Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
P Ramesh vs M/O Defence on 22 January, 2025
1 OA No.310/01289 of 2019 & MA 537/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/01289/2019
AND
MA/310/00537/2022
Dated this the 22nd day of January, Two Thousand Twenty Five
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN. MEMBER (J)
AND
HON'BLE MR. SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)
1. P. Ramesh,
S/o V. Parthiban,
T.No.31030/567
No.11, Nehru Street,
J.B. Estate, Avadi, Chennai.
2. D. Thanigaiarasu,
S/o V. Dhanapal,
T.No.21105/645,
Plot No.2, Vijayantha 1st Cross Street,
Vivekananda Nagar,
Avadi, Chennai.
3. S. Ravi,
S/o K.G. Subramani,
T.No.31016/552,
No.2442, B Type, 5th Block,
TNHB Avadi, Chennai.
4. G. Jaikumar,
S/o J. Gopal,
T.No.21093/570,
C 12, F1, Anna Street,
Poompozhil Nagar,
Avadi, Chennai.
2 OA No.310/01289 of 2019 & MA 537/2022
5. M. Ramesh,
S/o A. Mani,
T.No.23029/634,
No.227, E.W.S.B.
TNHB, Avadi, Chennai.
6. S. Kannan,
S/o N. Srinivasan,
T.No.19139/560,
No.30/1, Type - II,
HVF Estate, Avadi, Chennai.
7. M. Mohanraj,
S/o P. Marimuthu,
T.No.20158/841,
Plot No.1, Phase-3, Swathy Nagar,
Kannadapalayam,Kovilpathagai,
Avadi, Chennai.
8. S. Gnanaganapathy,
S/o R. Somasundaram,
T.No.20156/836,
28-B, Thirukkural 1st Street,
Sri Balaji Nagar,
Pattabiram, Chennai.
9. R. Devaraj,
S/o D. Rathinam,
T.No.21168/853,
C-12/F2, Anna Street,
Poompozhil Nagar,
Avadi, Chennai,
10. S. Devasagayam,
S/o Shanmugam,
T.No.31046/817,
52/3, Type-II, HVF Estate,
Avadi, Chennai.
11. Jacob V John,
S/o John V.C.,
T.No.31070/918
S-1, Gandhi Home, I.C.F. Colony,
Muthapudupet, Chennai.
3 OA No.310/01289 of 2019 & MA 537/2022
12. S. Loganathan,
S/o P. Sugumar,
T.No.40024/1040,
100/1, Type-II, HVF Estate,
Avadi, Chennai.
13. C. Dhanesh,
S/o S. Bovas,
T.No.21238/1102,
No.89, 6th Cross Street,Modern City,
Near Hindu College,
Pattabiram, Chennai.
14. A. Prabu,
S/o A. Angaiyan,
T.No.40038/1009,
No.285, Sri Ram Nagar,
Perumalpattu (Post)
Thiruvallur District.
15. K. Padmanaban,
S/o N. Krishnamoorthy,
T.No. 20202/1057,
No.73/2, Type II,HVF Estate,
Avadi, Chennai.
16.A.E. Sudhakar Babu,
S/o A.C. Ethirajulu,
T.No.20103/648,
Plot No.2, Kaveri Street, 1st left Cross,
Sindhu Nagar, Avadi,Chennai.
By Advocate M/s. Menon, Karthik, Mukundan & Neelakantan
Vs.
1. Union of India
rep by The Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi.
2. Ordnance Factory Board,
Represented by its Chairman,
10-A, SK Bose Road,
Kolkata.
3. The General Manager,
Engine Factory,
Avadi, Chennai,
4 OA No.310/01289 of 2019 & MA 537/2022
4. E. Venkatesan,
S/o T. Elumalai,
T.No.21128/75
No.54, Srinivasa Nagar, Mullai Street, Pakkam,
Thirunindavur,Tiruvallur District
5. P. Umapathy,
S/o S. Yengaiah,
T.No.21110/664
No.368, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar,
2nd Cross Street, Puliyanthope, Chennai.
6. M. Purushothaman,
S/o V.P. Munuswamy,
T.No.21106/647,
No.23/281A, 5th Street, S.A. Colony, Vysarpadi,
Chennai.
