Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Vinod Kumar P P vs Western Naval Command on 25 July, 2025
1
O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.170/00487/2023
Order Reserved on: 03.07.2025
Date of Order: 25.07.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
1. Vinod Kumar P.P
Aged 46 years, S/o Somasundaran.U.V
Working as Master Grade 1
At Commander of Naval Base
(Naval Ship Repair Yard)
Karwar-581318
2. Antony E.Χ.
Aged 51 years, S/o Xavier,
Working as Master Grade I
At Commander of Naval Base
(Naval Ship Repair Yard)
Karwar-581318 ...... Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri.Indran M.B,Shri.Rajesh Vellakkat)
Vs.
1. Flag Officer Commanding in- Chief,
Western Naval Command, Naval Dock Yard,
Mumbai-400 023.
2. The Flag Officer, Commanding Head Quarters (FOK),
Karnataka Naval Area,
Karwar 581 308.
SHAINEY
SHAI VIJU
CAT
NEY Bangalore
2025.07.30
VIJU 10:15:49
+05'30'
2
O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
3. The Commander in Charge (office in charge)
Navalship Repair Yard, Naval Base,
Karwar -581 318.
4. The Admiral Superintendent
(For Manager (P&A))
Naval Ship Repair Yard
Naval Base, Karwar-581 038
5. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary.
Ministry of Defence (Navy), Government of India,
Directorate of Civilian Personnel, D-II Wing
Sena Bhavan, New Delhi-110001
6. Mr. Srikanta Maniklal Mondal, MG 1,
Direct Recruitee, Commander of Yard,
Naval Ship Repair Yard, Naval Base-Karwar,
Uttara Kannada, Karnataka 581308 ......Respondents
(By Advocate Shri.Sayed S Kazi for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 and
Shri.P.Kamalesan for Respondent No.6)
ORDER
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act. 1985 to claim the following reliefs:
"(1) To call for the records leading up to the issuance of Annexure A22 / speaking order dated 17.04.2021, quash Annexure A22 order passed by R4, and direct Respondents to replace it with new speaking order making the Applicants entitled for financial benefits, payments and allowances, pertaining to their promotion to Master Grade II for the period 1st April 2011 till 10th April 2014.
SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2025.07.30 VIJU 10:15:49 +05'30' 3 O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(ii) To call for the records leading up to the issuance of Annexure A23 dated 20.04.2021 and quash Annexure 23 order, and direct the Respondents to replace it with new "Panel for promotion to the Master Grade-1" specifying that the Applicants are eligible candidates for the vacancy year 2015 by promotion or by direct recruitment.
(iii) To call for the records leading up to the issuance of Annexure A24 dt.21.4.21, declare that the seniority date of the Applicants specified as 21.02.2021 is erroneous, and declare that the Applicants are promoted and are provided seniority to Master Grade I from (1st April 2014, i.e., 3 years from 1st April 2011), or alternatively with effect from 20.10.2015, (date when certificate of competency is acknowledged by Respondents), with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances from such promotion date, payable within a specific time frame.
(iv) To call for the records leading up to the issuance of Annexure A31 dated 31st October 2022 (referred via 8th November 2022 letter) and quash the same; and direct the Respondents to amend and correct the seniority list specifying that the Applicants are number 2 and 3 in the seniority, and before Mr. Srikanta Maniklal Mondal.
(v) Grant such other relief or reliefs that may be prayed for or that are found to be just and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case.
(vi) Grant cost of this O.A."
2. The reliefs are claimed based on the grounds as mentioned in paragraphs 5(A) to 5(P) of the Original Application. The brief facts of the case of the applicants are that applicant No 1 and No 2 were SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2025.07.30 VIJU 10:15:49 +05'30' 4 O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE appointed as Sukhani (Boat Crew) Syrang of Lascar in Commander of Yard, Naval Base, Karwar with effect from 28th March 2007. As per the Non-Industrial Posts (Boats Crew) Recruitment Rules, 1981, a Syrang will be promoted to the post of Master Grade II upon completion of 3 years of service as Syrang of Lascars.
3. By the order of this Tribunal dated 03.10.2016 in OA No. 170/01667-01671/2015, the Applicant No.1 and Applicant No.2 were promoted as Master Grade II. However, the effective date of promotion to Master Grade II was untouched.
4. The applicants further assert that, via another promotion order dated 28.02.2019, the applicants' effective date of promotion to Master Grade II was revised to 8th February 2019 and the date of seniority was 01.04.2011. Thereafter, via amendment of promotion order dated 22nd October 2019, it was clarified that the applicants are entitled to Master Grade II payments from the date of seniority, i.e., 01.04.2011. Currently, this is the seniority date of the applicants in Master Grade II. The applicants procured the "Certificate of Competency as a First Class Master" on 07.10.2015, and they sent the same to the Respondent on 12.10.2015, and it was received by the Respondent on 20.12.2015. SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2025.07.30 VIJU 10:15:49 +05'30' 5 O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
5. The applicants further stated that a Master Grade II would get promoted to Master Grade I upon 3 years of service in the grade after educational qualifications are met. Therefore, the applicants ought to have been promoted on 20.10.2015 to the grade of Master Grade I via promotion as they were eligible on that date, having both educational qualification and service experience.
