Catch-up rule applies when general category senior reaches same promotional grade as reserved category junior on same date; original seniority restored for next unreserved promotion, overriding earlier reservation acceleration.

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

The applicant has filed the OA challenging the impugned communication, dated 07.10.2014 whereby the promotion given to the 3rdand 4threspondents to the post of Master Craftsman (MCM) was justified by the respondents 1 & 2. A further direction is sought by the applicant to grant proper seniority to him in the post of Highly Skilled and promotion to the post o MCM with all consequential monetary benefits.

2. The factual matrix of the case are as follows:

The applicant is presently working as Highly Skilled Grade-I in the Electrical Trade under the control of the 2^nd respondent. He was originally appointed as Electrician (Skilled) on 24.11.1993. The 3^rd respondent was appointed subsequently on 27.11.1993. In 1998, both the applicant and the 3^rd respondent were declared to have passed the Trade test for promotion to Highly Skilled-II, as per communication, dated 13.04.1998. The 3^rd and 4^th respondents were juniors to the applicant in the Skilled Grade, and the applicant has maintained an unblemished service record throughout his career. Although the applicant passed the Trade test in 1998, he was promoted to Highly Skilled Grade-II only vide order, dated 23.10.2003. He later came to know that the 3^rd respondent had been promoted to HS Grade-II earlier, on 29.11.1999, under the SC quota, and was consequently shown as senior to the applicant. The applicant submitted a representation dated 08.08.2014 to the 1^st respondent seeking proper fixation of seniority and consequential promotions. While this representation was pending, respondents 1 and 2, by communication, dated 18.08.2014, granted further promotion to both the 3^rd and 4^th respondents as Master Craftsman, again overlooking the applicant’s claim. The applicant then submitted another representation, dated 17.09.2014 questioning the basis of the promotions granted to the 3^rd and 4^th respondents, particularly the 4^th respondent, who was admittedly junior to him in the seniority list published in 2014. In response, the 1^st respondent issued the impugned communication dated 07.10.2014, rejecting the applicant’s claim and stating that the promotions of the 3^rd and 4^th respondents were in order. Aggrieved by the said communication, the applicant has filed the present OA.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the 3 Respondent was appointed as Electrician - Skilled in the 2nd Respondent Naval Air Station on 27.11.1993, whereas the applicant was appointed as Electrician – Skilled on 24.11.1993. Both of them had cleared the Trade test which is mandatory for the promotion to the post of Highly Skilled Grade – II, which they did in January, 1998. Although the applicant is senior to the 3^rd Respondent, the 3^rd Respondent was promoted to the post of Highly Skilled II on 29.11.1999 on the ground that the vacancy was reserved for the SC category. Since the 3^rd Respondent belongs to the SC category, he was accommodated in the said post despite being junior to the applicant.

4. He further submitted that the documents filed by the official respondents in this OA clearly show that the vacancy in question was an UR vacancy and not an SC vacancy. As a result, the applicant lost a promotional opportunity in 1999 in an arbitrary manner and was promoted to the post of HS-II only on 14.10.2003. Subsequently, bot