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

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 64

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Om Prakash Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Military Engineer Services – Respondent
O.A./632/2021



(Reserved on 22.12.2025)

Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Original Application No.632 of 2021 Pronounced on this the 05th Day of January, 2026 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)

Om Prakash Yadav M.E.S. 457629, Ex Refg. Mech. S/o Sri Chheda Lal R/o Village-Jheel Gautia, Post-Chanehati, District Bareilly.

………..Applicant By Advocate: Shri Lal Chandra Sahu Versus

1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi-110011.

2. Engineer In Chief Branch Directorate General (Pera) E.N.G.

Integrated H.Q. of M.O.D. (Army) Kashmir House Rajaji Marg, New Delhi.

3. Chief Engineer Bareilly Zone Bareilly 243001.

4. Commander Works Engineer M.E.S. Station Road Bareilly Cantt.

243001.

5. C.D.A. (A) Meerut (U.P.).

Respondents By Advocate: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan

ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)

Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:

“A. To quash the order dated 28.1.2021 Annexure No.2 Compilation No.II and order dated 26.1.2021 passed by respondents Annexure No.1 (Compilation No-II) of this Original Application.

B. Directing the respondents to pay all the promotional benefit of Refg. Mech (M.C.M.) from 31.5.2019.

C. Direct Respondents to Comply the part II order No.45 dated 9.11.2020 of applicant’s promotion from Refg Mech (HS-1) to Refg. Mech (M.C.M.) with effect from

31.05.2019.

D. or pass such further order which Hon’ble Tribunal may think fit and proper in the present case.”

2. Brief facts of this case as narrated in the O.A. are that the applicant was appointed on the post of Majdoor in the Military Engineering service on 14.4.1982. He was promoted from Majdoor to MAT REFG Mech on 15.11.1993 by the respondents and further he was promoted from. MAT/REFG/Mech Sk to R/MECH SK on 11.3.1997 and then from R/MEch S.K. to HS II on 25.7.2011. Thereafter, the applicant was promoted from HS II to H.S.I. by the respondents on 7.6.2014. The applicant’s contention is that his promotion was due with effect from 31.5.2019 as vacancies were existing in the department and he is aggrieved with the facts that only one person has been awarded promotion to REFG/Mech (M.C.M.) and the applicant has not been promoted after the retirement of one Chote Lal Refg. MECH (M.C.M.). The applicant retired from the service on 31.5.2020 as pensioner. The pension had been granted by PCD (A) (P) Allahabad wide PPO No. 403201904972/20. Vide the impugned orders order 26.04.2021 and 28.01.2021, the claim of the applicant for further promotion has been rejected.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was in the list of seniority for promotion of Refg. Mech HS-1 to (M.C.M.) but the applicant was promoted after retirement from the service on 4.11.2020 from Refg. Mech. (HS-I M.C.M. pay scale (35400-1124001-) pay to matrix 6, So the applicant is entitled to receive all the service benefits of Refg. Mech (M.C.M.) pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc with effect from 31.5.2019. The respondents illegally rejected the appeal (Notice)

given by the applicant vide the impugned orders. The applicant was fully eligible for the promotion and intentionally he was not promoted to the post of Mec HS-I to M.C.M. The appellate authority has published part-II Order No.45 dated 2.11.2020 of applicant's promotion from H.S.-I to Refg. Mech (M.C.M.) with effect from 04.11.2020, SO the applicant is entitled to receive all service benefits of Refg. Mech (M.C.M.) with effect from 31.5.2019 when the applicant was entitled for the promotion to the post of Refg. Mech (M.C.M.) and pay all the service benefits of Refg. Mech (M.C.M.) with back pay with effect from 31.5.2019 with bank interest. Thus, it is argued that the order dated 26.4.2021 and order dated 28.1.2021 passed by respondents are illegal, not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be set aside by this Tribunal.

4. Submission of learned counsel for t

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