Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Jitender Garg vs M/O Defence on 24 February, 2026
1
Item No. 39 O.A. No. 2684/2018
Court No. IV
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 2684/2018
Reserved on :- 13.02.2026
Pronounced on:- 24.02.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
1. Jitender Garg, S/o Sh. Mehar Chand Gupta,
Age: 40 Years
T.No.4996,Vm(Mv),,
Add: Flat No. 1147, Pkt. Gh 5 & 7,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-87.
2. Diwan Singh S/o Late Sh. Madan Singh Bisht
Age: 57years,
T.No. 4990, Vm(Mv),
Add: Flat No.55, Sector-11,
Pocket -2. Dwarka, New Delhi.
3. Birham Prakash, S/o Sh. Begraj,
Age: 54 Years
T.No. 4991. Vm(Mv),
Add: Village- Kharkhera,
P.O. Dharuhera, Teh. Rewari.
Distt.: Rewari, Haryana, Pin:123106.
...Applicants
(All are vehicle mechanic Group 'C')
(By Advocates: Mr. B. L. Wanchoo with Mr. G. D. Chawla)
Versus
1. The Director General of EME, IHQ(Army), South
Block, New Delhi.
2. The Commander, Head Quarter Base Workshop
Group, Meerut Cantt. (UP).
3. The Commandant, 505, Army Base Workshop Delhi
Cantt. 110010
ANKIT ANKIT
SAKLANI
SAKLAN2026.02.27
10:42:47
I +05'30'
2
Item No. 39 O.A. No. 2684/2018
Court No. IV
4. Sunil Kumar S/o Sushil Kumar, Age-43 years, T.No-
4966, Section SEG, 505 Army Base Workshop Delhi
Cantt-110010
5. Harvinder Singh S/o Late Shri Sarmukh Singh,. Age-
43 years, T.No-4967, Section-SEG, 505 Army Base
Workshop Delhi Cantt-110010
6. Naveen Kumar, Age-43 years, T.No-4971, Section --
SEG, 505 Army Base Workshop Delhi Cantt-110010
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Gyanendra Singh)
ANKIT ANKIT
SAKLANI
SAKLAN2026.02.27
10:42:47
I +05'30'
3
Item No. 39 O.A. No. 2684/2018
Court No. IV
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
In the present Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"1. That this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order by directing the respondents to promote all the three petitioners according to their eligibility and Merit List by complying with the instructions contained in the Office Memorandum No. 22011/7/86-Estt.(D), dated the 3rd July, 1986 of Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India.
2. The Department has prepared the list of seniority (Seniority) Roll on the basis of Merit. In the Annexure- F of letter No. 20205/RTI/12/LC(JG) dt. 19.8.2017 on the column Order of Seniority if taken as per Merit at the Time of Initial Appointment". The applicants name appears at SNo. 8, 9 and 17. Therefore, respondents may be directed to consider their claim at par with the junior who got HS-II and HS-I promotion from the date 21.3.2003 and 1.1.2006 from the date of their juniors were promoted.
3. May please to grant all the consequential benefits by directing the respondents to grant respective promotion and MACP as applicable
4. Be pleased to grant any other relief or reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper under circumstances of the case."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the present Original Application has been filed by the three applicants challenging the seniority roll prepared by the respondents after their appointment to the post of VM (MV) in the year 2000 pursuant to a competitive examination.
2.1. Learned counsel further submitted that although the applicants were selected through the same examination and ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:47 I +05'30' 4 Item No. 39 O.A. No. 2684/2018 Court No. IV joined service on different dates in the months of February and March 2000, their inter se seniority has wrongly been fixed on the basis of date of joining rather than on the basis of merit position in the select panel.
