CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH M.A. No.310/00199 of 2024 DATED TUESDAY, THE 9 ^TH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE CORAM :

HON'BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, MEMBER (J)

HON'BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, MEMBER(A)

T. Aldrines, S/o H.Thomas MES Qtrs No. T 19/10, Kamarajar Road, Redfields, Coimbatore - 641018 ..........Applicant (Advocate: M/s. T.K.S. Gandhi)

Vs.

1. Union of India, Rep by its Secretary, Department of Defence

101-A, South Block, New Delhi 110001;

2. The Engineer-in-Chief, Department of Defence Defence Headquarter Plot No-30, Sena Bhawan, Teen Murti Marg Road, (Near South Block)

Delhi-110011

3. The Directorate General of Personnel/ CSCC Engineer-in Chief's Branch, Integrated HQ of MoD (Army), Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi-110011;

4. The Chief Engineer Head Quarters - Southern Command Department of Defence Pune-411001;

5. The Chief Engineer, Head Quarters - Chennai Zone Department of Defence Island Grounds, Chennai – 600009;

6. The Additional Director General (Projects)

C/o Chief Engineer's Office - Chennai Zone, Department of Defence Island Grounds, Chennai-600009;

7. Commander Works Engineer, Department of Defence Wellington Barracks Post, The Nilgiris District – 643231. …...Respondents (Advocate: Mr. Su. Srinivasan, Sr. CGSC)

O R D E R (Hon'ble Ms. Veena Kothavale, Member(J)

This Miscellaneous Application is filed by the applicant for condoning the delay of 2065 days in filing the Original Application.

2. It is stated in the application that Original Application is being filed for setting aside the Seniority List of 2017 and the Seniority List of 2017-2018 for the post of FGM (SK) prepared by the 7^th Respondent and to direct the 7^th Respondent to promote the applicant by applying the correct promotion policy as per 6^th Pay Commission and as per Letter of Directorate General of Personnel to Chief Engineer, Southern Command, Pune in DO No. B/77030/VICPC/IND/25/CSCC dated 25.04.2014 and grant to him all attendant and financial benefits so denied owing to wrong promotion policy.

3. The reason for filing OA belatedly after lapse of 2065 days is explained stating that the 7^th Respondent has been applying wrong seniority principles on a continuous basis since 2013 and the applicant and other employees have been representing about the wrong policies being followed by the 7^th Respondent. Consequently, Respondents 2 to 4 have been issuing various guidelines to Respondents 5 to 7 regarding the promotion policy but even these guidelines issued from the 2013 to 2016 were fully or partially inconsistent with each other. The 7^th Respondent did not even following these guidelines. The correct legal position is stated in the 6^th Pay Commission report. The applicant had sent representations dated 26.10.2018, 30.03.2019, 10.12.2019 and 13.10.2020 to the 7^th Respondent regarding this issue. The 7^th Respondent prepared a 'List of Objectors' dated 28.02.2023 but the said list does not include the name of the applicant. Thereafter the 7^th Respondent has released promotion list dated 02.06.2023 on the basis of wrong promotional policy.

4. It is further stated that applicant did not file OA earlier when the 1^st Seniority list of January 2017 and of 2017-2018 were released because at that point of time he had represented to the Respondents 1 to 7 to correct the issue of wrongful promotion policy. The Respondents 2 to 7 were in the process of considering the matter and issuing various decisions up to 21.06.2023. However, it is now established that Respondents 2 to 7 are interpreting the policy as per their own convenience and have arrived at wrong conclusions. Therefore, it has become necessary to approach this Tribunal. Since the issue was under consideration of Respondents 2 to 7 and was being deliberated from 2013 till 21.6.2023, OA can be construed to be within the period of limitation prescribed in Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act 1985. However, as the impugned seniority lists under challenge are of the year 2017