7. S. Tamizharasan,
S/o C. Soundar Rajan,
T.No.21239/1083,
No.23/4, Type-II, HVF Estate,
Avadi, Chennai.
8. S. Rajni Kumar,
S/o S. Santhosam,
T.No.21208/1023,
No.11/5, Type - II, HVF Estate,
Avadi, Chennai.
9. S. Sivanesan,
S/o Sigamani,
T.No.23063/726,
No.17, II Cross, New Indira Nagar,
Pattabiram, Chennai.
10. C. Amarsingh,
S/o P. Chelladurai,
T.No.19208/706,
No.298, Main Road,
Govindaraja Puram,
Plavedu Post, Pannur IAF, Avadi,
Chennai.
5 OA No.310/01289 of 2019 & MA 537/2022
11. V. Mohanakrishnan,
S/o S. Venugopal,
T.No.31018/555,
No.29, 2nd Street, 2nd Cross Vaishnavi Nagar,
Thirumullaivoyal,
Chennai.
12. M. Doss,
S/o K. Madhavan,
T.No.31101/550,
No.3, Thiruvalluvar Street, D.R.R. Nagar,
Avadi, Chennai.
13. P. Seshan,
S/o V. Ponnusamy,
T.No.19263/907,
No.33/4, Type - II, HVF Avadi,
Chennai.
14. D. Pugazendhi,
S/o T. Duraivel,
T.No. 20215/1088,
No.100/2, 4th Street, Irulanchery Village,
Narasingapuram Post,
Tiruvallur (DT & TK).
15. V. Thanigaivel,
S/o P. Vajiram,
T.No.23098/880,
No.66/4, Type - II, HVF Estate, Avadi,
Chennai.
16. S. Ramesh Babu,
S/o K. Selvaraj,
T.No.23146/1292,
No.72, Ambedkar Street,Adigathur village,
Tiruvallur District.
17. Punya Murthy. C,
T.No.20238/1184,
2 D, Elit Shelton, 3rd Block,
Ashok Niranjan Nagar,
Paruthipattu.
6 OA No.310/01289 of 2019 & MA 537/2022
18. G. Tamilarasu,
S/o Ganesan,
T.No.23115/1084
1602, 67th Block,
Sathyamoorthy Nagar,
Vysarpadi, Chennai.
19. G. Govindan,
S/o Gopal,
T.No.21232/557
6/12, Bajanai Koil Street,
Moorai, Avadi,
Chennai .. Respondents
By Advocate Mr. Su Srinivasan, SCGSC for R.1 to 3
M/s. R. Rajesh Kumar, for R.4 to 19
7 OA No.310/01289 of 2019 & MA 537/2022
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) This OA have been filed by the applicants seeking the following relief:
"to set aside Factory Orders No.4525, 4526, and 4527, dated 30.08.2019, issued by the 3rd respondent insofar as the applicants are concerned and restore their original date of promotion in Highly Skilled Grade II, Highly Skilled Grade I, Master Craftsman (MCM) as the case may be and pass such further or other orders as may be deemed fit and proper".
2. Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicants are as follows:
The Applicants, belonging to the General Category, are industrial employees promoted on various dates to Highly Skilled Grade I, Highly Skilled Grade II, and Master Craftsman (MCM). Their promotions followed the DoPT OM dated 30.09.2016, which stated that reservation in promotion and the "Own Merit Principle" under OM dated 10.08.2010 should not apply due to an interim order of status quo, dated 03.02.2015 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP No. 30621 of 2011. Subsequently, the DoPT issued OM, dated 15.06.2018, directing all Ministries and Departments to apply the "Own Merit Principle" in promotions, based on interim Supreme Court orders. Misinterpreting this OM, the 1st and 2nd 8 OA No.310/01289 of 2019 & MA 537/2022 respondents reviewed the DPCs which were held after 30.09.2016 and revised promotion dates for the applicants, issuing Factory Orders that reduced their pay and reverted some to lower posts. This decision was made without prior notice, violating the principles of natural natural justice. Although the impugned Factory Orders, dated 30.08.2019 have not yet been implemented, the pay reductions are in process. The applicants have filed this Original Application challenging the orders due to their significant adverse impact.
