Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Laxmikant A Deshmukh vs M/O Defence on 29 January, 2020
j OA Nos. 17/2017,
661, 668, 667, 637, 659 and 658 of 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.17/2017
with OA Nos.661, 668, 667, 657, 659 and 6358 of 2016
Dated this Wednesday, the 29" day of January, 2020
CORAM : DR. BHAGWAN SAHAI, MEMBER {A}
SMT. H.P.SHAH, MEMBER ()
(1) OA No.L7/2017
af. Ghansham Subhash Bhalare, 4) years.
Son of Subhash Bhagirath Bhalare,
Residing at C-14, Karmalkuni,
B.U. Bhandari Greens Co-operative Society Limited,
Survey No.15/1/2, Dhanori, Pune-4]1 015.
2. Dinesh Chandrakant Bhasale, 40 years,
Son of Chandrakant Shankarrac Bhosale, Residing at 7/7,
Type-3, Range Hills Estate, Khadki, Pune -- 411 020.
3. Rajkumar Shamrao Patil, 45 years,
Son of Shamrag Pandurang Patil, Residing at H.No.500/9,
1* Lane, Jaymalanagr, Old Sangavi, Pune -- 411 027.
All are working as Junior Works Managers (Electrical) in High
-- SS X SS
Explosive Factory, Kirkee, Pune 411 003. . Applicants
VERSUS
1. Union of India, The Ministry of Defence, Through Secretary,
Department of Production, South Block, New Delhi 110 O11.
ba
The Director General and Chairman,
Ordnance Factory Board, 10-A, Shahid Khudiram Bose
Road, Kolkatta 700 001.
had
The General Manager, High Explosive Factory,
Rirkee, Pune 410 003. - Respondents
(2) OA No.661/2016
i. Kailas Chandra Mohanty, $3 years, Son of Magadi Mohanty,
Residing at C4/Gi, Mohangaram, Sai Kansai Section,
Ambernath (E), Thane District - 421 301,
bee
Gopinadhan P.V., 43 years, Son of Late M Banunaran,
Residing ai F-17, Ordnance Estate, Ambarnath (8),
Thane - 421503,
3
2 OA Nas U2017, >
661, 668, 667, 637, 659 and 658 of 2016
3. S. Jai Sanker, 44 vears, Son of DY Sunderesan,
Residing at F-16, Ordnance Estate,
sy
Crdnance Estate, Thane -- 421 302.
4 Samit Bhaumik, 44 vears, Son of fate Ashok Kumar
Bhaumik, Residing at F-13, Ordnance Estate, Ambarnath
CW), District Taane-421 302.
5. Uday Krishna Kalekar, 44 years, Son of Krishna B. Ralekar,
Residing at 008, Secand Floor Guruniaall Apartments,
Near Maull Nagar, Old Katrap Road, Kulgaon,
'Badlapar (East)-42] 303.
6. Vinit Ekanath Nehate. 41 years, Son of Eknath Dadhu
Nehate, Residing at Flat No.d02, Shri Siddhivinayak
Co-operative Housing Society, Above Bank of Baroda,
Rulgaon, Badlapur East} ~ 421 505.
All applicants are working as Junior Works Manager r (Electrical) in
Machine Tool Prototype Factory, Ambarnath,
"Trane 421 S02. » Applicants
VERSUS
i, Union of India, The Ministry of Defence, Through Secretary,
Depariment of Production, South Block, New Delhi 110 011
bs
The Director General and Chairman,
Ordnance Factory Board,
i0-A, Shahid Kbudiram Bose Road. Kolkatta 700 001,
ad
3. The General Manager, Machine Tool Prototype Factory,
Ambarnath, Thane 421 52. - Respondents
(3) OA No.668/2016 |
t. Swapan Poddar, 47 years, Son of Late L.N. Poddar,
Residing at IX/GA, Ordnance Estate, Ambernath (W),
Thane - 421 302.
2. Umesh M. rane 4] years, Son of Madhukar R.
Levangale, Residing at 703, Ba inv, Tulsa Garden, B Cabin
Road, Mari vai Pada, Amberta th CE), Thane ~ 421 501.
3. i Pandura ang Radam, 42 years,
-Rarichandra Kadam,
O03 Cym Sai Shrusti CLHLS.
