Continuous officiation in Grade IV counts for seniority across cadre and ex-cadre posts under the earlier directions.

The earlier directions were read as treating promotees as regularly appointed members of Grade IV from the date of their continuous officiation, because the reasoning rested on long and uninterrupted service, absence of reversion, and the unfairness of denying seniority after years of duty and pay. The expression "posts" was understood broadly and was not confined to cadre posts; the text did not distinguish between cadre and ex-cadre appointments. On that basis, the whole period of continuous officiation in Grade IV, whether in cadre or ex-cadre posts, had to be counted for seniority, and any narrower reading would contradict the plain language and create arbitrary results.

---

---

Issues: Whether the expression "posts" in the earlier judgment included ex-cadre posts so that the entire period of continuous officiation in Grade IV, whether against cadre or ex-cadre posts, had to be counted for seniority.

Analysis: The earlier directions treated the promotees as regularly appointed members of Grade IV from the dates on which they continuously officiated in the posts. The reasoning of that decision was based on the long and continuous service rendered by the promotees, the absence of reversion, and the unfairness of denying them the benefit of that service after years of duty, pay, and functioning in the service. The judgment did not draw any distinction between cadre and ex-cadre posts, and the language used was broad enough to cover the entire period of officiation in Grade IV. To read a restriction confining the benefit only to cadre posts would defeat the plain meaning of the earlier directions and produce arbitrary consequences.

Conclusion: The promotees were entitled to count the whole period of continuous service in Grade IV, whether against cadre or ex-cadre posts, for seniority.

---