6. On 30-December-2014, Lt Commander, Dy Commander of Yard, published the "Status of Manpower COFY9KAR" requirement at Karwar Naval Base. As per this report, out of 11 sanctioned posts for Master Grade 1, only one was filled, and the balance of vacancies were empty. Applicants sent multiple follow-up reminders and representations to consider their promotion to the post of Master Grade
1. Applicants submit that, all of a sudden, via an appointment order dated 27.04.2017, the Respondent appointed Mr. Srikanta Maniklal Mondal to the post of Master Grade 1 on a regular basis with effect from 30-05-2017. The applicants assert that Mr. Srikanata Maniklal was junior to the applicants. The respondents clearly overlooked the seniority of the applicants in filling up the post of Master Grade 1. SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2025.07.30 VIJU 10:15:49 +05'30' 6 O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
7. Applicants filed a Right to information (RTI) application dated 09.10.2019 seeking information about the publication of the seniority list and the number of vacancies for the post of Master Grade 1. In reply to RTI dated 08.11.2019, it was clarified via Headquarters of Western Naval Command in Query Number 3 and 4 that the number of vacancies for the post of Master Grade 1 at that point of time was 21. The applicants filed another Right to Information (RTI) application on 20th November 2019 seeking information on the appointment of Mr. Srikanata Maniklal Mondal to the post of Master Grade 1. In reply to the RTI application on 30th December 2019, the Western Naval Command provided information that Mr. Srikanata Maniklal Mondal joined the post of Master Grade II on 01.04.2014 (whereas the applicants' seniority date is 01.04.2011) and was appointed to the post of Master Grade 1 on the basis of direct recruitment.
8. The directorate of Civilian Personnel, Ministry of Defence, sent notices to Respondent No. 1 seeking compliance with the timelines for departmental promotions committees by 10th October 2019. Since the applicant's seniority to Master Grade II was settled only on 22.10.2019, whereby the date of seniority and promotion of the applicants to Master Grade II stands as 1 April 2011, the applicants were not paid their SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2025.07.30 VIJU 10:15:49 +05'30' 7 O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE wages to this extent between 01.04.2011 till 10.04.2014. The Applicant No. 1 sent a letter to Respondent No. 3 seeking wages.
9. Respondent No.3 provided the speaking order on 17.04.2021 wherein it is admitted that the Applicant No.1's promotion to Master Grade II has been antedated to 01.04.2011; however, it states that the promotion has taken effect only on 10th April 2014, and therefore, Applicants are not entitled to Master Grade II arrears or allowances since 1st April 2011. This speaking order is challenged herein. Respondent No 2 was erroneously informed via communication dated 20.04.2021 that from 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17, there were no eligible candidates available for the post of Master Grade 1. The vacancy status of the panel for promotion to Master Grade I is completely erroneous, manufactured, and is challenged herein.
10. Finally, Respondent No. 4 issued the promotion order CS/4200/FOK/DPC/BCS dated 21.04.2021 wherein Applicants No. 1 and 2 were promoted to the post of Master Grade I with the effective date of promotion set as 22.02.2021. The Applicants' promotion was effectuated only on 22.04.2021 instead of 20-10-2015 after a Certificate of Competency being provided to Respondents after their eligibility on SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2025.07.30 VIJU 10:15:49 +05'30' 8 O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE 01.04.2014 by way of 3 years of service. This promotion order to the extent of effective date of promotion is challenged herein.
11. On 08.11.2022, Respondent No. 4 published the draft seniority list in respect of the Boat Crew staff of Karwar Naval Base. The list refers to a letter dated 31st October 2022 which places Mr. Srikanata Maniklal Mondal above Applicants No 1 and 2 in terms of seniority. Mr. Srikanata Maniklal's seniority is specified as 30th June 2017 whereas the applicants' seniority is specified as 22nd February 2021. This seniority list is challenged herein.
12. On notice, the respondent Nos.1 to 5 have filed their reply statement and a separate reply statement for respondent no.6 has been filed subsequently. No rejoinder has been filed by the applicants.
13. When the case came up for final hearing on 3.07.2025, learned counsel Shri.Indran M.B for the applicants, Shri.Sayed S Kazi for respondent nos.1 to 5 and Shri.P.Kamalesan for respondent no.6 were present and heard.
14. We have carefully gone through the records and considered the rival contentions of all the parties.
SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2025.07.30 VIJU 10:15:49 +05'30' 9 O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
15. From the pleadings of the parties the key issues for our consideration are:
1. If the applicants were promoted in the year 2014 (for the vacancy year 2010-11) and they assumed higher responsibilities from 10.4.2014 and if they were notionally given seniority from 1.4.2011, are they eligible to count their notional seniority period of 1.4.2011 to 10.4.2014:
(a) For higher pay and emoluments ? , and
(b) For counting the period as experience in the promoted grade to reckon for the purpose of work experience in the higher grade for next promotion ?
2. In the facts and circumstances of the applicants, a senior (the applicants) in the lower grade has any special right to compare their predicament with the junior becoming senior in the higher grade due to direct recruitment as of the respondent no.6 ?
3. In case of a clear vacancy, does the person fulfilling all the eligibility criteria are having right to be promoted as a matter of right from the date of his eligibility, when rules are silent about the issue ?