Salva (W), Thane-400 608,
ey ORY
ATHY
LEE
ey
Pakhaci
3 OA Nos. 17/2017,
661, 608, 667, G37, 6S9 and 638 of 2016
hans
4, irishnakurnar M., 44 years, San of MK. Kamaran,
Residing at F-30, Ordnance Estate,
Ambernath (W), District Thane-421 S02.
tat
Paras Abhimanyn Jadhay, 41 years, Son of Abhimanyu R.
Jadhav, Residing at A/12, Madhuvan CHS, Plot No.3,
Shivganga Nagar, Ambernath (E), Thane ~ 421 401.
8. Jayashree P. Ghorpade, 42 years, Daughter of Madhukar K.
Kate, Residing at G-04, Sai Darshan Bldg, Motiram Park,
Ambernath (E), Thane --- 421 301.
A. Sathish Kumar, 42 years, Son of I. Arularaj,
Residing at Flat No.A-1/201, Panvelkar Regency,
-- Ambernath OW), Thane -- 421 501.
mead
All are working as Junior Works Managers (Electrical) in Ordnance
Factory, Ambarnath, Thane 421 501. - Applicants
VERSUS
i Union of India, The Ministry of Defence,
Through the Secretary, Department of Production,
South Block, New Delhi 110 011,
2. The Director General and Chairman,
Ordnance Factory Board, 16, A Shaheed Khudiram Road,
Kolkatta 700 001.
3. 'The General Manager, Ordnance F aCLOTY,
Ambarnath, Thane 421 301. ~ Respondents
(4) OA No.667/2016
t. Laxmikant A Deshmukh, Age 42 vears, Son of Ashok V
Deshmukh, Residing at Flat No.Al/702 Ganga Dham
Phase I, Bibwewadi, Pane 411 037.
bh
Ashish Sudhakar Koche, Age 39 years, Son of Sudhakar V
Koche, Residing at 20/12, Type DL, Range Hills Estate,
Khadki, Pune 411 020.
Lad
Dhanajay Bhiku Satav, Age 42 vears, Son of Bhiku Vishna
satay, Residing at 329, Ganesh Peth, Pune 411 602.
4, M.D Shukla, Age 47 years, Son of Devidas V Shukle,
oe
Residing at Plot No, Udhyarn Nagar, Pimopri, Pane 411 G18,
es
{sh Dada Katersavare, Age 36 years,
Sear cok Pada Vilehscanceh Magn wee Dee tft yt Sy awee eens
sau cf Dada Vishwanath Katarmevare, Residing at Survey
9.
1G.
iL.
6
yo
fod
id.
ee
tPa
«
16.
4 OA Nos 17/2017,
661, 668, G67, 687, 689 and 458 of 2016
No.28t, Anand Nagar, Dhanori Road, Lohgaon,
Pune 411 047.
Dipak V Deshmukh, age 44 years,
Son of Vishwas K Deshmukh, Residing at Type HL
Range Huis Estate, Khadki, Pune 411 020.
Smit. Vaishali Rajendra Jagtap, age 43 years,
Wifes of Rajendra Jagtap, Residing at A3, A-Wing,
Shivdutta Residency, Tuljai Vasti, Akurdl, Pane 411 035.
Sambhafi T. Bhuybal, Age 43 years,
Son of Tukaram Bhujbal, Residing at C-12,
Lokpriva Nagari, Vishwanath Phase [, Dhanori Road,
Vishrantwadi, Pune 411 014.
Mukond Radhkrishna Kulkarni, Age 42 years,
Son of Radhakrishne Vishnu Rutkarni,
Residing at ICC Housing Society, Seetor No.27/A,
PCN, Pradhikaran, Pune 411 044.
Smit. Anita D. Jadhav, 41 vears, Wife of Dattarava Jadhav,
Residing at Chintamani Apartment, Snidhamagar,
Chinchwad, Pune 411 022.
Bhanuhdas B, Salunke, 44 years, son of Bapurao Vi.
Salunke, Residing at Flat No.1, Vrundavan Park,
Survey No.32/12, Ambegaon Budruk Pune-41i 046.
