As per case facts, the Petitioner and Respondent No.4 had a seniority dispute regarding their promotion to Junior Accounts Officer. The Petitioner was initially senior in the general cadre, but ... Respondent No.4 was promoted earlier to Junior Accounts Officer due to possessing a mandatory Accounts Training qualification. The Petitioner, who lacked this qualification at the time, was later promoted. A recent order reversed the Petitioner's seniority, placing Respondent No.4 above him, which the Petitioner challenged. Respondent No.4 has since retired. The question arose whether a settled seniority position could be disturbed after a significant lapse of time, especially after the retirement of a contesting party, considering qualification requirements. Finally, the Court declined to interfere with the impugned order, stating that reopening seniority disputes after a substantial delay and a party's retirement is unjust and contrary to settled service jurisprudence. However, it directed authorities to consider the Petitioner for future service benefits without prejudice from this dispute.