4. If so what order ?
SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2025.07.30 VIJU 10:15:49 +05'30' 10 O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
16. At the outset, we have examined carefully the six reliefs claimed in paragraph 8 of the Original Application, in which some of them are unrelated to each other and should have been filed strictly as per rule as separate O.As. As in relief (i)., the claim is regarding calling of records leading up to the issuance of Annexure A22, the speaking order dated 17.4.2021, and to quash Annexure A22 order passed by respondent no.4 and to direct the respondents to replace it with new speaking order making the applicants entitled to financial benefits, payments and allowances, pertaining to their promotion to Master Grade-II for the period from 1st April 2011 till 10th April 2014, whereas the second relief is related to calling for the records leading up to the issuance of Annexure A23 dated 20.4.2021 and to quash the Annexure 23 order, and to direct the respondents to replace it with a new "panel for promotion to the Master Grade-I" specifying that the applicants are eligible candidates for the vacancy year 2015 by promotion or by direct recruitment.
17. Clearly, the claim of financial benefits, payments and allowances pertaining to their promotion to Master Grade II for the period from 1st April 2011 till 10th April 2014 is an independent and different cause of action than the cause of their panel for promotion to Master Grade I. SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2025.07.30 VIJU 10:15:49 +05'30' 11 O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE But at the stage of admission, it was not vehemently opposed by the respondents, hence at this stage all the subject matter is being examined under this Original Application together.
18. The basic facts related to the matter are not contested by the parties. It is a fact that the applicants were appointed as Sukhani (Boat Crew) Syrang of Lascar in Commander of Yard, Naval Base, Karwar, effective on 28th March 2007, and that the rule Non-Industrial Posts (Boats Crew) Recruitment Rules, 1981 envisaged that a Syrang will be promoted to the post of Master Grade II upon completion of 3 years of service as Syrang of Lascars. The DPC for the year 2013 and the review DPC for the year 2014 were conducted, and the applicants were promoted to Master Grade II, and they assumed duties of Master Grade II on 10.4.2014. And subsequently, that back-dated notional seniority of 1.4.2011 was given. Although these facts are not disputed by the respondents, the contention of the applicants is that they must get their effective date of experience in Master Grade II from 1.4.2011 (their effective date of promotion) and from that date, their three-year experience should be counted to make them eligible to be promoted to the next level of Master Grade I. Whereas the respondents assert that although the applicants were promoted to Master Grade II by DPC for SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2025.07.30 VIJU 10:15:49 +05'30' 12 O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE the year 2013 and review DPC for the year 2014 and the back-dated notional date of seniority was given to them from 1.4.2011, but the applicants have joined the higher post only on 10.4.2014, which is not disputed. Hence, the experience in Master Grade II to be counted for further promotion has to be from 10.4.2014 only and not any day earlier i.e., the notional back-dated seniority of 1.4.2011.
19. The respondents have filed Annexure R-1 order No.CS(II)/2577/CofY (Kar)/Promotion dated 21 April 2014, with the subject, "Promotion to the higher grade : Master Grade II of COFY (KARWAR)" by which the applicants' effective date of promotion is given as 10.4.2014 and the date of seniority of promotion is given as 12 April 2013.
20. The matter was challenged in O.A No.170/01667-01671/2015 wherein, via its order dated 3.10.2016, this Tribunal ruled the following:
" We had requested the learned counsel for the respondents to give us the reason for holding the review DPC. Other than taking us through paragraph 15 and 19 of the reply, no other answer is forthcoming. We had also tried to go through and tried to find the reason for it. But it appears that other than imaginary situation, there cannot be any reason for the cancellation of the promotion already granted and brought into effect and that too SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2025.07.30 VIJU 10:15:49 +05'30' 13 O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE without any show cause notice and without giving an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the review DPC and all the pleadings are hereby quashed. The earlier DPC in 2013 is brought into effect immediately. Annexure A14 and other consequences will reign the field. Benefits to the applicants to be adjudged and granted except for Shri.Manju.D Ankolekar, Applicant No.4, against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending on which the respondents are allowed to take out appropriate proceedings under law and complete the proceedings. For other applicants, benefits as per 2013 DPC shall be made available within one month from today. Both counsels submits that there is nothing else remain to be adjudicated. O.A is allowed to this extend. No order as to costs. "
21. Pursuant to which finally, after due correspondence, the order dated 28.2.2019, No.CS/4200/FOK/DPC/BCS-Promotion Order (Annexure A-5) was issued and the date of seniority of promotion was preponed to 1st April 2011 as per the review DPC for the year 2010-
11.
22. Clearly, as per the records made available before us, the date of seniority of promotion, which was ante-dated as 1st April 2011, is only the notional date of promotion. If we see the Navy Group C Non- Industrial Posts (Boats Crew) Recruitment Rules, 1981, therein the Master Grade I post is a selection post for which a certificate of Master SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2025.07.30 VIJU 10:15:49 +05'30' 14 O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE 1st class I.S.V is needed, as well as those in Master Grade II are eligible for further promotion with three years service in the grade.
23. Now for our consideration comes what is the meaning of "with three years' service in the grade" as mentioned in the above rules ?. Does it mean notional seniority given from 2011 as argued by the applicants, or is it the actual work experience from the date of assumption of duties with higher responsibility (date of actual promotion and assumption of charge) ?