SmiMeenal Sagar Jadhav, 43 years, Wile of Sagar Jadhav,
Residing at E=6/103, Rohan Mithila, New Airport Road,
Lohegaon, Pune~ 411 O32.
Sudhakar K. Gaikwad, 43 years
Son of Krishna R. Gaikwad, Residing at Fiat No. 204,
Sentosa Residency, Behind Mega Centre, Magarpatta
Fadapsar, Pune ~ 411 G13.
Ms.Deepa Subash Deshi, 42 years, Daughter of Subash
Dashi, Residing at DA'21, Clarion Park,
DP Road, Pune - 411 G07,
Dhananjay S » Namde, 42 vears, San of Shatrughna YNa amde,
at Kahitij, Plot No.22, Lane 14 C. Rahul Saciety,
wngees, Fume ~ 411 032,
CLOSES
CN SEAL, ke
Ashish Girl, 36 years, Wie of Ashish Kumar Gir
at Flat No,203, Bt Ving, Or Sat Residency,
JS/U1, Pimple Gurav, Pune ~ 477 051
OA Nos. i7/2017,
66, 668, 667, 637, 629 and G38 of 2 1s
ify
Yon
oh
Rajesh Kumar Das, $1 years, Son of Nagoswar P. Das,
Residing at A-35, Shubhankar Apartment,
Aundh Road, Pune--411 020.
L8. Ms. Rupali Shivdas Dalvi, 41 years, Daughter of Shivdas
Dalvi, Residing at 4-B, B-4, Kamdhenu Estates, Sajjangad,
Pune Sholapur Road, Hadapsar, Pune ~411 028.
Ashish Kumar Girt, 41 years, Son Ram Adhar Girl,
Residing at Flat No.202, D Wing, Om Sai Residency,
Survey No.73/1/1, Pimple Gurav, Pune -- 411 061.
Janse
ES
20. Shaheer Ali, 44 years, S'o $.M. Abdul Hakkim,
Residing at 14/1, Type-TV (SIPOREX},
Range Hills Estate, Khadki, Pune ~411 029.
All the applicants are working.as Junior Works Manager
(Technical/Chemical) In Ammunition Factory, Khadki,
Pune 411 003. .. Applicants
VERSUS
I, Union of India, Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Defence, Department of Production,
South Black, New Delhi 110 O11.
2. The Director General of Ordnance Factories and
Chairman, Ordnance Factory Board,
10, A Shaheed Khudiram Road . Rolkatta 740 081,
3, 'The General Manager, Ammunition Factory, Khadki,
Pune 411 003. - Respondents
(5) OA No.637/2016
L. Anil Rapartiwar, Age 33 years, Son of Narsingarao
Rapartiwar, Residing at Survey No.17, Gan-Gajanan Society,
Koregaon Park, Pune 411 O01.
Nm
Mohamedakbar Dharwadkar, age 56 years,
son of Mohamedakbar Dharwadkar,
Ria Shivaji Majagi, Annu Apariment, Sudharshan Nagar,
Lane No.3, Pimple Garay, Pune 411 G27,
Both are employed as Junior Works Manager (NT/Store) in
fo
Ammunition Factory Khadki, Pune 411 03. - Applicants
VERSUS
h Union of india, Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Defence, Department of Production,
south Black, New Delhi 110011,
be}
tod
yd
bh
Lad
lisa
& GA Nasi 7/2017,
661, 668, 667, O57, O59 and G38 of 2016
Director General and Chairman, Ordnance nn Board,
10, A Shaheed Khudiram Road, Kolkatta 700 00
The Senior General Manager, Ammunition Factory,
Khadki, Pune 411 003, - Respondents
(6) OA No.659/2016
Dulip Narayan Dhuri, 33 years,
Son of late Narayan G. Dhuri,
Residing at Plat No.6, A Wing, "BS Cabin Road,
Ambarnath Easi, Thane District $21 $01,
Suresh Kumar, 36 vears, Son of A G Nair,
Rat 202 Subhada Apartment, Navare Nagar,
Ambarnath East, Thane - 421 301,
Sanjay Keshav Vishe, 43 years,
Son of late Reshav Babu Vi ishe, Residing at H.No. $02,
Near Marathi School, Javssi Gaon, Ambernath West,
Thane ~ 421 502. | » Applicants
VERSUS
Union of India, Through Secretary,
The Ministry of Defence, Department of Production,
South Block, New Dethi 110 G11,
Director General and Chairman, Ordnanee Factory Board,
10-4, Shahid Khudiram Bose Road, Kolkatta 700 001.