3. The learned counsel for the applicants argued that the applicants were regularly promoted based on the prevailing DoPT OM, dated 30.09.2016. However, their promotions are now being revised or cancelled, violating the principles of natural justice. It is a well-established legal principle that vested rights cannot be withdrawn arbitrarily. The revisions result in significant adverse effects, including loss of status and reduced emoluments, rendering the impugned orders invalid in so far as the applicants are concerned and liable to be declared void.
4. The counsel further contended that the impugned orders are based on a flawed interpretation of the DoPT OM dated 15.06.2018, as evident from the 2nd respondent's letter dated 24.07.2019. The OM explicitly applies prospectively and contains no directive to review previously 9 OA No.310/01289 of 2019 & MA 537/2022 conducted DPCs. Since the applicants' promotions were granted prior to the issuance of the OM, applying it retrospectively is legally unsustainable. Therefore, the OM cannot be used to alter the applicants' previously granted promotions.
5. The counsel argued that the DoPT OM dated 15.06.2018 does not mandate the application of the "own merit principle" outlined in the quashed OM dated 10.08.2010 for promotions, nor does it direct departments to review DPCs conducted prior to its issuance. He emphasized that the interim order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to in the OM does not instruct the Union of India to apply the "own merit principle" from the OM dated 10.08.2010. He further submitted that the issue of applying the "own merit principle" is still under consideration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is a well-established principle that administrative instructions are prospective in nature, as confirmed by a plain reading of the DoPT OM dated 15.06.2018. Therefore, he urged the Tribunal to grant the relief sought in the present Original Application.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents (1 to 3) opposed the applicants' submissions and adhered to his reply. He argued that while the DoPT OM, dated 10.08.2010 was quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CWP.No.13218 of 2009, the 3rd respondent 10 OA No.310/01289 of 2019 & MA 537/2022 implemented the OM in 2013 as directed by this Tribunal in OA No.1399 of 2011. The Tribunal's order specified that the revision of seniority was subject to the outcome of SLP (Civil) 30621/2011 pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
7. He further stated that the DoPT OM, dated 30.09.2016 instructed against relying on the provisions of the OM, dated 10.08.2010 until the Supreme Court's decision in SLP No.30621/2011. It also prohibited further promotions of reserved category candidates to unreserved posts based on the 2010 OM. Consequently, the 3rd respondent could not implement promotions based on the existing seniority list derived from the 'Own Merit' concept.
8. The counsel submitted that, to prevent employee demotivation due to delayed promotions and to protect their interests, the 3rd respondent decided to proceed with promotions without promoting reserved category employees to unreserved posts/vacancies. Promotions made between 01.10.2016 and 29.08.2019 were issued with a stipulation that they were subject to the outcomes of pending cases, including OA No.39/2013, SLP No.30621/2011, SLP No.15361/2012 (Civil Appeal No.8617/2013), and WP No.25295/2013 before the Tribunal, High Court, and Supreme Court. 11 OA No.310/01289 of 2019 & MA 537/2022
9. He also referred to the DoPT OM, dated 15.06.2018, which instructed that promotions should follow the Supreme Court's directions based on existing seniority/select lists. Additionally, the Ambedkar Defence Employee Union, Engine Factory Avadi, submitted a representation on 16.06.2018, requesting the implementation of the "own merit" concept for promotions retrospectively, as per the OM, dated 15.06.2018. This issue was subsequently referred to the 2nd respondent for clarification.
10. The counsel submitted that, as per the DoPT OM, dated 15.06.2018, it was decided to implement or review promotions based on the "own merit" concept, with the condition that such actions would remain subject to the outcome of the SLP pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further stated that the 2nd respondent, OFB Kolkata, issued a letter on 24.07.2019 for guidance and uniformity, enclosing the minutes of a meeting held on 03.04.2019 with Associations. In this meeting, it was decided that, until the court cases were resolved, all proceedings at OFBHQ would follow the "own merit" concept. Additionally, it was resolved that earlier DPCs conducted after 30.09.2016, which did not follow the "own merit" principle, should be reviewed in line with the DoPT guidelines.
