Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ordinance Army Clothing Factory ... vs Union Of India on 18 February, 2026
OA No. 483 of 2011
(Reserved on 12.02.2026)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD.
Allahabad, this the 18th day of February, 2026
Original Application No. 483 of 2011
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative)
1. Ordnance Army Clothing Factory Workers Union, Shahjahanpur through
General Secretary Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava.
2. Pramod Kumar Srivastava Son of Sri Atal Narain Srivastava, aged about
46 years, T. No. 107582, R/o 233/3/H, Factory Estate Shahjahanpur (U.P).
3. Pankaj Kumar Saxena Son of Sri Naresh Chandra Saxena, aged about 47
years, T. No. 107577, R/o 41/3 Η Type, Factory Estate Shahjahanpur (U.P).
4. Rashid Ahmad Son of Sri Munney Mian, aged about 47 years, T. No.
107587, R/o Q. No. II/A/76, Double Storey, Factory Estate Shahjahanpur
(U.P).
5. Phool Chandra, Son of Sri Jee Sukh Ram Rathore, aged about 45 years,
T. No. 107568, R/o Baruzai I, Taron Wala Bagh, Shahjahanpur (U.P).
6. Prashant Dhyani, Son of Sri M.N. Dhyani, aged about 46 years, T. No.
107581, R/o 267/4/H Type, Factory Estate Shahjahanpur (U.P).
7. Sanjay Kumar Saxena Son of Sri Shyam Mohan Lal Saxena, aged about
43 years, T. No. 107569, R/o 84, "Prabha Niwas", Adarsh Nagar Colony,
Shahjahanpur (U.P).
8. Roopak Kulshrestha Son of Sri S.C. Kulshrestha, aged about 45 years, T.
No. 107584, R/o 40/5/H Type, Married Line, Factory Estate Shahjahanpur
(U.P).
9. Anoop Kumar Vaish Son of Sri Vishan Chandra Vaish, aged about 46
years, T. No. 107580, R/o Q. No. II/D/07, Double Storey, Factory Estate
Shahjahanpur (U.P).
10. V.R. Singh Son of Sri B.L. Singh, aged about 45 years, T. No. 107585,
R/O 3-B, Mission Compound, Govindganj, Shahjahanpur (U.P).
11. Shamim Ahmad Khan Son of Sri Haji Ashfaq Ahmad Khan, aged about
47 years, T. No. 107556, R/o 963, Dilazak Behind Overhead Water Tank,
Shahjahanpur (U.P).
12. Mohd. Saeed Son of Sri Mohd. Siddiq, aged about 46 years, T. No.
107583, R/o 234/4/H Type, Factory Estate Shahjahanpur (U.P).
13. Dinesh Kumar Saxena Son of Sri Shanti Sahai Saxena, aged about 45
years, T. No. 107564, R/o 147, Taju Khel Near Don & Dona School,
Shahjahanpur (U.P).
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA
Page 1 of 10
OA No. 483 of 2011
14. Pradeep Kumar Saxena Son of Late Sri J.P. Saxena, aged about 45
years, T. No. 107563, R/o 1, Mall Khana More, Infront of Katyar Bhawan,
Khalil Sharqee, Shahjahanpur (U.P).
15. Mohd. Saleem Son of late Sri Siddique Ahmad, aged about 47 years, T.
No. 107576, R/o 267/2 'H' Type, Factory Estate Shahjahanpur (U.P).
16. Jeevendra Singh Son of Sri Jugendra Pal Singh, aged about 46 years, T.
No. 107579, R/o Mahmand Jalal Nagar, Near Kushal Nursing Home,
Shahjahanpur (U.P).
17. Atma Nand Pandey Son of Sri Banwari Lal, aged about 47 years, T. No.
107561, R/o 25/1, Patel Road, Factory Estate Shahjahanpur (U.P).
18. Mohd. Aslam Son of late Sri Maseet-Ullah, aged about 45 years, T. No.
107558, R/o 440, Mohd. Zai Near Rashid Box, Factory Estate Shahjahanpur
(U.P).
19. Vaqar Ahmad Khan Son of Sri Ibrar Khan, aged about 45 years, T. No.
107586, R/o 232/I/H, Married Line, Factory Estate Shahjahanpur (U.P).
20. Mahesh Kumar Son of late Sri Sohan Lal, aged about 47 years, T. No.
107590, R/o 29/3/R Type, Factory Estate Shahjahanpur (U.P).