24. Clearly, as per Annexure A-5 promotion order dated 28.2.2019, the applicants were given the effective date of seniority in the promotional post from 1.4.2011, whereas the respondents have argued that as the applicants were promoted only in the year 2014, and they assumed their duties with effect from 10.4.2014 with back-dated notional seniority from 1.4.2011, hence, their experience cannot be notional, and it has to be prospectively counted from 10.4.2014. Hence, they will be eligible for promotion to the next post of Master Grade I with qualifying experience on 10.4.2017 only.
25. If we carefully see the qualifying conditions mentioned in the rule, Navy Group C Non-Industrial Posts (Boats Crew) SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2025.07.30 VIJU 10:15:49 +05'30' 15 O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Recruitment Rules, 1981, with three years' service in the grade, one should have for promotion from Master Grade II to Master Grade I. It would be very clear that one has to have three years' service experience in Master Grade I and not the mere notional service as argued by the applicants. Merely, someone getting a notional seniority from 1.4.2011, but actually joining the post on 10.4.2014 and assuming higher responsibility from that date cannot be considered to have fulfilled three years' service experience in the grade of Master Grade II from 1.4.2011 onwards. The actual experience of the applicants starts on 10.4.2014 when they have joined the higher post and assume the duties of Master Grade II, which fact is not in dispute. Hence, the contention of the applicants that they were eligible for a Master Grade I promotion effective from 1.4.2014 with having a qualifying experience of three years is a misconception, and we have no doubt in our mind that actual experience of three years with higher responsibilities is important and essential for an individual to be eligible for further promotion as per existing rules. Hence, the effective date of 10.4.2014 when they assumed the higher charge of Master Grade II is important for reckoning their experience in Master Grade II. And hence, in our considered opinion, the applicants are eligible for the next promotion to the Master Grade I as far as work experience is concerned, only on SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2025.07.30 VIJU 10:15:49 +05'30' 16 O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE 10.4.2017 (having three years actual work experience). Hence, as they have not worked with higher responsibility between the three years from 1.4.2011 to 10.4.2014, there is no case substantiated by the applicants to entitle them to any financial benefits, payments and allowances pertaining to their promotion to Master Grade II during the said retrospective period, as they had not discharged any higher responsibilities during that period.
26. Further, we have carefully examined in light of the above discussions the impugned order in Annexure A-22 dated 17 April 2021, which mentions the following:
" SPEAKING ORDER
1. Refer to your application dated 13 Jan 21, WHEREIN you have stated that YOU have joined as Syrang of Lascar on 20 Apr 2007 at CoY(Kar) and was promoted to the grade of Master Gr-ll on 12 Apr 13 vide letter CS(II)/2577/CofY(KAR)(CSO P&A) dated 21 Apr 14 and as per review DPC letter CS/9200/FOK/DPC/BCS dated 28 Feb 19. And whereas the promotion is awarded backdated w.e.f 01 Apr 11 virde order CS/4200/FOK/DPC/BCS dated 22 Oct 19.
2. And, YOU have also brought out that you belong to new pension scheme and it will lead to a high financial loss in your pension.
3. And, YOU have further stated that you have been receiving the payment of Master Gr-Il since 01 Apr 2014 and have NOW requested to fix the pay from 2011 as per order.
4. And WHEREAS, after due ex relevant:-nation of your representation, the following is
(a) THAT, first eligible DPC / Review DPC for the year 2013-
14 to the grade of Master Grade-Il was approved by SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2025.07.30 VIJU 10:15:49 +05'30' 17 O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE HQWNC on 10 Apr 14 vide their letter CS(II)/2577/CofY(Kar)/Promotion dated 21 Apr 2014 and backdated seniority was awarded to the promotees w.e.f 10 Apr 2014 and not as you have averred. Accordingly, your pay was fixed in the grade of Master Gr-ll w.e.f 10 Apr 14 as per option exercised by You.
(b) On receipt of discrepancies on the said DPC, Review DPC was ordered by HQWNC in the Year 2016 for all DPCs conducted between 2009-10 to 16-17 Antedated seniority was awarded to You alongwith the eligible candidates brought out by the Board as per extant rules in force.
(c) That, promotion of the individual will take effect from the date of assumption of duty in higher grade, Wherein in your case, you have assumed the duties of Master Gr-ll on 10 Apr 14. Therefore your pay was fixed w.e.f 10 Apr 14 as per the option exercised by you.
(d) Your promotion to Master Gr-ll is as per promotion order published by HQKNA vide letter CS/4200/FOK/DPC/BCS- Promotion Order dated 22 Oct 19 and antedated promotion has been awarded. You are not entitled for arrears and allowances. Seniority will be counted on notional basis from the date mentioned in Para 2 of promotion order dated 22 Oct 19 as per existing DoPT guidelines.
(e) That, Promotions are prospective and not retrospective as per extant provisions.