The General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Ambarnath,
Thane Distriet 421 502. - Respondents
(7) OA No.638/2016
Sandeep Rawjirag Desai, 45 years,
Son of Rawjirao Bapurao Desai,
Residing at G-5, First Floor, B-Cabin Road,
Radhe Govind Nagar, Ambamath (E}, Thane ~ 421 502.
Lalit V. Sanhal, 43 vears. Son of Late Venugopal Sanhal,
Residing at 13, Vena g "Abode CHS Lid. Seed,
- Behind Dena Bank, Sreenagar, Thanef W)}400 604,
Crgambar Dattatray Kulkarni, 42 years,
Son of Dattatrava Vishnn Kulkami,
Residing at 10 "MC Wing, Radhe Govind Nagar.
NY
3! Cabin Road, Aimbarnath (E421 S01.
7 OA Nos.1 7/2017,
_ G61, 668, 697, 637, 659 and 658 of 2016
4. Kiran Harkisan Devdhekar, 42 years,
Son of Harkisan L. Devdhekar,
Residing at 24/1, New Type-Ill, Ordnance Estate,
Ambernath OW), District Thane-42] 302.
3. JM. Rameshkumar, 37 vears, Son of J] Mathan,
Residing at Flat No.@, Padma Apartments,
Shivshakti Nagar, B-Cabin Road, Ambarnath (£},
Thane ~ $21 30t.
All are working as. funior Works Manager (Mechanical) in
Ordnance Factory, Ambarnath, Thane 421 301. » Applicants
VERSUS
1, Linton of Indis, The Ministry of Defence,
Through Secretary, Department of Production,
South Block, New Delhi 110 011.
2. The Director General and Chairman,
Ordnance Factory Board, 10-A, Shahid Khudiram Bose
Road, Kolkatta 700 001.
3. The General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Ambarnath,
Thane 421) 502. - Respondents
Appearance ;
Sho PJ Prasadran, learned counsel for the applicants in all the OAs.
Sint RUB Shetty, lsamed counsel in OAT7/2017, Shri NR.Rajpurchit,
learned counsel in GA Nos. 6877/2016, 6S8/2016, 6359/2016, 667/2016 &
68/2016 and Shn Mohd Naved Mulla, proxy counsel for Shri
A.M. Sethna, learned counsel for respondents in OA. No.661/2016.
Order reserved on 30,09,2019
Order pronounced on 29.01.2026
ORDER
Per: Dr. Bhagwan Sahai, Member (A)
Since the subject matter involved im all these seven OAS is identical, with the consent of the learned counsels for the "O ariies, they were clubbed together, have been heard together Yes Feder, Set ma Pht * ton sy tie re SAM Aer are being decided by this common orcs te T beg yese OAs have been filed by the applicants seekin ae auashing and settine aside of order dated 22.12.2015 CAnnex g CHA Nos.17/2017, 661, 668, 667, 657, 639 and 658 of 1016.
A-1) issued by Director General, Ordnance Factories, Kolkata altering dates of their earller promotional orders as Junior Works Managers in different trades from Chargemen issued on 28.07, 2010 in cases of applicants in OAs at Serial] Nos. ito4 above, on 18.10.2011 and 30.08.2012 for applicants in OA a Serial Na.S, on 15.11.2012 in case of applicant in OA at Serial No.6 and on 24.02.2011 and 22.06.2011 in case of applicants in OA at Serial No.7. They are seeking direction to the respondents not to alter their dates of earlier promotions and ta retain their seniority published on 18.10.2011 and 30.08.2012 and not to re-fix their salary on notional basis from those dates. They have also sought cost of these OAs from the respondents.
