Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ., Arif S. Doctor, J.
Shri Shripad Dwarkanath Gupte & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2763 of 2023
Decided On : 10-05-2024
PROMOTION - Artisan Staff Promotions - Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, Ministry of Defence Orders, Operative Instructions - The court examined the legality of promotions within the Artisan Staff of the Indian Navy, focusing on the interpretation of the Ministry of Defence's orders and operative instructions regarding seniority and promotion criteria. The court highlighted that the Ministry's orders allowed for a grade-wise promotion system rather than a trade-wise one, which influenced the court's decision to uphold the Tribunal's dismissal of the petitioners' claims for trade-wise promotions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, working as Artisan Staff in various grades within the Indian Navy, challenged the Tribunal's dismissal of their applications seeking trade-wise seniority and promotions, arguing that the promotions were improperly conducted on a grade-wise basis instead of a trade-wise basis, which they claimed led to financial loss and discrimination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal's decision was well-reasoned and supported by the Ministry of Defence's orders, which did not mandate trade-wise promotions. The court concluded that the petitioners had not demonstrated any actual prejudice or financial loss resulting from the promotions granted on a grade-wise basis.
Issues: The primary issues were whether the promotions of Artisan Staff should be conducted on a trade-wise or grade-wise basis, and whether the petitioners had suffered any prejudice or financial loss due to the promotions granted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Ministry of Defence's orders and operative instructions allowed for grade-wise promotions, and the petitioners failed to provide evidence of any specific instances of prejudice or loss. The court emphasized that the established promotion policy had been in place for years and that the petitioners had acquiesced to the promotions granted.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the Tribunal's order and stating that the petitioners had not substantiated their claims of discrimination or financial loss.
JUDGMENT
Arif S. Doctor, J. - The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the common judgement and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (Tribunal) dated 21st December, 2022 by which Original Application Nos. 93 of 2017 and 497 of 2017 came to be dismissed.
A Brief Background
2. The Petitioners who were the Applicants before the Tribunal are stated to be working as Artisan Staff in the following grades i.e. Highly Skilled Grade- II (HSK-II), High Skilled Grade-I (HSK-I) and Chargeman and Foreman in the Technical Supervisory Staff of Indian Navy carrying out the work involved in repair and maintenance of Navy Ships and Submarines. The staff for said works are allotted by Respondent No. 2 from the total sanctioned strength and workload required in each trade.
3. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) had vide its order dated 21st September 1982 created a grade of Master Craftsman in each trade of the relevant defence establishments. The said order inter alia provided that (i) the number of posts of Master Craftsman shall be upto 10% of total number of sanctioned posts in HSK-I in each organization (ii) the procedure for selection to the grade of Master Craftsman and (iii) constitution of a Departmental Selection Committee.
4. The MoD thereafter in the year 2010 as a one-time measure vide an Office Memorandum dated 14th June, 2010 ('the said OM') restructured and reorganized the total cadre of Artisan Staff from 1st January, 2006 to 14th June, 2010 from a three grade structure to a four grade structure i.e.
(ii) HSK-II,
(iii) HSK-I, and
(iv) Master Craftsman.
The Artisan Staff were also given the benefit of promotion to all revised grades in relaxation of conditions for promotion.
5. The MoD then vide Operative Instructions dated 25th June 2012 in order to implement the said OM issued revised ratio of different grades in Industrial Trades. The said Operative Instructions also stated that HSK-I shall be en-bloc senior to HSK-II and separate trade-wise seniority list shall be prepared for HSK-II and HSK-I and same shall be circulated to all concerned authorities.
6. However, post the aforesaid restructuring, it is the Petitioners' contention that viz.
ii. Therefore a few of the Petitioners had been promoted directly from HSK - I to Chargeman bypassing the next promotion to Master Craftsman, the effect of which was to deprive them of the loss of one increment which they could have earned through pay fixation, had they been promoted first from HSK-I to Master Craftsman.
7. The Petitioners are thereafter stated to have made representations to Respondent No. 2 inter alia seeking that the said OM be strictly followed i.e. to carry out the promotions of Artisan Staff as per the trade-wise seniority roster. The said representations however came to be rejected vide an order dated 10th March 2017 which inter alia held that the promotions made by combined seniority roster were valid. Respondent No.2 thereafter based on recommendations of Departmental Promotion Committee issued Panel of Promotion of proposed promotees vide circular dated 29th March 2017. Respondent No. 2 on 29th May 2017 issued orders of promotions according to Panel of Promotions.
8. It was in the aforesaid backdrop that Original Applications No.93 of 2017 and 497 of 2017 came to be filed before Tribunal inter alia seeking fixation of seniority trade-wise in each trade, and to quash and set aside (a) order dat
The court established that promotions within the Artisan Staff of the Indian Navy could be conducted on a grade-wise basis as per the Ministry of Defence's orders, and that the lack of evidence for p....
Notional pay fixation from court orders entitles employees to further promotional benefits reckoned from juniors' dates, without disturbing seniors' positions; discriminatory denial violates equality....
Cancellation of erroneous promotions within merged grade upheld; Government empowered to rectify administrative mistakes promptly without perpetuating errors; promotion not a right but subject to eli....
A senior employee has no right to promotion against past vacancy years if they failed to meet the mandatory eligibility conditions, such as qualifying a trade test, by the crucial date prescribed for....
Promotions must respect principles of natural justice, including the right to a hearing for affected parties before decisions are made.
Re-designation of Tailors to Examiners in administrative interest, without trade change, preserves original Tailor seniority for promotions, rejecting undertakings forgoing seniority as non-binding.
The court ruled that the promotion denial to the employee was legally justified due to misinterpretation of restructuring policies under railway circulars, leading to the setting aside of the Tribuna....
(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 ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