5. AND WHEREAS, based on the above comments, your application stands disposed off.
6. This issues with the approval of Competent Authority."
27. And we are in agreement with the respondents that the applicants are entitled to higher payment from 2014 onwards only, from the date when they actually joined the higher post of Master Grade II and not from the notional date of their seniority in 2011. And accordingly, we do not find any irregularities or incongruities in the said speaking order. Hence, we clearly find that the applicants are ineligible for the first relief claimed in their O.A (in paragraph 8(i)). SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2025.07.30 VIJU 10:15:49 +05'30' 18 O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
28. Further, the applicants have claimed relief that they are eligible for promotion to the higher grade of Master Grade I much earlier than the date they are given the said promotion now (effective 22.2.2021), and the applicants have canvassed multiple lines of contentions. The first line of contention is that the applicants want to compare their cases with that of the respondent no.6. Shri. Srikanta Maniklal Mondal, who is a direct recruitee at the level of Master Grade I. The applicants' claim that they were senior to him in the lower post of Master Grade II, hence they have right to be promoted earlier than him. And they assert that they were having grounds which will substantiate their better claim than Shri. Srikanta Maniklal Mondal to be promoted to Master Grade I.
29. Secondly, independent of Shri. Srikanta Maniklal Mondal's case and his seniority, the applicants, on their own respective merits also claimed the earlier date of eligibility for promotion to the grade of Master Grade I.
30. In relief column III, the applicants claim various dates. 1st of them was April 2014, when the applicants claim to have completed three years work experience, from 1st April 2011(the date of notional promotion retrospectively given to the applicants in Master Grade II), SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2025.07.30 VIJU 10:15:49 +05'30' 19 O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE when they claimed that their eligibility of experience to be promoted to Master Grade I was achieved in Master Grade II. Secondly, alternatively, the applicants claim that their eligibility could be with effect from 20.10.2015, the date when the applicants' certificate of competency is acknowledged by the respondents. Or thirdly the applicants leave it open, as to from any other subsequent date of their eligibility which was earlier than the effective date of appointment of respondent no.6 in the Master Grade I with whom they claimed seniority in the grade of Master Grade II. This type of multiple alternative claims shows that the applicants themselves are not very sure about their claim, and they only want to take a chance.
31. The applicants have filed Annexure A-31 draft seniority list in respect of Boat Crew staff, Naval Base, Karwar dated 31.10.2022, wherein it is shown that Srikanta Maniklal Mondal, respondent no.6 is at 2nd position and the applicants assert that they were initially appointed as Master Grade II on 1.4.2014 whereas the applicants came to that grade only on 10.4.2014. The applicants further assert that they have been working in the department since the year 2007 in the grade of Sukhani. But from the facts on record, not disputed by either party, it is very evident that the respondent no.6 Shri. Srikanta Maniklal SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2025.07.30 VIJU 10:15:49 +05'30' 20 O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Mondal appeared for direct recruitment vide notification dated October 2013 for the appointment to the post of Master Grade I, and vide order dated 27.4.2017 on file No.CS(II)/2577/RB/II/Master Gr-1/2 (at Annexure A-14) Shri.Srikanta Maniklal Mondal was selected and appointed to that grade, and he joined the post on 30.5.2017 and that was his effective date of fresh appointment to the grade of Master Grade I.
32. It is further asserted by the applicants that pursuant to the 19 to 25 Oct 2013 notification in Employment news, the Master Grade I direct recruitment process was started, and six posts were advertised. We have seen this advertisement on page 170 of the O.A (page 44 of the reply statement of the official respondents) and, as from the other papers connected to that and as asserted by the respondents, due to litigation there was some delay in completing the said recruitment process between 2013 and 2017. And finally, in the case of respondent no.6 the appointment orders were issued only on 27.4.2017 and pursuant to which Shri. Srikanta Maniklal Mondal had joined as Master Grade I effective from 30.5.2017. If these facts are not controverted or disputed by the applicants at this stage, and if the applicants have not challenged the appointment order of the respondent no.6 at appropriate time in 2017 after his appointment, the applicants are barred from SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2025.07.30 VIJU 10:15:49 +05'30' 21 O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE contesting the seniority of Shri. Srikanta Maniklal Mondal as a direct recruitee or to ask for any parity with him; as the source of recruitment for the counter parties were different and distinct (for the two applicants at the level of Master Grade I is promotion and for respondent no.6, it was direct recruitment). Whereas clearly, Shri. Srikanta was appointed to Master Grade I through open market direct recruitment to that grade vide vacancy notification dated 19 to 25 Oct 2013 and finally selected and appointed on 27.4.2017 and he joined at that level on 30.5.2017, however the applicants have not come as direct recruits at the level of Master Grade I. The applicants were appointed as Sukhani/Syrang in the year 2007 and were promoted in the year 2014 to Master Grade II for the vacancy year 2010-11, and their effective date of promotion was finally designated as 10.4.2011, and were promoted to Master Grade I much later in the year 2021. As the source of appointment of applicants and the 6th respondent are very different and distinct, we do not find any case for the applicants to contest the seniority or any parity or superiority over the appointment of respondent no.6 in this O.A. Due to peculiarity of the facts of the case it is not relevant if the respondent No.6 was junior to the applicants in the Master Grade II cadre, as he leapfrogged to Master Grade I level by direct recruitment. SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2025.07.30 VIJU 10:15:49 +05'30' 22 O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
33. At this stage, the applicants wanted to argue that in the Navy Group C Non-Industrial Posts (Boats Crew) Recruitment Rules, 1981, for promotion from Master Grade II to Master Grade I, it is mentioned that Master Grade I is a selection post, and it has to be done by promotion, failing that by direct recruitment as mentioned in column 11 of the said rule. Hence, if applicants were eligible for promotion and available, the department could not have gone for direct recruitment of the respondent no.6 in 2017, as rules prohibited such direct recruitment in exclusion of eligible candidates for promotions.