21. Anil Kumar Saxena Son of late Sri Siya Ram, aged about 47 years, T.
No. 107554, R/o 112, Bazaria Lala Teli, Shahjahanpur (U.P).
22. Ram Kumar Pathak Son of late Sri R.N. Pathak, aged about 47 years, T.
No. 107578, R/o II/D/35, Double Storey, Factory Estate Shahjahanpur (U.P).
23. Dwarika Prasad Mishra Son of Sri S.P. Mishra, aged about 44 years, T.
No. 107591, R/o Indira Nagar Colony, Behind Baba Sahab Ki Kothi,
Shahjahanpur (U.P).
24. Anil Kakkar Son of late Sri J.N. Kakkar, aged about 47 years, T. No.
107562, R/o II/B/69, Factory Estate Shahjahanpur (U.P).
25. Ajay Kumar Chaturvedi Son of Sri Brij Lal Chaturvedi, aged about 45
years, T. No. 107589, R/o 50/9 'R' Type, Factory Estate Shahjahanpur (U.P).
....Applicants
By Advocate: Shri S.K. Pandey
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
(Production), Govt. of India, New Delhi.
2. Director General, Ordnance Factories, Ministry of Defence, Govt. of
India, Ordnance Factories Board, 10-A, Shahid Khudi Ram Bose
Road, Kolkata-1.
3. General Manager, Ordnance Clothing Factory, Shahjahanpur
(O.C.F.S.).
....Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Raj Pal Singh
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA
Page 2 of 10
OA No. 483 of 2011
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative):
Shri S.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Raj Pal Singh, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
2. By means of this OA, the applicants have sought the following reliefs :
" (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI to quash the impugned order dated 20.02.2011 (Annexure A-
1) with all consequential benefits.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to include the name of the applicants in the seniority list of tailor.
(iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) The cost of the application may also be awarded in favour of the applicants."
3. The brief facts of the case are that the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Ordnance Factory Board, Kolkata had issued an order providing therein that if an employee is re-designated to another trade in administrative interest, he would retain the seniority of his original trade. The applicants were initially appointed as Tailors in 1985-1986 at Ordnance Clothing Factory, Shahjahanpur after completing their apprenticeship. In July 2002, the factory invited applications from Tailors for deployment on inspection work, and the applicants were transferred to inspection duties through factory orders issued in September and December 2002. Later, based on the seniority list, they were promoted from Tailor (Skilled) to Tailor (Highly Skilled). After conducting a trade test and obtaining their willingness in April 2005, the applicants were re-designated as Examiner (Highly Skilled) in the same pay scale with effect from 24.08.2005 by an order issued by the General Manager. It is submitted that the case of the applicants is covered by the judgments of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhagwan RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 3 of 10 OA No. 483 of 2011 Sahai Carpenter Vs. Union of India & others and Murad Nagar Ordnance Clothing Factory Vs. Union of India & others which was duly discussed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 893 of 2006 (Mohd. Yamin and others), on 08.10.2010. The Ordnance Factory Board issued an order for restructuring the artisan cadre and revising grade structure, after which the applicants requested through their Workers Union that Examiners, who were originally Tailors and given inspection duties on administrative grounds, should be included in the Tailors' seniority list and given proper promotion benefits. The Union sent representations and reminders to the General Manager, but their request was rejected. The applicants also obtained information under RTI, which confirmed that there was no direct recruitment for the Examiner post. Meanwhile, the factory issued promotion and restructuring orders showing both Tailors and Examiners in the same seniority list, and some applicants were shown as Highly Skilled-I and already working as Examiners. The respondent's establishment issued an order on 09.03.2011 regarding promotion to the post of Charge man from Master Craftsman and for that they have issued eligibility/seniority list placing the tailors and examiners both in the said list. The Ordnance Clothing Factory, published an Shahjahanpur order Part-II No. 782 regarding restructuring of cadre and 3 of the applicants in the present case namely Rahat Ahsan at serial no. 287, Manish Pal at serial no. 685 and Sudhir Kumar Bajpai at serial no. 675 have been shown as Highly Skilled-I grade pay 2800 and all of them were made examiner on 01.07.2008. Hence, this O.A.