SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4796

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Dr. Sanjiv Kumar, A, Mrs. Justice S. Sujatha, J
Sri.N.Chinnasamy – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A 170/00421/2023 | O.A 170/00316/2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri.P.A Kulkarni
For the Respondents: Shri.Vishnu Bhat, Smt.Anuradha S.K

The prevailing rules at the time of promotion consideration, not the dates of vacancy, determine promotion rights.

Headnote:The Tribunal analyzed two connected Original Applications filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985. The applicants sought to quash recent promotion orders and asserted their right to promotions under prior rules. The Tribunal found that the claims were unsubstantiated given legal precedents. The main issues revolved around the application of recruitment rules based on promotion consideration dates rather than vacancy dates. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Applications as lacking merit.

Table of Content
1. applicants seek promotions under old rules. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. court reviews prior litigation and claims. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11)
3. promotion rules apply based on consideration dates. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. new rules govern promotions; prior claims are not valid. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
5. applications dismissed. (Para 20)

ORDER

PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)

As these two Original Application Nos.170/316/2023 and 170/421/2023 have been filed with similar facts and identical law points, they are taken together for consideration. These O.As are filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 , claiming the following reliefs:

O.A No.421/2023

“a) Quash/set aside the order bearing No.20802/EST (IND) dated 26.6.2023, Ann-A5 and Daily orders Part II bearing Serial No.90/Est (Ind), dated 26.7.2023, Annexure A6 passed by Commandant and MD, 515 Army Base Workshop, Bengaluru Respondent no.2 herein so far as it pertains to applicant.

b) Pass any other order or direction that this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem it fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice and equity. ”

O.A No.316/2023

“a) Quash/set aside the orders bearing common No.20802/EST (IND) dated 5.5.2023 and 26.6.2023, as at Annexures A1 to Ann-A13 and Annexures A14 to A26 respectively passed by Commandant and MD, 515 Army Base Workshop, Bengaluru Respondent no.2 herein in respect of applicants 1 to 13.

b) Pass any other order or direction that this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem it fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice and equity. ”

2. For the purpose of precision and clarity, we have taken the facts of O. A 170/316/2023 for discussion.

The Original Application is filed on the grounds as mentioned in Paragraphs 5.1 to 5.14 of the Original Application. The brief facts as explained by the applicants in O. A 316 of 2023 are that the applicants are the holders of a Civil post under the Ministry of Defense and are working in the ‘Machinist’ Trade in 515 Army Base Workshop at Bengaluru under respondent no.2. In 2003, the Ministry issued a Grade structure providing Skilled to Highly Skilled positions. Again, in Highly Skilled positions, HS-II and HS-I grades are created, providing them Grade Pay of Rs.2400 and Rs.2800 respectively, in terms of 6th Pay Commission recommendations, resulting in the issuance of CCS (RP) Rules 2008 with benefits from 01.01.2006. Benefits of placement of the applicants from Skilled to Highly Skilled positions in terms of the 2003 restructuring order referred to above has been extended by the administration in their case as per the 1987 Recruitment Rules by order dated 9.3.2011 in the case of applicants 1 to 11 & Respondent No.5 retrospectively from a date prior to coming into force of the 2006 Recruitment Rules brought in force w.e.f 18.2.2006. In respect of applicants 12 & 13 on the same analogy, promotion is ordered by the administration by order dated 27.4.2011. This situation led to further litigation leading to the administration’s seeking to undo the promotions ordered in respect of the applicants as stated above. This action initiated by the administration with the latest show-cause notice dated 5.5.2023 under Annexure A1 to A13 has culminated in adverse orders dated 26.6.2023 under Annexure A14 to Annexure A26. In the instant common application supported by separate MA seeking permission to pursue the cause of the actions of R-2 Administration under Annexures A1 to A26 pertaining to the applicants herein are impugned and are requested to be set aside.

3. On notice, the respondents have filed their separate reply statements for respondent nos.1 to 4 and for respondent no.5. No rejoinder has been filed by the applicants.

4. The 5th respondent in O.A 316 of 2023 is the applicant in O.A 170/421/2023.

5. The case came up for final hearing on 10.12.2024. Shri.P.A Kulkarni for the applicants and Shri.Vishnu Bhat f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top