2.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the illegality came to light only when some of the juniors to the applicants were granted promotion while the applicants were ignored. On making inquiries, the applicants sought a copy of the select/merit list of the year 2000 examination, but the respondents did not provide the same. Thereafter, the applicants were constrained to seek the information under the RTI Act; however, even under the RTI Act the respondents failed to furnish the merit list. Thereafter, the applicants filed a first appeal which also remained unattended, compelling them to approach the Central Information Commission. The CIC, vide order dated 31.03.2017, passed strictures against the respondents and directed them to provide a copy of the merit list. It was only thereafter, on 24.04.2017, that the respondents supplied a copy of the selection panel, from which the actual merit position of the applicants was revealed. 2.3. Learned counsel pointed out that the merit list disclosed that Applicant No. 1, Jitender Garg, was placed at Serial No. 5 with 34/60 marks, Applicant No. 2, Diwan Singh, was placed at Serial No. 2 with 33/60 marks, and Applicant No. 3, ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:47 I +05'30' 5 Item No. 39 O.A. No. 2684/2018 Court No. IV Birham Prakash, was placed at Serial No. 3 with 31/60 marks. However, in the seniority roll, they were placed much lower, at Serial Nos. 35, 29 and 30 respectively, solely on the basis of date of joining. This clearly establishes that the seniority was not fixed in accordance with merit position but arbitrarily on the basis of joining dates. 2.4. Learned counsel further submitted that immediately after obtaining the merit list, the applicants made representations dated 18.05.2017 and 01.11.2017. The respondents themselves, through the office of Col. Admn., forwarded the case to HQs Base Workshop Group (their higher formation) on 12.07.2017, admitting that the seniority had been fixed on the basis of dates of joining and not as per the merit list.
2.5. Learned counsel contended that the records and comments forwarded to the higher authorities clearly indicate that the select panel prepared by the Board of Officers had not been followed and that the seniority roll had been prepared contrary to the select panel. The respondents also acknowledged that if the seniority had been fixed as per merit, Applicant No. 1 would have been placed at Seniority Level Five instead of Thirty-Five. Thus, the respondents themselves have admitted the mistake and the violation of the applicable rules. ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:47 I +05'30' 6 Item No. 39 O.A. No. 2684/2018 Court No. IV 2.6. Learned counsel further contended that the fixation of seniority on the basis of date of joining is in direct contravention of the DOPT OMs dated 03.07.1986 and 04.11.1992, which mandate that seniority is to be determined on the basis of merit in the select panel. Despite admitting the error, the respondents have taken no corrective action and have shifted the blame among different sections of the department, citing loss of records and death of dealing officials.
2.7. Learned counsel emphasized that the applicants cannot be blamed for any delay. The applicants came to know of the irregularity only after the CIC order dated 31.03.2017 and the supply of the select panel on 24.04.2017. They made representations promptly thereafter and filed the present OA within the period of limitation. Therefore, no delay or laches can be attributed to them. It was further submitted that the respondents cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong in withholding the select panel and then raising the plea of delay.
2.8. Learned counsel also rebutted the contention of the respondents that a similar OA had earlier been dismissed on the ground of delay. It was argued that the applicants therein were not provided with the select panel and could not produce any record of their merit position. In contrast, the present ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:47 I +05'30' 7 Item No. 39 O.A. No. 2684/2018 Court No. IV applicants have challenged the seniority roll on the basis of the select panel which was disclosed only in the year 2017. Hence, their claim stands on an entirely different footing. 2.9. In support of the submissions regarding delay and limitation, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mool Chandra versus Union of India, CA No. 8435-8436 of 2024 (decided on 05.08.2024), wherein it was held asunder:
"22. If negligence can be attributed to the appellant, then necessarily the delay which has not been condoned by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court deserves to be accepted. However, if no fault can be laid at the doors of the appellant and cause shown is sufficient then we are of the considered view that both the Tribunal and the High Court were in error in not adopting a liberal approach or justice oriented approach to condone the delay."
2.10. Further reliance was placed on Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak vs Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, CA No. 4134/200 decided on 18.05.2022, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"10. At the same time, the law recognises a 'continuing' cause of action which may give rise to a 'recurring' cause of action as in the case of salary or pension. This Court in M.R. Gupta v. Union of India and Others,10 has held that so long as the employee is in service, a fresh cause of action would arise every month when they are paid their salary on the basis of a wrong computation made contrary to the rules. If the employee's claim is found to be correct on merits, they would be entitled to be paid according to the properly fixed pay-scale in future and the question of limitation would arise for recovery of the arrears for the past period. The 10 (1995) 5 SCC 628 Court held that the arrears should be calculated and paid as long as they have not become time-
barred. The entire claim for the past period should not be rejected."
