J U D G M E N T

Mehta, J.

Civil Appeal No(s). 8617 of 2013

1. The instant appeal by special leave takes exception to the judgment dated 10th October, 2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition1, whereby the Division Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Indu Marwah Date: 2024.09.30

17:23:23 IST Reason:

1 Writ Petition No. 583 of 2011 Bench of the High Court accepted the writ petition2 preferred by the private respondents herein3 and reversed the judgment dated 24th December, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench4 in Original Application5 preferred by the private respondents herein. The CAT had rejected the Original Application6, challenging the proposed action of revision and fixation of their seniority in the Engine Factory, Avadi, Chennai7.

2. The brief facts in a nutshell, relevant and essential for the disposal of the instant appeal are noted hereinbelow.

3. The appellant and the private respondents were engaged on semi-skilled posts such as Fitters and Machinists in respondent No.2-Factory. A common select list of candidates based on merit was issued by the General Manager of respondent No.2-Factory in the year 1995 wherein the appellant herein was placed at a higher position than the private respondents. An appointment order dated 17th January, 1996 was issued in the favour of the appellant for the post of ‘Fitter General(semi-skilled)’ in respondent No.2- Factory. He was initially placed on probation for a period of two

2 Ibid

3 Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5

4 ‘CAT’, hereafter

5 Original Application No. 318 of 2009

6 Ibid

7 ‘respondent No. 2-Factory’, hereafter

years which was further extended for a period of six months w.e.f. 17th January, 1998. The appellant satisfactorily completed the probation period on 16th July, 1998. Thereafter, he was promoted to the ‘Skilled’ grade on 6th January, 1999.

4. A draft seniority list dated 28th July, 2006 was issued by respondent No.2-Factory, whereby the seniority of ‘Fitters’ was fixed as per their respective dates of promotion to the skilled grade and the appellant was placed at a lower position than the private respondents.

5. Aggrieved of the draft seniority list8, the appellant submitted a representation dated 13th November, 2006 to the General Manager of respondent No.2-Factory seeking necessary amendments in the draft seniority list and to fix his position appropriately and thereafter, to publish a final seniority list. The General Manager rejected the aforesaid representation submitted by the appellant vide communication dated 9th July, 2007, observing that his seniority had been fixed from the date of holding the skilled grade, and thus the position of the appellant in the seniority list was not liable to be altered.

8 Dated 28th July, 2006

6. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred Original Application No. 821 of 2007 before the CAT challenging the draft seniority list dated 28th July, 2006.

7. Another employee, namely, Mr. P. Kumaresan who was appointed as a Mechanist in respondent No.2-Factory in January 1996, also filed Original Application No. 831 of 2007, before the CAT, wherein Mr. P. Kumaresan also claimed that he had to be placed at the 6th position instead of the 27th position as set out in the draft seniority list. Original Application9 preferred by Mr. P. Kumaresan came to be allowed by the CAT holding that the seniority fixed in the draft list was incorrect. The CAT noted that respondent No.2-Factory had allowed the promotion to the juniors of Mr. P. Kumaresan on the ground that he was still undergoing the extended period of probation. The CAT held that it is settled law that once the extended period of probation is completed, the employee should be confirmed in service from the date of initial selection and should be assigned the original rank in the seniority list. Thus, once the extended period of probation came to an end and the employee was found suitable, he had to be confirmed in

9 Original Application No. 831 of 2