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has refuted the claim of the applicant by filing a counter affidavit and has submitted that the applicants were re-designated from Tailor/ Highly Skilled to the post of Examiner/ Highly Skilled. The applicants had also given the undertaking to forgo their seniority in Tailor & their seniority will count from the date of re-designation to Examiner/ Highly Skilled. As per undertaking given by applicants they were RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 4 of 10 OA No. 483 of 2011 agreed to forego their seniority in Tailor/ Highly Skilled grade. It is further stated that the Tailor and Examiner being a separate trade as per Statutory Rule & Order (SRO), accordingly trade wise seniority is maintained of Tailors and Examiners. It is submitted that Tailor/ Highly Skilled-1 & Examiner/ Highly Skilled-1 with some other trades are feeder grade for promotion to Charge man (CT). Other trades are combined for promotion to the post of Charge man as per their seniority. The Examiner is also included in the combined seniority and date of holding the post is the criteria for combined seniority. The promotions are never denied to the examiner. It is further submitted that the structure of cadre was implemented w.e.f 1.1.2006. Shri Rahat Ahasan, Shri Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Shri Munish Pal were holding the post of Tailor/ Highly Skilled II as on 1.1.2006. Therefore, due to restructure of Cadre, they became as Tailor/ Highly Skilled as on 01.01.2006. However, other Tailor/ Highly Skilled had been re-designated to Examiner/ Highly Skilled w.e.f 24.8.2005 therefore they were Examiner/ Highly Skilled on 1.1.2006. It is submitted that the promotion from Highly Skilled-II to Highly Skilled - I are ordered in the same trade keeping in view the vacancies and eligibility criteria. The promotions are ordered from Tailor/ Highly Skilled II to Tailor/ Highly Skilled-1, from Examiner/ Highly Skilled-Il to Examiner/ Highly Skilled-1. The applicants have changed their trade from Tailor/Highly Skilled II to Examiner/ Highly Skilled-Il by way of transfer on their own willingness. It is also submitted that as per OFB letter dated 30.8.2005 Rope Slicer, Tailor, Examiner (Clothing), Line Mistry of above trades are combined for promotion to the post of Charge man (Clothing). Therefore the seniority of Feeder Grade is dovetailed and promotion is ordered from the combined seniority list. On the basis of above discussion, he has submitted that the relief claimed by the applicant is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed and accordingly the OA should also be dismissed.
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 5 of 10 OA No. 483 of 2011
5. In rejoinder affidavit, the applicants have reiterated the same facts as given in the OA and added that the applicants have given their willingness for re-designation in the same trade but they never gave any willingness to change their trade. At the time of redeployment particularly on 24.08.2005 under the existing provisions, only tailor Skilled 3050-4590 were eligible for placing as Examiner 4000-6000 but the Highly Skilled pay scale 4000-6000 the applicants were entitled to be placed as Master Craft Man pay scale 4500-7000, which has not been given to the applicants. The applicant's never forgo their seniority to allow their juniors to supersede them. It is absolutely incorrect to say that the tailor and examiner are two different trade but both belong to same trade. It is submitted that for the promotion to the post of Charge Man the tailor and examiner both are treated as feeder cadre hence they were legally bound to maintain the inter-se-seniority of tailor in case of promotion to the post of Charge Man but they failed to do so.
6. We have heard the rival submission and verified the documents available on record.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants has relied on the judgment of this Tribunal passed in OA No.893 of 2006. The operating portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as below :-
"11. Next is as to the contention of the respondents that on re- designation. the applicants' seniority changes without any regard to the erstwhile designation. Paragraph 10 of the supplementary counter affidavit refers. This contention has to be summarily rejected. For, it is not at the instance of the employees that the redesignation changes. It is understandable that if there is a change in the functional responsibility, the seniority could correspond to the date from which such a change in the functional responsibility took place. Mere change in nomenclature cannot dictate the seniority. Change from Tailor to Machinist (Knitter) and back again to Tailor (see para 5 of the counter) not once but on many occasions, if affected the seniority on the basis of the designation, the same cannot be allowed. Seniority should be uniform with reference to the pay scale then obtaining and on the basis of date of entry into service. Thus, if the respondents contend that the applicants' promotion on the basis of their seniority fell only w.e.f. 28th December, 1981, the applicants cannot be blamed for the belated promotion. Had their seniority been maintained irrespective of the re-designation, certainly the applicants would have got the pay scale of Rs 210-260 well before 16-10-1981 m which event their pay scale would have been RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 6 of 10 OA No. 483 of 2011 upgraded to Rs 260-400, and correspondingly to the higher pay scale w.e.f. 01-01-1996 from tailor skilled (3050-4590) to tailor Highly skilled (4000-6000). Their claim is strengthened by the fact that their juniors as contained in Annexure A-13 have all been the beneficiaries whereas the applicants were denied the same. CA 4. indicating the seniority position on the basis of the redesignated post has to be held incorrect.