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:47 I +05'30' 8 Item No. 39 O.A. No. 2684/2018 Court No. IV 2.11. Pointing out to the afore-quoted judgments, learned counsel submitted that the wrongful fixation of seniority is a continuing wrong which affects promotions and service benefits, and therefore gives rise to a recurring cause of action.
2.12. Learned counsel also relied upon the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in Kartikaye Mathur versus Union of India & Ors., OA No. 466/2013, wherein it was observed:
"5....When the matter was heard earlier, learned counsel for the respondents sought time to seek instruction in the matter and file reply. Sh. R.N.Singh, counsel appearing for DOPT, respondent No. 2, informs that the grievance of the applicant has already been redressed as the cadre controlling authority of the applicant is instructed for fixation of seniority in order of marks obtained by the candidates. He submits that in this regard, as per advice of the Commission, necessary directions to all the cadre controlling authorities have been issued for the fixation of seniority in order of marks obtained by the candidates vide letter dated 08.08.2013. He, therefore, submits that since the only grievance of the applicant is with regard to fixation of his inter-se-seniority on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates, as provided by the DOP&T through OM No. 41019/18/97-Estt (B) dated 13.06.2000, and the cadre controlling authorities have now been instructed to fix seniority as per marks obtained by the candidates, nothing survives to be decided by this Court. The applicant also fairly submitted that the respondents may therefore be directed to prepare seniority list keeping in view the mark obtained, within a reasonable period of time.
6. In view of the submission made and also as agreed to by the parties, we dispose of this matter at this stage with the direction to the respondents to fix seniority of the applicant as per the marks secured by him in the examination, meaning thereby that he should be placed above the candidates who have secured less than 1197 marks. However, it would be open to the applicant to approach the Tribunal again in the event the respondents fail to prepare the seniority list keeping in view the marks obtained by the applicant."
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:47 I +05'30' 9 Item No. 39 O.A. No. 2684/2018 Court No. IV 2.13. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel for the applicants argued that HS-II and HS-I are the next higher promotional grades in the cadre, and that due to the incorrect fixation of seniority on the basis of date of initial joining instead of the merit position in the select panel, the applicants were placed much lower in the seniority roll, resulting in their juniors being considered and promoted earlier to HS-II and thereafter to HS-I. It was contended that had the seniority been correctly fixed as per merit, the applicants would have been placed higher and would have been entitled to consideration for promotion to HS-II and HS-I from the same dates on which their juniors were promoted, along with all consequential service benefits.
3. Opposing the Original Application, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present OA is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed, as the seniority of the applicants was fixed strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and administrative orders. It was contended that the applicants, along with other candidates, were appointed as Vehicle Mech (MV) in the year 2000 and their seniority was determined in terms of CPRO 73/73 read with 11/75 and 2/99, i.e., on the basis of merit obtained in the selection read with the reservation roster and the date of initial appointment (physically joining).
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:47 I +05'30' 10 Item No. 39 O.A. No. 2684/2018 Court No. IV 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the seniority based on merit in respect of industrial personnel appointed in the trade of VM (MV) was published vide DO Part-II No. 455/Est (Ind) dated 29.07.2000 and thereafter the seniority roll for various trades was again circulated vide DO Pt-1 No. 254 dated 21.05.2002 inviting objections, if any, to be submitted by 31.05.2002. However, no objection was raised by the applicants at the relevant time and, therefore, the seniority attained finality.
3.2. Learned counsel contended that the applicants have approached this Tribunal after an inordinate delay. In this regard, reliance was placed on the fact that similarly placed employees, namely Shri Amin Kumar, Shri Naresh Chand and Shri Rajeev Kumar, had earlier filed OA NO. 2890/2014 before this Tribunal seeking refixation of seniority with effect from 21.02.2000, but the same was dismissed as time-barred vide order dated 26.08.2014. Therefore, the present OA is also hit by delay and laches.