34. We have carefully gone through the said rules. It mentions that by promotion, failing that by direct recruitment in Column 11. But that doesn't mean, that at this stage, the appointment of respondent no.6 pursuant to a vacancy notification of 2013 and the actual appointment order dated 27.4.2017, the direct appointment of respondent no.6 Shri. Srikanta Maniklal Mondal to Master Grade I can be challenged.
35. We also do not find that there is any direct challenge to Annexure A-14 in this O.A, i.e., appointment order dated 27.4.2017 of Shri. Srikanta Maniklal Mondal to the grade of Master Grade I in this O.A. The said order should have been challenged then in 2017. From the simple reading of the said order in Annexure A-14 dated 27.4.2017 in SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2025.07.30 VIJU 10:15:49 +05'30' 23 O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE No.CS(II)/2577/RB/II/Master Gr-I/2, it is evident that the appointment is subject to the outcome of the pending court cases, if any. The applicants did not point out if any further litigation was there in the matter. Certainly, at this stage, trying to compare others' cases, the applicants have no locus-standi or ground to indirectly promote their own case by asserting that the said appointment order dated 27.4.2017 or the 2013 vacancy notification dated 19 to 25 Oct 2013 was in contravention of the provisions of the Navy Group C Non-Industrial Posts (Boats Crew) Recruitment Rules, 1981, which envisaged appointment to Master Grade I primarily through promotion and only in default failing that by direct recruitment. The case of the applicants is that they were very much eligible for the said promotion, so they could not have been over-looked to consider respondent no.6 for the direct recruitment on 27.4.2017. But as we have noted and already discussed, the facts are not as asserted by the applicants. As this direct recruitment had been advertised in the year 2013 Oct, when the applicants were not even promoted to Master Grade II. It is a fact that the applicants were actually promoted to Master Grade II only on 10.4.2014, although subsequently, their notional effective date of promotion was considered from 1.4.2011, but their actual experience as Master Grade II started on 10.4.2014, and their three years' experience SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2025.07.30 VIJU 10:15:49 +05'30' 24 O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE making them eligible to get promotion to the next grade of Master Grade I would have been effective from 10.4.2017 only. Hence, the case of Shri. Srikanta Maniklal Mondal being appointed as Master Grade I effective from 30.5.2017 vide appointment order dated 27.4.2017 pursuant to vacancy notification of 2013 October is distinct and different and independent of any claim of the applicants and their eligibility for promotion or seniority, as is in no way the said recruitment process was in contravention of the rules as pointed out above. Hence, We have no hesitation to say that the contentions of the applicants related to respondent no.6 Shri.Srikanta Maniklal Mondal, Master Grade I, a direct appointee from 27.4.2017 pursuant to 2013 vacancy notification, that the applicants' have a better claim to such an appointment to Master Grade I by promotion is not substantiated by the facts, rules and averments of the applicants.
36. Now let us examine independently the applicants' eligibility for promotion. It is a fact which is not denied that respondent no.4 had issued promotion order CS/4200/FOK/DPC/BCS dated 21.4.2021 wherein the applicant nos.1 and 2 were promoted to the post of Master Grade I with an effective date of 22.2.2021. SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2025.07.30 VIJU 10:15:49 +05'30' 25 O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
37. As we have discussed earlier, the applicants joined Master Grade II after their promotion from the post of Syrang/Sukhani Lascar on 10.4.2014. And their three years requisite experience, which is mentioned in column 12 of Navy Group C Non-Industrial Posts (Boats Crew) Recruitment Rules, 1981 in the Grade would be fulfilled on 10.4.2017 only when they had actual work experience of three years as Master Grade II, we find that the respondents have rightly considered the applicants for promotion for the vacancy year 2017-18, and not earlier.
38. Further, the rules mentions that to become a Master Grade I, one should have a certificate of competency in first class master, and it is not denied that the certificates of competency as obtained by the applicants was obtained only on 7.10.2015, and they submitted the said certificates to the office on 20.10.2015. It is clear from the rules that by submitting these certificates qualified them partly for the promotion to the Master Grade I, as they also required three years actual experience in the Master Grade II. From the record it is evident that the applicants were fully qualified with boat work experience as well as the educational qualification only on 10.4.2017 (having three year work experience as discussed earlier).
SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2025.07.30 VIJU 10:15:49 +05'30' 26 O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
39. Further our attention is drawn to Annexure A-19 dated 25.9.2020 of the Original Application which is a document regarding some adhoc arrangement towards safe operation and successful completion of the yard craft parade where persons in Master Grade II who were competent and eligible to operate crafts ordinarily operated by Master Grade I in the contingency of non-availability of staffs in Master Grade I, by which the applicants wanted to buttress their claim for earlier promotion, as it substantiated their competency. But such adhoc arrangements may not provide any legal advantage to advance their experience or educational qualification based competency. Hence, it may not support the case of the applicants.
