OM dated 15.06.2018 mandates promotions per Supreme Court interim directions on existing lists, subject to final outcome; Tribunal's blanket restoration unsustainable.

(Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN,J.)

The Writ Petition has been filed to quash the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’), dated

22.01.2025 made in O.A.No.372 of 2020.

2.The respondents herein, who are industrial employees, belong to General Category and they were promoted on various dates to Highly Skilled Grade-I, Highly Skilled Grade-II and Master Craftsman. Through an Office Memorandum (OM) dated 10.08.2010, the Department has made the ‘own merit concept’ applicable to employees for consideration of promotion, with effect from 02.07.1997. However, vide another OM dated 30.09.2016, instructions were given by the DoPT to not rely on the OM dated 10.08.2010, in view of the order of status quo granted by the Hon’ble Supreme in S.L.P.(C) No.30621 of 2011. Subsequently, DoPT had issued another OM dated 15.06.2018 directing all the Ministries and Departments to apply ‘own merit principle’ in matters relating to promotions, which was misinterpreted by the petitioners and orders were passed revising the promotions of the respondents. In view of revision of promotions, the pay scale of the employees were reduced and they were reverted back to lower posts. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents have filed O.A.No.372 of 2020 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order dated 22.01.2025, had allowed the application by setting aside the order of the petitioners and had restored the original dates of promotion. Challenging the said application, the present Writ Petition is filed.

3.The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the petitioners would submit that OM dated 15.06.2018 was issued to implement or review promotions based on ‘own merit concept’, however, subject to the outcome of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He also submitted that the promotions between the years 2016 and 2019 were issued with a stipulation that they would be subject to the outcome of the pending cases before the High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submitted that when the respondents have not challenged the OM dated 15.06.2018, the Tribunal ought not to have directed for restoration of original dates of promotion without considering the fact that the issue is still pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

4.The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent would submit that revision of promotions subsequent to the OM dated 30.09.2016 is unsustainable. The learned counsel submitted that OM dated 15.06.2018 does not mandate the application of ‘own merit concept’ as envisaged in the OM dated 10.08.2010 and it also does not direct the Department to review the promotion committees conducted prior to the issuance of the said OM. He further submitted that when the OM dated 15.06.2018 clearly stipulates that the pendency of the SLP before the Supreme Court shall not prevent the Department from taking steps for promotion, the promotions made on merit between 2016 and 2018 need not be revised and thus, the Tribunal was right in setting aside the order of the Department, thereby granting restoration of original dates of promotion.

5.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. The main issue in this case is whether the Department was justified in revising the promotions already granted to the respondents by applying the ‘own merit concept’, and whether the Tribunal was correct in restoring the original dates of promotion.

7. It is not in dispute that the Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2010, which introduced the ‘own merit concept’ with retrospective effect from 02.07.1997, was set aside by the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the matter is pending before the Hon’