3.3. Learned counsel submitted that the applicants' contention that seniority was not fixed properly is incorrect. It was explained that Applicant No. 1 joined on 06.03.2000, whereas Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 joined on 21.02.2000, and accordingly seniority was assigned as per date of initial appointment in terms of the applicable instructions. ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:47 I +05'30' 11 Item No. 39 O.A. No. 2684/2018 Court No. IV 3.4. Learned counsel further contended that the seniority roll was prepared on the basis of total merit marks and the date of physically joining duty, as per CPRO 73/73 read with 11/75 and 2/99. It was further contended that the document relied upon by the applicants is not a merit list but only a select panel, and that the seniority had already been fixed and published in the year 2000 itself.
In view of the above submissions, learned counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissal of the O.A.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
5. ANALYSIS :
5.1. In the instant OA, applicant No. 1, who was granted promotion to HS-II on 28.03.2008, seeks ante-dating of the said promotion w.e.f. 21.02.2003 and further promotion to HS-I w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Applicant No. 2, who was granted HS-
II on 06.11.2004, seeks ante-dating of his HS-II promotion w.e.f. 21.02.2003 and HS-I w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Similarly, Applicant No. 3, who was granted HS-II on 06.11.2004, seeks ante-dating of his HS-II promotion w.e.f. 20.05.2003 and HS-I w.e.f. 01.01.2006. All the applicants have also sought consequential relief(s).
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:47 I +05'30' 12 Item No. 39 O.A. No. 2684/2018 Court No. IV 5.2. The premise on which the applicants lay their claim is twofold: firstly, that the seniority list was never circulated; and secondly, that the seniority which had been in operation was prepared on the basis of the respective dates of joining rather than on the merit position of the individuals in the selection process. There is apparent folly in the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the applicants, which is being dealt with in the succeeding paragraphs.
5.3. It is observed that similarly placed employees had earlier filed O.A. No. 2890/2014, titled Amin Kumar & Ors. Vs. Director General of EME & Ors., seeking the following relief(s):
"(1) The applicant be redesignated as HS wef 20.05.2003 in accordance with the seniority roll as it was on 21.02.2000.
(2) The applicant be given HS Grade 1, w.e.f. 01.01.2006 In accordance with the senlority as it was on 21.02.2002.
(3) All other benefits as accrued by way of promotions & financial gains.
(4) The respondents be directed to do the needful immediately as the time of six months as asked for, has already passed in addition to the time already gained after the representation submitted on 11.11.2011."
5.4. Noticeably, the Principal Bench dismissed the said O.A. vide order dated 26.08.2014 (a fact on which the present applicants remain silent), observing as under:-
"2. It is evident from the aforenoted that the matter relates to seniority list dated 21.02.2000 and the benefits claimed by the applicants are w.e.f. 20.05.2003 and 01.01.2006. No application for condonation of delay has been filed.
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:47 I +05'30' 13 Item No. 39 O.A. No. 2684/2018 Court No. IV
3. We, therefore, conclude that the OA Is hit by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and is time-barred specially when no application has been made for condonation of delay."
5.5. The interests involved were identical and stood sufficiently represented in the earlier round of litigation, and therefore the present applicants are also barred from re- litigating the same issue, being covered under the principle of constructive res judicata. The applicants cannot be characterized as third parties to the preceding litigation. 5.6. In Civil Appeal No. 6027 of 2014, Samir Kumar Majumder Versus The Union of India & Ors., decided on 20.09.2023, the Apex Court observed as under:-
"Law on Constructive Res Judicata:
33. Almost two centuries ago, in Henderson vs. Henderson, (1843) 3 Hare, 100, the Vice-Chancellor Sir James Wigram felicitously puts the principle thus:
"In trying this question I believe I state the rule of the Court correctly when I say that, where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and of adjudication by, a Court of competent jurisdiction, the Court requires the parties to that litigation to bring forward their whole case, and will not (except under special circumstances) permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in respect of matter which might have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest, but which was not brought forward, only because they have, from negligence, inadvertence, or even accident, omitted part of their case. The plea of res judicata applies, except in special cases, not only to points upon which the Court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation, and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time. ...."
