I was getting calls from a bank asking me to pay my pending dues. But I refused to pay since I have already cleared all the balance. The musclemen from the banks started visiting my home and issuing threats. When I approached the banking ombudsman, they issued an order favourable to the bank.
I still refused to pay the amount and the bank in 2013 suddenly closed my case. Can I seek compensation from the bank and the Reserve Bank of Indian (under which the banking ombudsman functions) for mental agony I went through during the process?
For your alleged suffering you cannot encash it by any compassionate appointment for your son. If you want to institute a suit for damages for the suffering and mental agony caused to you, you should have done it long ago. At this point of time you are hopeless time barred for any action.
3 An employee is cash department got suspended in 1979 for misappropriation and the CBI investigated the case. The trial court awarded three years jail term and it was upheld by higher courts. My question is whether the suspended employee without reinstatement make repayment in the year 1984 as per the Sanction Order.
No court considered about the Sanction Order and no original documents were available in the court during the trial period itself. Is there any possibility to take any kind of action against this case?
— A Kanagasabapathy.
The court is only concerned about the sanction order and not all other observations made in that order. Anyhow, it is too late for you to question the same as it is already three decades old.