After hearing the learned counsel for the applica on 30.09.2016, interim relief was granted to maintain status quo with regard to pay and status of the applicants till the next date of hearing and has been continued till the OAs were finally heard on 30.09,2019,
2. Sunnmnarized faets:
2{a}. The applicants in these GAs have stated that they were promoted from Chargernen Grade | ta Junior Works Managers as per the following orders:
9 OAS WOR, P Tie OL? fy 661, 668, 667, 687, 659 and 638 of 2016 OA Nos. "Applicants 'Name 'Date of revised Dates of promotion 'Ordnance orders for JW M Factory based on final orders 'centralized ' promoting as.
seniority list © [JWM_ based.
on, factory, level seniority lists (17/2017 [Ghansham S221 N18 28/07/10 'Bhalare&2Or. | 6612016 | Kailash Chandra' 22/ER/1S | LLAGL6 Mohanty & 5 Ors, |
68) 2016 'Swapan Poddar & 6.
'Ors.
a : :
6672 16 | 'Laxmikant A. 28/07/10 (22/12/15 | | Deshmukh & 19 Ors.
'657/2016 Anil Rapartiwar & 22/12/15 Ann.
Sad end cS me ee | oO 6539/2016 Dilip Narayan Dhuri/ 22/12/15 2 ALS ! &20rn, jo Wa bane pees reek bo (658/2016 Sandeep Rawiraa 22/12/15 24.02.2011 &! 2 | Desai & 4 Ors, 22.06.2011 | 2(b). The earlier promotional orders were issued based on previously published seniority lists of Chargemen. Based on acceptance of recommendations of V1 Central Pay Conmunission, and as per the order of Director General, Ordnance Factories dated 04.02.2011 (Annex A-9}) the pasts af Assistant Forernan (Group B} Non-Gezetted and Junior Works Manager (Technical) Group B were merged as Tumor Works Manager (Technical) Group B Gazetted and the posts of # Foreman / Store Holders (Groun B Non-Crazetted) and Junior 1g OA Nos. EF/017, 661, 668, 667, 657, 659 and 638 of 2016 Works Manager' Non-Technical' Store, Group B Gazetted were merged from 01.01.2006 In the posts of Junior Works Managers (Non-Technical/Store) Group B Gazetted in Pay Band Il (Rs,9,300-34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4, 600/-) as per the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 dated 29.08.2008.
2(e). DOPT im OM -- dated = 13.09.2012 issued euidelines/instructions regarding seniority of officers holding posts or grades in those grades which were merged in pursuance to acceptance of VI Central Pay Commission recommendations, I[t is claimed that alteration in the dates of their regular promotions to notional promotions will result in loss of senlority, downgrading of their pay on refixation, reduction of increments earned by them earlier as Jumor Works Managers and also loss of future promotional prospects because the residency period for subsequent promotions will get extended. Hence these OAs have been filed.
2(d). In another OA No.2241/2016, this Bench of the Tribunal in its order dated 22.01.2016 stayed operation of the impugned order dated 22.12.2015 based on decision of the Principal Bench dated 13.01.2016 in OA No él of 2016
3. Cantentions of the parties :
In the OAs and during the arguments of their counsel on 30.09.2019, the applicants contend that -
i OA Nos. 17/2017, 661, 668, 667, 657, 659 and 638 of 2016 3{a). before : altering _ dates of their promotions by the impugned order, there were not issued any show cause notice and were neither heard nor given opportunity to make representations. Thus the principles of natural justice have not been observed;
3(b). as per Article 31] @) of the Constitution, reduction in rank can be done only as a measure of penalty after conducting proper inquiry. But no such procedure has been followed by the respondents before issuing the impugned order. The respondents Nos.2 and 3 who have issued the impugned order are not the Competent Authority to alter dates of their promotions which can be done only after taking sanction of the Hon'ble President of India or any other authority to whom sach | powers have been delegated:
Ae}. although there has been no recovery of the arrears from the applicant because of the altered dates of their promotions, they will be placed lower in the seniority list of Junior Works Managers which will have cascading effect on their future promotions;
3{d)}. they were promoted on regular basis as per the earlier orders, agamst existing vacancies and thereafier have C3 onlinuously discharged duties as Junior Works Managers but because of the pupugned order they have becorne Junior and this lowering of their seniority would armount to reversion;12 OA Nos. 1 V2017,
661, 668, 667, 637, 639 and 658 of 2016 i 3fe). the impugned revised order of promotions has been issued by the respondents after two to three years of the earlier orders which is not permissible as per the Apex Court decision in case of Chief Post Master General Vs. Living Media India Limited, AIR 2012 SC 1506 holding that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for Government de 'parimen 3%). while issuing the revised prom sotional order dated } 22.12.2015, prescribed procedure has not been followed by the respondents and therefore, it is Hable to be set aside. Hence these OAs should be allowed, In their reply fled on 29.03.2017 and arguments of their ecounsels-on 30.09.2019, the respondents contend that o Aig). before implementation of VI Central Pay Commission recommendations, Non-Technical Supervisory Cadre in the Ordnance Factories Oreanization was as follows:
"Junior Works Manager (Non-Tech) { Foreman/Stere Holder (Non-Tech} I Chargeman Gr. 1 (Non-Tech) I Chargeman Gr. i CNon-Tech}"
oN xe posts of Chargemen Grade HW (Non-Technical) were re fege 3th).