34. This principle popularly known as the doctrine of constructive res judicata, based on the might and ought theory, has been recognized by this Court in several judgments. In Maharashtra Vikrikar Karamchari Sangathan ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:47 I +05'30' 14 Item No. 39 O.A. No. 2684/2018 Court No. IV vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2000) 2 SCC 552, this Court held as under:-
"22. It was then contended on behalf of the appellants that neither the Recruitment Rules of 1971 nor the Seniority Rules of 1982 provided for carrying forward the vacancies falling in either category. In the absence of such rules which specifically provide for carrying forward the vacancies falling in either category, no such carry-forward rule could be implied either in the Recruitment Rules or in the Seniority Rules. This contention need not detain us any longer because such a contention was available to the appellants in the earlier proceedings, namely, Transfer Application No. 822 of 1991 and the same was not put in issue. That not having been done, it must follow that such a contention is barred by the principles of constructive res judicata. Neither the contesting respondents nor the appellants ever raised this contention at any stage of the proceedings in Transfer Petition No. 822 of 1991. It would, therefore, be too late to raise such a contention when the seniority list has been finalized pursuant to the judgment of MAT, Bombay Bench in Transfer Petition No. 822 of 1991."
Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium:
35. The doctrine itself is based on public policy flowing from the age-old legal maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium which means that in the interest of the State there should be an end to litigation and no party ought to be vexed twice in a litigation for one and the same cause (See M. Nagabhushana vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (2011) 3 SCC 408."
5.7. In Civil Appeal No. ___/2025 [arising out of SLP (C) No. 6289/2019], The Chief Executive Officer & Others Vs. S. Lalitha & Others, decided on 24.04.2025, the Apex Court held that successive representations do not give rise to a fresh cause of action, observing as follows:
"34. To summarise the legal position, what assumes cruciality in cases, such as these, is whether the representation that has been made and rejected, whereafter the jurisdiction of the CAT is invoked, is statutorily provided in the service rules governing the applicant-public servant. Bare reading of the opening words of Section 20 of the 1985 Act with sub-section (1), which requires exhaustion of other available remedies as a general precondition for entertaining original applications under Section 19, refers to remedies that are available under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances against final orders. If the relevant ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:47 I +05'30' 15 Item No. 39 O.A. No. 2684/2018 Court No. IV service rules do not provide for making of a representation against final orders, by reason of absence of such a provision, the remedy of the aggrieved applicant-public servant would lie directly before the CAT in challenging the order/action of the authorities adverse or prejudicial to his interest; and, in such a case, an original application ought not to be rejected mechanically on the ground that all "remedies" have not been exhausted. However, it cannot be gainsaid that if the relevant service rules do provide for making of a representation, the remedy made available has to be exhausted unless an exceptional case is set up. Provision made in the service rules, if at all, for making of a statutory representation, timing of such representation and whether the representation raises a "stale" or "dead" claim - all these are relevant for deciding the question of limitation under the 1985 Act. The opening words of Section 20 read with sub-section (2) thereof would, however, call for a nuanced approach. As observed earlier, a representation though not provided in the relevant rules governing service could yet be necessary and imperative when a legitimate service benefit is not conferred on the aggrieved applicant- public servant by the employer on his own either due to inaction or otherwise. In such a case, the representation inviting attention to what the aggrieved applicant-public servant perceives is deprivation of a legitimate benefit has to be made expeditiously and before accrual of third- party rights, if any. Such a representation could be made even after accrual of third-party rights, but within a reasonable time of the same coming to the notice of the aggrieved applicant-public servant. What would constitute reasonable time would necessarily depend on the facts of each particular case and decided accordingly.
35. We hold that except in cases where final orders are passed on appeals/revisions/memorials/representations which are statutorily provided, limitation for the purpose of filing an original application under Section 19 of the 1985 Act, in view of the above-referred decisions and Sections 21 and 20 thereof, has to be reckoned keeping in mind the date of accrual of the cause of action and the proximity of the date of the representation, and the period of one year for filing an original application has to be counted from the date of expiry of six months from date of such a representation if no order were passed thereon. Needless to observe, the cause of action cannot be deferred by making a highly belated representation and awaiting its outcome. We also make it clear that different considerations would arise in a case of a continuous wrong, which has to be decided in the light of the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh2008 INSC 930 = (2008) 8 SCC 648 .