40. The applicants have shown that there were vacancies in Master Grade I and Master Grade II at various points of time and they argued that if they were eligible in all respects to be promoted and there was a vacancy, then they had a right to be promoted on those dates. So, they assert that whatever is the earliest date of their eligibility, they should be given a promotion from that date and not from the date of their present promotion on 20.2.2021. The respondents at this stage asserted that promotion is not a fundamental right, merely because vacancies were available and eligible candidates were there at a certain point of SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2025.07.30 VIJU 10:15:49 +05'30' 27 O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE time the department was not bound to give promotion to the applicants on those dates if there were no such rule mandating such promotion. They further assert that one may have the right to be considered for promotion, but not the right for promotion per se. There are catena of Hon'ble apex Court rulings to that effect.
41. In Amit Singh v. Ravindra Nath Pandey and Others in Civil Appeal Nos.8324-27 of 2022, reported in (2022) 20 SCC 559, the Hon'ble Apex Court ruled that the seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of occurrence of the vacancy and cannot be given retrospectively unless it is so expressly provided by the relevant service rules and the seniority cannot be given on retrospective basis when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre and by doing so it may adversely affect the employees who have been appointed validly in the meantime.
42. In Union of India and Another v. Manpreet Singh Poonam and Others in Civil Appeal Nos.517-18 of 2017, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 105, the Hon'ble Apex Court ruled that a mere existence of vacancy per se will not create a right in favour of an employee for retrospective promotion when the vacancies in the promotional post are specifically SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2025.07.30 VIJU 10:15:49 +05'30' 28 O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE prescribed under the rules, which also mandate the clearance through a selection process.
43. As per the Apex Court judgment dated 26 October 1989 in the case of Union of India & Others vs K.K. Vadera & Others, it should be clear that after a post falls vacant for any reason whatsoever, a promotion to that post should be from the date the promotion is granted and not from the date on which such post falls vacant. This case law has not been controverted by the applicants.
44. Further, in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & others v. S.K. Dubey & others, Civil Appeal No.7830 of 2014, decided on 12.08.2014, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly ruled that in the absence of any express provision in the rules, no promotion or seniority can be granted from a retrospective date when the employee has not been borne in the cadre. All the promotions are prospective and from the date the person starts working. Apart from that, there is a long catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court which clearly ruled that there is no right to promotion, although there is a right to be considered for promotion.
SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2025.07.30 VIJU 10:15:49 +05'30' 29 O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
45. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bihar State Electricity Board and Others v. Dharamdeo Das (2024 SCC Online SC 1768) in Civil Appeal No.6977 of 2015 on 23.7.2024, ruled as follows:
"18. It is no longer res integra that a promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created. No doubt, a right to be considered for promotion has been treated by courts not just as a statutory right but as a fundamental right, at the same time, there is no fundamental right to promotion itself......."
46. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of West Bengal & Ors. v. Dr.Amal Satpathi and Others (2024 SCC Online SC 3512) in Diary No.43488 of 2023 on 27th November 2024, ruled that:
"21. While we recognize respondent No.1's right to be considered for promotion, which is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, he does not hold an absolute right to the promotion itself. The legal precedents discussed above establish that promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation. ......."
Whenever a post falls vacant, both options are open to the employer, either to fill up the same by promotion or not to fill up the SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2025.07.30 VIJU 10:15:49 +05'30' 30 O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE same at all and promotion cannot be given immediately on the same day or on the succeeding day if vigilance clearance and any other information about the employee has to be obtained as has been the fact in this case as asserted clearly shown by the respondents. Hence, the averments of the applicant and his request for antedating his promotion are not convincing.
47. In the case before us for some reason or another like pending court case etc., the DPC could not be conducted in time, even though the applicants were eligible for promotion since 10.4.2017 having three years' work experience as Master Grade II and having a certificate of competency to get promoted to Master Grade I which they had obtained on 7.10.2015. In view of the citations referred above at this stage the applicants cannot claim that their promotion should be advanced to 10.4.2017 (the date when he was eligible in all respect and vacancy was also available) although it is a fact that the applicants were considered for promotion for the vacancy year 2017-18 only, although they cannot be given seniority and emoluments from that date retrospectively. We record that such retrospective claim is neither supported by any rules placed before us, nor it is supported by any apex court rulings cited. The applicants have cited two rulings in their favour from Delhi High Court, SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2025.07.30 VIJU 10:15:49 +05'30' 31 O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE but there are large number of contrary rulings from the Apex Court, hence the two cited ruling may not make the right precedents.
48. Our attention is attracted by the applicants to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in S.P(C) 5802/2015 in the case of Dr.Ramakant Singh v. Union of India reported in 2016 SCC online Del 4828 wherein inter-alia other things, Court ruled the following:
"15. For the reasons aforegoing, we are unable to convince ourselves that the delay in holding the DPC was for any justifiable reasons. Taking into considerations the submissions made and for the reasons stated herein, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner will be granted notional promotion from the date when the vacancy arose, i.e., in the year 2009- 2010. "
49. In view of the contrary rulings of the apex court as discussed, this ruling may not be right precedent to give relief to the applicant.