unitfactory based posts and their seniority swag maintained by § ~ € £Vevetan NPE] AS WY a re ry the respective Ordnance Factories, There was no centralized t3 OA NOs. 17/2017, G01, 658, 667, G37, G39 and G58 of 2016 Adl India Se eniority List of Chargeman Grade I for promotion to the posts of Chargemen Grade I. Such promotions were granted by the respective Ordnance Factories on the basis of vacancies available with them. However, for promotions Irom the post of Chargeman Grade I (Non-Technical) ta Foreman/Store Holder and Chargeman Grade I (Technical) to Assistant Foreman were made on the basis of C entralized/s India Seniority Lists of Chargeman Grade | in their respective disciplines, which were maintained centrally by the Ordnance Factory Board, Kolkata, Thus before implementation of VI Central Pay Commission recommendations, the Chargeman Grade If were promoted to Chargeman Grade I on the basis of Seniority List of Chargeman Grade I] maintained by the respective factories but once they got promoted to Charzeman Grade I, particulars of all those Chargeman Grade 1 were forwarded by the respective factories to Ordnance Factory
-
Board for preparing their centralized seniority lists;
3(}, since as per the VI Central Pay Commission recommendations, the post of Chargeman Grade 1 and Chargeman Grade [1 were merged and renamed as Chargeman with Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/- and the post of Assistant Foreman/Forerman/Store Holder were merged wih Junior Werks Managers with Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/- as per the we CGrdnance Factory order dated 04.02.2011. Because of this ig OA Nos.) 7/2017, 851, 668, 667, 657, 659 and 655 af 2016 merger, the post of Chargeman became feeder post for Junior Works Manager and the eligibility criteria became residency
--
period of six years in the grade of Chargeman;:
tg (). for promotion to the post of Junior Works Manager, therefore, the seniority of Chargernan Grade I had to be decided afresh. The main issue for deciding this was whether the crucial date for determining seniority should be the date of holding the post of Chargeman Grade I or Chargeman Grade Il. This issue has been resolved by the DOPT OM dated 13.09.2012 stipulating that the seniority of the Government servants which existed an 29.08.2008 will be maintained Le.