36. On such premise as explained above, the respondent should have, if she felt aggrieved by the action of the appellants of granting her benefits of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme instead of the ACP Scheme, availed the remedy before the Tribunal immediately after her rights were affected. She ought not to have waited for so long for ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:47 I +05'30' 16 Item No. 39 O.A. No. 2684/2018 Court No. IV ventilating her grievance through a belated representation. Filing of such belated representation, which was rejected in no time, did not have the effect of postponing the cause of action and stretching the period of limitation so as to render the O.A. as filed within time."
5.8. In Rabindra Nath Bose & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 1970 SCR (2) 697, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"In so far as the attack was based on the 1952 rules, it must fail on the ground that this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution had been brought about 15 years after the 1952 Rules were promulgated and effect given to them in the Seniority List prepared on August 1, 1953. Even though Art. 32 is a guaranteed right it does not follow that it was the intention of the Constitution makers that this Court should discard all principles and grant relief in petitions filed after inodinate delay. It would be unjust to deprive the respondents of the rights which had accrued to them. Every person ought to be entitled to sit back and consider that his appointment and promotion effected a long time ago would not be set aside after the lapse of a number of years. [711 E- 712 G] 5.9. In W.P.(C) 3425/2023 & CM Appls. 12001/2024, 12006/2024, 13234/2023, 50734/2023 & 54451/2023, Agni Deo Prasad and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., decided on 16.04.2024, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi observed as under:
"29. Without doubt, it is a settled position of law that we, as a Court of law exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, are not to unsettle or alter the existing list of promotion and/or seniority belatedly as is the case in the present petitions, unless and until there is something so grave or there is some gross error apparent on the face of the record or is against the settled position of law. We find able support in H.S. Vankani and Others vs State of Gujarat and Others (2010) 4 SCC 301 wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"39. Courts are repeating the ratio that the seniority once settled, shall not be unsettled but the men in power often violate that ratio for extraneous reasons, which, at times calls for departmental action. Legal principles have been ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:47 I +05'30' 17 Item No. 39 O.A. No. 2684/2018 Court No. IV reiterated by this Court in Union of India v. S.K. Goel [(2007) 14 SCC 641 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 873] , T.R. Kapoor v. State of Haryana [(1989) 4 SCC 71 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 636 : (1989) 11 ATC 844] and Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana [(2003) 5 SCC 604 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 737] ......"
5.10. In Civil Appeal No(s). 8617 of 2013, V. Vincent Velankanni Versus The Union of India and Others, decided on 30.09.2024, the Apex Court held as under:
"48. In B.S. Bajwa and Another v. State of Punjab and Others(1998) 2 SCC 523, this Court held that the seniority list should not be reopened after a lapse of reasonable period as it would disturb the settled position which is unjustifiable. The relevant extract is as follows: -
"7. ... It is well settled that in service matters the question of seniority should not be reopened in such situations after the lapse of a reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable...."
49. It can easily be inferred that in the intervening period, before the GO dated 4th August, 2015 came to be issued, seniority of multitudes of employees must have been fixed according to the GO dated 24th December, 2002, which is according to the date of promotion to skilled grade and not from the date of induction/entry in semi-skilled grade. As a matter of fact, respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 who were below the appellant in the order of merit at the time of induction in the semi-skilled grade, have been promoted to the skilled grade and the highly skilled grade much before the appellant by application of the GO dated 24th December, 2002. The appellant did not question their promotions before any Court or Tribunal at any stage.
50. Thus, much water has flown under the bridge and retrospective application of the GO issued in 2015 would open floodgates of litigation and would disturb the seniority of many employees causing them grave prejudice and heartburn as it would disturb the crystallized rights regarding seniority, rank and promotion which would have accrued to them during the intervening period. To alter a seniority list after such a long period would be totally unjust to the multitudes of employees who could get caught in the labyrinth of uncertainty for no fault of theirs and may suffer loss of their seniority rights retrospectively.
51. Keeping in mind the afore-stated principles, we are of the view that applicability of the Government Order dated 4th August, 2015 cannot enure to the benefit of the appellant as its operation is clearly prospective." ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:47 I +05'30' 18 Item No. 39 O.A. No. 2684/2018 Court No. IV
6. CONCLUSION :
6.1. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the present OA is dismissed.
6.2. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Chhabilendra Roul) (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) /as/ ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:47 I +05'30'