12 OA No.310/01289 of 2019 & MA 537/2022
11. The counsel submitted that, based on the 2nd respondent's communication, the 3rd respondent (EFA) decided to revise promotions following the "Own Merit" concept, as outlined in the DoPT OM dated 15.06.2018, and in line with the methodology adopted by the CCA at OFB Kolkata. Accordingly, Factory Orders Nos. 4525, 4526, and 4527, dated 30.08.2019, were issued with a clause stating that all promotions are subject to the outcome of SLP No.30621/2011 and related cases. He, therefore, sought the dismissal of the OA.
12. Respondents 4 to 19 were impleaded to the present OA through MA No.772/2019, allowed by the Tribunal on 22.01.2020.
13. The counsel for respondents 4 to 19 aligned with respondents 1 to 3, arguing that DPCs conducted post 30.09.2016 without applying the "Own Merit" concept should be reviewed in accordance with DoPT guidelines. The 3rd respondent (EFA) revised promotions based on the "Own Merit"
concept, following the DoPT OM dated 15.06.2018 and the promotion methodology adopted by the CCA at OFB Kolkata. Factory Orders Nos.
4525, 4526, and 4527, dated 30.08.2019, were issued with a clause that all promotions are subject to the outcome of SLP No.30621/2011 and related cases. The counsel maintained that the revision of promotions was lawful and requested for dismissal of the OA.13 OA No.310/01289 of 2019 & MA 537/2022
14. We have heard all the parties at length, perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record.
15. During the hearing on 01.10.2019, this Tribunal passed an interim order, directing the respondents not to implement the reversion order concerning the applicants until the reply is filed.
16. Before delving into the merits in detail, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of this Tribunal's order,dated 29.08.2013 in OA No.1399/2011, as hereunder:
"8. In the above circumstances, we are of the considered view that when the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and taking into account that any decision rendered at this juncture by this Tribunal would adversely affect the interest of either parties, in the interest of justice, we direct the respondent to go on with the process of revision of seniority but with the condition that any revision would be subject to the result of the SLP (Civil) 30621/2011, pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court."
The above said order of this Tribunal was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP No.25295/2013. The Hon'ble High Court, disposed of the W.P. ,vide its order, dated 14.11.2024, in the following 14 OA No.310/01289 of 2019 & MA 537/2022 terms:
"5. Litigants' appointment, promotion or service benefits would not confer any right to claim such benefits on permanent basis. Therefore, the beneficiaries of the Central Administrative Tribunal's order and their promotions or otherwise, are subject to the final order to be passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (Civil) No.30621 of 2011. Merely based on the longevity of litigation, the person, who secured relief on the basis of the Tribunal order, cannot claim any future benefits or their retention in the promoted category or otherwise.
6. It is made clear that all the benefits extended to the person based on the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is to be revised after passing of the order by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP. Since the Tribunal also has stated that the revision is subject to SLP, we would like to further emphasise that revision granted pursuant to the Tribunal order would not provide any right to the employees to secure such benefits from and out of the order from the Tribunal, but all such benefits are subject to the final order to be passed by the Supreme Court of India and the 3 rd respondent has made an affidavit that further revision, if required would be effected based on the orders to be passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
7. Since the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal issued mainly on the ground that SLP between the parties are pending, we have no choice to adjudicate the merits involved in this case.
8. On these clarifications, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, are closed".
17. The main crux of the issue arises only on the two OMs, dated 30.09.2016 & 15.06.2018, issued by the DOPT. It is most appropriate to 15 OA No.310/01289 of 2019 & MA 537/2022 extract relevant portions of the OMs as hereunder:
"OFFICE MEMORANDUM dated 30.09.2016 Subject: Contempt Petition (C) No.314/2016 in SLP (C) No.4831/2012-Samta Andolan Samiti through its President vs. Sanjay Kothari & Ors.
........... .......... .........
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated .
03.02.2015 passed the following interim order In SLP No.30621/011- Jarnail Singh & Ors. Vs Lachmi Narain Gupta & Ors:-
"Let the matter be listed in the second week of March 2015 on a non-
miscellaneous day. Status quo existing as on today in respect of the promotional matters that are covered by the impugned judgment shall be maintained till the next date of hearing."
5. Contempt Petitions were filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against Department of Personnel and Training and Railways alleging that 5 notifications issued by the DOPT and 5 Notifications issued by the Railways were contrary to the status quo order dated 03.02.2015 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore notice of contempt was issued. The matter came up for hearing on 29.9.2016 before the Apex Court.
