IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Seniority – Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rules, his seniority has to be reckoned from date of initial appointment and not according to date of confirmation, unless rules provide otherwise.
(2) An Office Memorandum/Government Order cannot have retrospective effect unless and until there is express provision to make its effect retrospective or that operation thereof is retrospective by necessary implication.
(3) Withdrawal of vested rights is impermissible in law.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MEHTA, J.

Civil Appeal No. 8617 of 2013

1. The instant appeal by special leave takes exception to the judgment dated 10th October, 2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition¹ [Writ Petition No. 583 of 2011] whereby the Division Bench of the High Court accepted the writ petition² [Ibid] preferred by the private respondents herein³ [Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5] and reversed the judgment dated 24th December, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench⁴ [‘CAT’ hereafter] in Original Application⁵ [Original Application No. 318 of 2009] preferred by the private respondents herein. The CAT had rejected the Original Application⁶ [Ibid] challenging the proposed action of revision and fixation of their seniority in the Engine Factory, Avadi, Chennai.⁷ [‘respondent No. 2-Factory’ hereafter]

2. The brief facts in a nutshell, relevant and essential for the disposal of the instant appeal are noted herein-below.

3. The appellant and the private respondents were engaged on semi-skilled posts such as Fitters and Machinists in respondent No. 2-Factory. A common select list of candidates based on merit was issued by the General Manager of respondent No. 2-Factory in the year 1995 wherein the appellant herein was placed at a higher position than the private respondents. An appointment order dated 17th January, 1996 was issued in the favour of the appellant for the post of ‘Fitter General (semi-skilled)’ in respondent No. 2-Factory. He was initially placed on probation for a period of two years which was further extended for a period of six months w.e.f. 17th January, 1998. The appellant satisfactorily completed the probation period on 16th July, 1998. Thereafter, he was promoted to the ‘Skilled’ grade on 6th January, 1999.

4. A draft seniority list dated 28th July, 2006 was issued by respondent No. 2-Factory, whereby the seniority of ‘Fitters’ was fixed as per their respective dates of promotion to the skilled grade and the appellant was placed at a lower position than the private respondents.

5. Aggrieved of the draft seniority list⁸ [Dated 28th July, 2006] the appellant submitted a representation dated 13th November, 2006 to the General Manager of respondent No. 2-Factory seeking necessary amendments in the draft seniority list and to fix his position appropriately and thereafter, to publish a final seniority list. The General Manager rejected the aforesaid representation submitted by the appellant vide communication dated 9th July, 2007, observing that his seniority had been fixed from the date of holding the skilled grade, and thus the position of the appellant in the seniority list was not liable to be altered.

6. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred Original Application No. 821 of 2007 before the CAT challenging the draft seniority list dated 28th July, 2006.

7. Another employee, namely, Mr. P. Kumaresan who was appointed as a Mechanist in respondent No. 2-Factory in January 1996, also filed Original Application No. 831 of 2007, before the CAT, wherein Mr. P. Kumaresan also claimed that he had to be placed at the 6th position instead of the 27th position as set out in the draft seniority list. Original Application⁹ [Original Application No. 831 of 2007] preferred by Mr. P. Kumaresan came to be allowed by the CAT holding that the seniority fixed in the draft list was incorrect. The CAT noted that respondent No. 2-Factory had allowed the promotion to the juniors of Mr. P. Kumaresan on the ground that he was still undergoing the extended period of probation. The CAT held that it is settled law that once the extended period of probation is completed, the employee should be confirmed in service from the date of initial selection and should be assigned the original rank in the seniority list. Thus, once the extended period of probation came to an end and the employee was found suitable, he had to be confirmed in service, promoted with seniority and all consequential benefits to the ne