12. Apart from the above, the mandate of the Apex court in the case of Prabhu Lal OA No. 492/1991 (extracted above) is to be regarded and respected. For the purpose of understanding the spirit behind such a mandate, the entire order is reproduced as hereunder:-
"The petitioners, who are boot-makers, claim that by virtue of the letter dated October 15, 1984 wherein it has been mentioned that the President has accorded sanction to the upgradation of certain jobs (one of which is that of boot-makers, from semi-skilled grade (Rs. 210- 290, to skilled grade (Rs. 260-400) w.e.f. October 15, 1984, they too are entitled to be placed in the higher scale. This question was considered by this Court in Bhagwan Sahai Carpenter Cos. Vs. Union of India & Anr. (AIR 1989 SC 1215). In paragraph 6 of that Judgment, the various categories jobs which belonged to the semi skilled grade of Rs. 210- 290 to be upgraded to skilled grade Rs. 260-400 have been set out. In paragraph 11 of the judgment, this court after holding that the cut-off date fixed under the order impugned was discriminatory proceeded to direct that the petitioners be granted the benefit of the skilled grade of Rs. 260-400, from October 16, 1981 instead of October 15, 1984.
A mandamus to that effect was issued in the said proceedings, subsequently, in writ petition No. 40/91 (association of examiners, Moradnagar Ordnance Factory Vs. Union of India & Ors.) the same benefit was extended to other similarly placed employees. We, therefore, do not see any reason why that benefit should not be granted to the petitioners.
Counsel for the respondents, however, invited our attention to the notifications Nos. SRO 1 of 1988 and SRO 130 of 1989 produced as Annexures 'A' & 'B' to the counter affidavit and submitted that boot- makers belong to two categories and since the petitioners herein belong to non-industrial category, they are not entitled to the benefit sought by them. On a plain reading of these notifications, we do not thing that they have any retrospective operation. This distinction between non-industrial and industrial workmen belonging to the same trade is not shown to have existed earlier when the benefit was grated to certain employees, including the petitioners of the aforesaid two earlier cases. We therefore, do not see any merit in this contention. We therefore, direct a mandamus to issue to the Union of India a grant to the petitioners the benefit of the skilled grade of Rs. 260-400 w.e.f October 16, 1981 to those who were in service then. Arrears of salary, etc. will also be granted on that basis within three months. There is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. We, Before we part we would like to state that the department should grant the benefit uniformally all those trades which were to be upgraded after the Deputy Secretary's letter dated October 15, 1984. We do hope that they will not be driven to Court to receive the benefit of which they are entitled as per the interpretation put by this court in Bhagwant Sahai's case (Supra)."
13. In the above judgment, the Apex Court has observed, "This distinction between non-industrial and industrial workmen belonging to the same trade is not shown to have existed earlier when the benefit was granted to certain employees....." This observation applies not only to the boot making trade (to which the petitioners in the afore said W.P. belonged) but to all the trades. It is RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 7 of 10 OA No. 483 of 2011 for this reason, the last paragraph of the judgment stated, "Before we part we would like to state that the department should grant the benefit uniformly to all those trades which were to be upgraded after the Deputy Secretary's letter dated October 15, 1984. We do hope that they will not be driven to Court to receive the benefit of which they are entitled as per the Instructions put by this Court in Bhagwant Sahai's case (supra)."
14. The respondents have adopted a pedantic approach in respect of the case of the applicants. The legitimate entitlement of the applicants has been scuttled by the respondents on unreasonable and irrational ground. The applicants' claim is legitimate and had their seniority been worked out correctly, without any regard to re-designation, they would have been within the zone of consideration. The Apex Court has held in the case of Nirmal Chandra Bhattacharjee v. Union of India, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 363, "The mistake or delay on the part of the department, therefore, should not be permitted to recoil on the appellants."
15. In view of the above the OA is allowed. It is declared that the applicants are entitled to the same benefits to the extent as afforded to the skilled workers as in the Government order dated 19th June, 2004 (Annexure A-12). If the individuals who were the beneficiaries of the afore said order were granted arrears of pay and allowances, the applicants are also entitled to the same. If not, their entitlement would be to the extent of notional fixation of pay for the purpose of pension and other retirement benefits."
8. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the judgment/order of this Tribunal passed in OA No.1671 of 2012, in which the claim of the similarly situated applicant was rejected on the ground that they have exercised their option forgoing their seniority in the earlier job and on the basis of the above, the OA was dismissed.
9. C.A.T Lucknow Bench in OA No.535 of 2019 has analysed the issue of estoppels for counting seniority from previous station on the basis of under taking given by the applicant in OA No. 535 of 2019 to count her seniority in the new station from the date of her joining in a new station on the basis of Pratibha Rani & Ors. vs. Union of India &Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 3792 of 2019 arising out of SLP (C) No. 31728/2018] with Civil Appeal No. 3793 of 2019 arising out of SLP (C) No. 32988/2018 in which, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that insofar as issue of eligibility of promotion is concerned, the service rendered in the previous region, prior to transfer on compassionate ground, will be counted towards service for eligibility for consideration of promotion. That it is a non-transferable job, makes no RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 8 of 10 OA No. 483 of 2011 difference on this aspect as service is rendered in the same cadre. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court is quoted below:-
"2. The appellants are working as Tax Assistants and on account of plea of compassionate grounds, they were transferred inter-region. The stand taken by the respondent-Department is that as per the administrative instructions, the period spent in case of inter-region transfer in the previous region, could not be counted while posting such a person in a new region for eligibility for promotion.
3. The aforesaid issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India &ors. us. C.N. Ponnapрап (1996) 1 SCC 524 where this very issue was examined in the factual context of the same department as under:
"The service rendered by an employee at the place from where he was transferred on compassionate grounds is regular service. It is no different from the service rendered at the place where he ts transferred. Both the periods are taken into account for the purpose of leave and retiral benefits. The fact that as a result of transfer he is placed at the bottom of the seniority list at the place of transfer does not wipe out his service at the place from where he was transferred. The said service, being regular service in the grade, has to be taken into account as part of his experience for the purpose of eligibility for promotion and it cannot be ignored only on the ground that it was not rendered at the place where he has been transferred. in our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly held that the service held at the place from where the employee has been transferred has to be counted as experience for the purpose of eligibility for promotion at the place where he has been transferred."
4. We may also note that in the context of a different service, on the same principle and noticing C.N. Ponnappan's case (supra), in M.M. Thomas &Ors. vs. Union of India &Ors. (2017) 13 SCC 722, it was observed as under:
"Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the record, we are of the view that the words of the aforesaid Rule require five years' regular service "in the respective regions". Thus, these words must be understood to mean that the candidates should have served in the respective regions, that is, the regions where they were posted earlier and the region where they seek promotion all together for five years. Thus if a candidate has served in one region and then transferred to another, and seeks promotion in that region, the rule does not require that the candidate must have acquired experience of five years in the region where he seeks promotion, for being considered eligible. What is necessary is a total experience of five years. This must necessarily be so because the service to which the rival parties belong, is an All- India Service, in which the country is demarcated into several regions. In all-India Service, the officers are posted from one region to the other in a routine manner. The purpose of the rule is that such officers are not deprived of their experience in the feeder cadre merely because they have been transferred from one place to another."
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 9 of 10 OA No. 483 of 2011
10. After considering the arguments of both sides and examining the records and analysis of the case laws cited it is clear that the applicants were originally appointed as Tailors and were later re-designated as Examiners in administrative interest while performing inspection duties in the same pay scale. The respondents have relied on an undertaking allegedly given by the applicants to forgo their Tailor seniority, but the material on record shows that the re-designation was not a fresh appointment but redeployment from the same cadre and both Tailor and Examiner posts were treated as feeder posts for further promotion. Therefore, merely on re-designation, the applicants cannot be deprived of the benefit of their original seniority, especially when such redeployment was connected with administrative requirements and not a direct recruitment to a different cadre. Accordingly, the action of the respondents in not considering the applicants in the Tailor seniority and denying them consequential benefits is not justified. The OA is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.02.2011 is quashed and set-aside. The respondents are directed to restore the seniority of the applicants in the Tailor trade in accordance with their original date of appointment and grant all consequential benefits. This exercise should be completed within a period of four months. No order as to costs.
11. All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member(Administrative) Member(Judicial)
RKM/
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA
Page 10 of 10