50. Applicants further cited the Hon'bl'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P(C) 571/2016 in the case of Shri.Satish Kumar Khetarpai v. Director General CISF and Ors reported in 2017 SCC Online Del 7491, ruled that:
"14. It is well settled that ordinarily a promotion has prospective effect. The date of promotion is the date on which the employee is actually promoted, and not the date on which the vacancy arose, as held SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2025.07.30 VIJU 10:15:49 +05'30' 32 O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE by the Supreme Court in Nirmal Chandra Sinha vs. the Union of India reported in (2008) 14 SCC 29.
15. At the same time, every employee has a right to be considered for promotion as per his/her turn. Delay on the part of the department cannot enure to the disadvantage of an employee whose promotion has been delayed. If there is unjustified delay in granting promotion, as a result of which the concerned employee is seriously prejudiced, the employer would be liable for the delay, and the employee would be entitled to claim that his promotion should count from an earlier date. For example, the employee might be given promotion from the ============================== ============================== ========= date on which his junior was promoted so that his seniority is protected. The proposition that promotion may be given retrospective effect, finds support from the judgments of the Supreme Court in P.N. Premachandran Vs. State of Kerla and Others, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 255 and C.O. Arumugam and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others reported in 1991 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 199.
16. Administrative delay in conducting the Departmental Promotion Committee to hold promotions, does not in itself give candidates any right to retrospective seniority. However, as observed above, when there is any serious prejudice, caused to an employee by reason of delay in promotion for administrative reasons, not attributable to the employee, promotion would have to be given retrospective effect.
SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2025.07.30 VIJU 10:15:49 +05'30' 33 O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
51. This decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi is at variances with the various Hon'ble Apex Court rulings discussed above, hence it may not be right one to follow
52. The applicants have asserted that their seniority in Master Grade II was settled on 22.10.2019 which also substantiated an additional reason for delay in their promotion to the Master Grade I. Now at this stage, independent of any claim of discrimination under Article 14 and 16, we do not find any convincing ground in the case of the applicant, either when compared to Shri.Srikanta Maniklal Mondal whose claim was on independent footing being a direct recruitment, or their own merit to grant any relief. The cases of the applicants are very distinct from Shri. Srikanta Maniklal Mondal who came to Master Grade I as a Direct Recruitee through the recruitment process which started in 2013, and he was finally appointed in 2017 as Master Grade I. Hence, there is no cogent ground to give any direction to the respondents. Hence, we do not find any incongruity in the order dated 20.4.2021 in File No.CS/4200/FOK/DPC/BCS Panel (i) (Annexure A23).
53. Further, it is evident from the record that the promotion order to the higher Master Grade I for the applicants is dated 21.4.2021 in File No. CS/4200/FOK/DPC/BCS-Promotion Order (i) and both the SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2025.07.30 VIJU 10:15:49 +05'30' 34 O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE applicants were promoted with an effective date of 22.2.2021 and in the remarks it was mentioned that it was for the DPC year 2017-18. We do not find any deficiency in the said order (Annexure A24). Pursuant to the said order, the Annexure A-31 dated 31st Oct 22 draft seniority list in respect of Boat Crew Staff of Naval Base, Karwar was issued, wherein the respondent no.6 was shown at sl.no.2 with date of promotion in the present grade i.e., Master Grade I as on 30.6.2017 as direct recruitee and the applicant no.1 was shown at serial no.3 and applicant no.2 at serial no.4, and for them effective date of promotion in the present grade of Master Grade I was shown on 22.4.2021 as per their order of promotion. Now at this stage, if the applicants are arguing that as although their promotion is effective from 22.2.2021 but as they are promoted for the year 2017-18, hence, they should get their seniority from the vacancy year 2017-18, may not be convincing, as per the various citations discussed earlier. Further, it is pointed out by the respondent no.6 that the same contention can be taken by him also as their date of appointment in Master Grade I is pursuant to the vacancy notification in the year 2013. So, if any case is there for the applicants to pre-pone their seniority from promotion to the grade of Master Grade I from 2021 to their date of eligibility in the year 2017 and the vacancy year 2017-18, by the very same logic, the respondent no.6 will have a SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2025.07.30 VIJU 10:15:49 +05'30' 35 O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE case for their seniority to be counted from 2013 when their vacancy was advertised and not from 2017 when he was actually appointed to the Master Grade I. Hence, there is no better case for the applicants vis-à- vis the respondent no.6 by that ratio, although flawed.
54. We are clear in our mind about the settled case laws that all appointments and promotions are prospective, and there cannot be any valid retrospective claim of seniority based on vacancy year, or individual date of eligibility, and in cases where rule does not expressly provide for any claim to retrospective promotion. Hence, the applicants have failed to show us any facts or rules or rulings which in any way substantiate their case.
55. Based on the foregoing discussions, we have no doubt that the answer to all the four questions framed in paragraph 15 - 1(a), 1(b), 2 and 3 are in negative. Considering the facts of the case and the relevant rules, we are clear in our mind that the applicants have failed to substantiate any of their grounds and averments. Hence, we pass the following orders:
SHAINEY SHAI VIJU CAT NEY Bangalore 2025.07.30 VIJU 10:15:49 +05'30' 36 O.A.No.170/00487/2023/CAT/BANGALORE The Original Application is dismissed. Accordingly, all Miscellaneous Applications are disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Sv
SHAINEY
SHAI VIJU
CAT
NEY Bangalore
2025.07.30
VIJU 10:15:49
+05'30'