were the promotional post for a feeder grade, will rank en-bloc senior to those holding the posts having lower pay scales o the posts of feeder grade;
3(k). because of the above clarification issued by the DOPT, individuals who were holding posts of Chargeman Grade I {promotional post} on 29.08.2008 were to be treated as en-bloc senior to those who were still holding the post of Chargeman a 53 fo fn % Jremet pened got he feeder grade post. Accordingly, the seniority list a of Chargemen had to be recast for assigning proper seniority to the coricemed persons, To carry out this task of working out of seniority list of Chargeman after merger of the posts, vide Ordnance Factory i5 OA Nos. 17/2017, 661, 668, 667, 657, 689 and 638 of 2016 Board letter dated 07.05.2013 LAnnex R-1), a task force was constituted which submitted its report on 21.11.2014 along with draft centralized seniority st of Chargeman. While recasting this seniority list of Non-Technical OTS and Store discipline, it was noticed that names of some incumbents were not inchided in the seniority lise of Chargeman Grade I although they were actually holding those posts as on 29.08.2008 and therefore, those individuals were included In the draft seniority list of Chargeman by placing them en-bloc senior. That draft seniority list of Junior Works Managers thus prepared was circulated by the voctnance Factory Board dated ASL 2014. Paragraph No.9 of that order mentioned that the seniority lst are also subject to revision of this Central Seniority List of Chargeman (Non-Technical/OTS/Stores) pending with the task foree;
3). in view of this, the seniority assigned to the applicants earlier at the level of individual Ordnance Factories was mat the finally settled seniority and the applicants in the prese OAs belong to this category Le. they became junior in the centralized seniority list to these whe were already working as Chargeman Grade I on 29.08.2008. Therefore, the earler promotions granted to the applicants as Junior Works Managers superceding their seniors were erroneous. Hence those promotions of the applicants had to be reviewed in terms 16 OA Nos. 17/2017, 661, 668, 667, 627, 639 and 658 of 2016 of the revised Central Seniority List. The applicants cannot claim ta have a right to deprive their seniors of their night and therefore, the erroneous promotions granted to the applicants cannot be restored depriving those who are higher in the seniority;
Sim). by circulating the revised Central Seniority List dated 25.11.2014, adequate opportunity wes provided to all concemed including the present applicants, to submit their representations. The representations received on that list were again referred back to the task force, which were duly considered as per the applicable rules and data obtained from the concemed factories and the seniority lists of ¢C hargernan prepared by the task force were again revised and republished on auatanis Representations received against those revised seniority lists were again considered and the fingl seniority list of Chargeman as on 01.01.2009 was published on 1O.08.2015. Thus, in the finally revised seniority Hst of 'hargeman, those Chargeman who had not been included in the earlier seniority list of Chargeman Grade I were included, because of which the individuals such as the applicants got pushed down in camparison to those who were already working as Chargerman on 29.08 2008;
Ain}. but to aveid reversion of the already promoted Junior Wert Me as : ees yi VAPAOATAS verre treed fre wy the VOTES Bepareig ESTs, ROCUOONaA VRCGNCIOS Were LALLIZS PROSITE GES overall streneth of Junior Works Mana agers by holding regular DPC with other disciplines for vacancies up to the year 2015- 2016, and instead of reverting such persons, their promotions were made on notional basis as per the impugned. order of Ordnance Factory Board dated 22.12.2015. Thus the individuals who were holding the posts of Junior Works Manager on 18.11.2014 ie. when the revised seniority list of Chargemarn was published, have been promoted from different dates. The applicants have tried to mislead the Tribunal by presenting the facts in a fabricated marmer and there is no merit in them; and 3(o). the decision of the Principal Bench in an identical case dated 04.04.2019 in OA No.274/2016 held that since the applicants therein had not challenged the revised seniority list, alteration of dates of promotions based thereon could not be challenged. As the present applicants have not challenged the revised seniority list of Chargeman as on 01.01.2009 issued on 10.08.2015, based on which the promotions of applicants and others were reviewed and thereafter, appropriate dates of promotions were assigned to them by the respondents under 1989 Rules, they cannot seck retention oF dates of their earlier erromeaus promotions whieh were based on factory level seniority lists and not on centralized seniority lists of i8 OA Nos. 17/26 O17 561, 668, 667, 637, 659 and 438 of 2016 Chargeman. In view of these facts and submissions these OAs be dismissed.
4, Analysis and conclusions:
4{a). We have carefully considered the contents of the OAs with their annexes, and replies filed by the respondents. The applicants in these OAs have not filed any rejoinders contesting submissions of the respondents in their replies. We have also considered the rival contentions in the arguments. of the parties and the caselaw cited by the respondents.
4(b). The applicants in these OAs are seeking retention of dates of their earlier promotions instead of the altered dates of promotion as per the impugned order issued by the Ordnance Factory Board, Kolkata dated 22.12.2015. The undisputed facts in these OAs are the ae {i} The seniority lists of Chargeman Grade II are maintained at factory level but the seniority lists of Chargeman Grade I are maintained at central level by the Ordnance v Factory Board, Kolkata.
(i) The applicants were promoted on different dates in 2010, 2011 and 2012 (as given in above table) at the level of f individual Ordnance Factories based on factory level seniority lists.