6. In order to preclude any interim order in the contempt case, as desired by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Learned Solicitor General has undertaken that till such time the main matter along with the Contempt Petition is decided, no further promotions of reserved category persons to unreserved posts will be 16 OA No.310/01289 of 2019 & MA 537/2022 made based on the DOPT 0M dated 10.8.2010 and Railway Board circular dated 14.9.2010.
................ ..............
"OFFICE MEMORANDUM dated 15.06.2018 Subject: Implementation of interim Orders/ directions in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 30621/2011 arising out of final judgment and order dated 15.07.2011 in CWP No. 13218/2009 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana and Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 31288/2017 arising out of Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment dated 23.08.2017 and other related court cases -- regarding
---
The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 15.11 2017 in SLP(C) No. 28306/2017 has decided to refer to a Constitution Bench to examine whether its earlier decision in M. Nagraj and others vs. Union of India and others requires reconsideration or not, inter alia, on the issue as to whether test of backwardness would, at all, apply in case of SC and ST.
2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No 30621/2011 has passed the following Order on 17.05.2018:
"It is directed that the pendency of this Special Leave Petition shall not stand in the way of Union of India taking steps for the purpose of promotion from 'reserved to reserved' and 'unreserved to unreserved' and also in the matter of promotion on merits. . ."
3. Further, in the matter related to SLP(C) No. 31288/2017, connected to Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 28306/2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under on 05.06.2018:
"Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned ASG has referred to order dated 17.05.2018 in SLP 17 OA No.310/01289 of 2019 & MA 537/2022 (C) No.30621/2011. It is made clear that the Union of India is not debarred from making promotions in accordance with law, subject to further orders, pending further consideration of the matter. Tag to SLP(C) No.30621 of 2011."
4. The cadre controlling authorities of Central Government Ministries, Departments and Union Territories are to carry out promotions in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3 above based on existing seniority/select lists.
5. Every promotion order must clearly mention the stipulation that the promotion shall be subject to further orders which may be passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. ......................... ........................................."
18. The question that arises for our consideration in the present OA is whether the promotions made by the 3rd respondent between the two OMs dated 30.08.2016 and 15.06.2018 can be revised after 15.06.2018, based solely on the argument that the list was not prepared in accordance with the 'Own Merit' concept.
19. It is very clear from the OM, dated 30.08.2016 that in order to avoid any interim order in the contempt case, an undertaken was given by the Learned Solicitor General that until the main matter and Contempt Petition are decided, no further promotions of reserved category persons to unreserved posts will be made based on the DoPT OM, dated 10.08.2010 and the Railway Board circular dated 14.09.2010. Therefore, the respondents may proceed with any normal promotions.
20. Similarly, the OM dated 15.06.2018 clearly stipulates that the 18 OA No.310/01289 of 2019 & MA 537/2022 pendency of the Special Leave Petition shall not prevent the Union of India from taking steps for promotions from 'reserved to reserved' and 'unreserved to unreserved', as well as for promotions based on merit. Consequently, any promotions made between these two dates need not be revisited, as all such promotions are subject to the outcome of the SLP pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, promotions made on merit between 30.08.2016 and 15.06.2018 need not be revised.
21. It is also important to note that during this period, the 'own merit concept' was not applicable. The OM dated 15.06.2018 clearly states that "the cadre controlling authorities of Central Government Ministries, Departments, and Union Territories are to carry out promotions in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, based on existing seniority/select lists." This means that any seniority list created after 15.06.2018 can be implemented. It is also clear that OMs are generally prospective in nature and cannot be applied retrospectively.
22. In light of the above circumstances, we find that the applicant has made a valid case. Consequently, we set aside the impugned Factory Orders Nos. 4525, 4526, and 4527, dated 30th August 2019, issued by the 3rd respondent, insofar as they pertain to the applicants. We restore their 19 OA No.310/01289 of 2019 & MA 537/2022 original dates of promotion to Highly Skilled Grade II, Highly Skilled Grade I, and Master Craftsman (MCM). We further direct the respondents to complete this exercise within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
23. With the above direction, the OA is allowed No order is made to costs. Consequently, the MA No.537 of 2022 stands closed.
(SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA) (M. SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
22. 01.2025
mas