19 OANos. 7/2087,
661, 668, 687,687, 689 and 638 of 2016 Gi} Based on VI Central Pay Commission recommendations, the posts of Chargeman Grade I and Grade Il were merged and renamed as Chargeman in Pay Band U with Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/- and the posts of Assistant Junior Works Managers with Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/- as per Ordnance Factory order dated 04.02.2011.
{iv}. The combined seniority lists of Chargeman and Junior | Works Managers (Technical and Non-Technical) have been subsequently revised as per the instructions in DOP&T OM dated 13.09.2012 stipulating that seniority of the Government servants which existed on 29.08.2008, (the date of acceptance by Government of India of VI Central Pay Cormission recommendations) is to be maintained and holders of posts of higher pay scales or posis which constituted promotional posts for the feeder grade will rank en-bloc senior to those holding the posts with lower pay scales or post in the feeder grades, (vj. Por preparing centralized list of Chargeman (Technical and Non-Technical) as per the above DOPT OM, the Ordnance Factory Board constituted a seven-member Task Force by its order dated O7.05.2013, Based on recommendations of that tusk force, covering various aspects related to determination of seniority and methodulogy to be followed, the Ordnance HH Factory Board published on 25.11.2014 the draft seniority lists 20 OA Nas.1 7/2017, 661, 668, 687, 637, 659 and 658 of 2016 of Chargeman {Technical and Non-Technical) as on 01.01.2009 onwards up to OL.01.2013. All concerned with those lists were given opportunity for submitting comments / representations by 10.12.2014. The representations received "5.
an those seniority lists were again referred to th i task force and the draft seniority lists of Chargeman were again revised and republished on 20.04.2015. Representations received on those revised seniority list were also duly considered by the - respondents as per the provisions under the rules and data received from the concerned factories and thereafter, 2 a finally revised seniority list of Chargeman as on 01.01.2009 Was, published by the Ordnance Factory Board on 10.08.2015.
(vi) The main change in the revised seniority lists of Chargeman was inclusion of those individuals who were already working as Chargeman on 29.08.2008 and who have become senior as compared to other individuals lke the present applicants who got promoted as Chargeman after that pores date.
xs (vil). Based on the finally revised seniority list, promotion orders of the individuals in Pay Band Rs.9,300-34,8600/- plus Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/- had to be reviewed. This was done by the Review DPC and based on their recommendations, rages ere ee EERE ee AX colette we echnical/Store}, Assistant Foreman (Non-Teechnical/Store) to Tunior Works Managers
3) OA Nos.17/2017, 681, 668, 667, 657, 659 and 658 of 2016 were issued by the impugned order dated 22.12.2015 by which the earlier promotions of the applicants got converted into notional promotions because of their lower ranks in the finally revised seniority list of Chargeman.
(vill) In fact, in spite of lower ranks of the applicants in the revised seniority list, the respondents have not reverted them and in fact, they have given them the benefit of seniority by way of notional promotions.
dic). The present applicants have net challenged the finally revised seniority lists of Chargeman published by the respondents on 10.08.2015 im which their seniority ranked lower, and based on which the review DPCs recommended the altered dates of their promotions. When the applicants have not challenged the finally revised seniority list, they cannot find fault with the subsequent logical follow-up action of the' respondents taken based on that seniority list.
4(d). From the undisputed facts of the cases explained by the respondents as above, which have not been countered by the applicants, in our opinion, the action taken by the respondents is fully justified. It is based on detailed examination of the subject of determining senjority of the Chargeman and recommendations of the task force, based on which the finally revised seniority Hsts of Chargeman as on 01.01.2009 onwards were published on 10.08.2015 and the promotion orders have 22 OA Nos. L/2017, hee 681, 668, GST, 647, 639 and 638 of 2016 been issued based on the recommendations of the review DPC. We do not find any flaw or infirmity in the action of the respondents. Therefore, we da not find any merit in these OAs, and they deserve dismissal, The same opimion has also been taken by the Principal Bench in its decision dated 14.04.2019 in OA No.274/2016.
ae 5, Peeision:
Ths Q Cd.
& Or oe ee) These OAs are dismissed.
(Smt. HLPShah) (Dr. Bhagwan Saliait' ' Member (Judicial) Member (Administrative) kmg/H.