Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ravindra Singh vs Union Of India on 12 September, 2025
(Reserved on 27.08.2025)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench
Allahabad
****
This is the 12th Day of September, 2025
Original Application No.1377/2011
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)
Ravindra Singh, No.8065738 MT Driver II, Military Farms Bareilly, son of Shri Laxmi
Chand at present posted in Junior Academy, Bareilly Cantonment, Resident of
House No.736, Bhurji Mohalla, near Post Office Sadar Cantt. Bareilly.
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Om Prakash Yadav
SUSHIL KUMAR Versus
SRIVASTAVA
1. Union of India through the Defence Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
Government of India, New Delhi 110066.
2. The Director General, Military Trg., MT-7, General Staff Branch, AHQ,
DHQ, New Delhi 110066.
3. The Additional Director General (Man Power) 4 (Civ.) (b), Adjutant,
General Branch, AHQ, DHQ, New Delhi - 110066.
4. The Deputy Director General of Military Farms (MF-1) Quartermaster
General's Branch, Integrated Head Quarter of MOD (Army), West
Block-III, R K Puram, New Delhi 110066.
5. The Quarter Master General, Military Bhawan, New Delhi 110066.
6. The Commandant, Junior Leader Academy, Bareilly Cantt 900496.
7. The Officer-In-Charge, Military Farms Records, Bareilly 900496.
............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Heard Shri Om Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents.
Page No.22. Instant Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following main relief(s):-
"i. A writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 04.08.2011 passed by respondent No.4 (Annx. No.I to compilation No.I).
ii. A writ order or direction of a suitable nature of writ of mandamus commanding to respondents for promoting to the applicant to the next Grade i.e. to Grade I and to fix pay scale accordingly which is due since a long time."
3. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the Original Application, are as follows:-
SUSHIL KUMAR 3.1 The applicant was appointed as Civilian Military Driver on SRIVASTAVA 07.04.1983 at Military Farms, Eastern Command (Bengdubi). After completing the required length of service and qualifying the prescribed trade test, he was promoted to the post of MT Driver Grade-II w.e.f. 05.04.1989 in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1400. He has since served at various stations including Meerut and Bareilly. No disciplinary proceedings were ever initiated against him.
3.2 The Government of India, Ministry of Defence introduced a three- tier promotional structure for Civilian Motor Drivers vide order dated 05.12.1996, later on revised on 29.06.1998 and 01.11.2001. Under this scheme, drivers were placed in three grades i.e. Ordinary Grade, Grade-II and Grade-I with promotions to be made on seniority-cum-fitness basis, subject to passing of a trade test. The pay scales were also revised, placing MT Driver Grade-II in Rs.4000-6000 and Grade-I in a higher scale.
3.3 The applicant, having completed the requisite service and trade test, became fully eligible for promotion to Grade-I long ago. He submitted several representations from time to time, the first being dated 02.01.2002, requesting promotion and revision of his pay scale in Page No.3 accordance with the scheme. However, no action was taken by the respondents, whereas some of his juniors were promoted. This led to his repeated grievances.
3.4 The applicant was compelled to approach this Tribunal earlier also.
In O.A. No. 1343/2000, directions were issued for considering his representation and again in O.A. No. 323/2008, the Tribunal directed the respondents to pass a speaking order on his claim. However, despite these directions, the matter was not settled, forcing him to move contempt petitions as well. Though the respondents admitted pay fixation anomalies in their correspondence, the benefits were never extended to the applicant.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 3.5 Left with no option, the applicant even approached the High Court of judicature at Allahabad by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21652/2011, but the same was dismissed on 18.04.2011 on the ground of alternative remedy of approaching this Tribunal. Thereafter, he filed O.A. No. 584/2011 before this Tribunal, which was disposed of on 20.05.2011 directing the respondents to decide his representation regarding promotion and pay fixation.
3.6 In compliance, the applicant submitted his representation, but the same was rejected by respondent no. 4 vide impugned order dated 04.08.2011, without properly considering the Government orders, the promotional scheme, or the applicant's long service and eligibility. Hence, the applicant has filed this Original Application seeking quashing of the said order and a direction to the respondents to grant him promotion to Grade-I with consequential benefits including fixation of pay in the revised scale.
4. Counter Affidavit has been filed from the side of the respondents on 10.01.2012 wherein they have denied the claim of the applicant and stated that;
Page No.44.1 The applicant was posted to the Academy on 27.04.2002 only as an MT Driver in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 and not as MT Driver Grade-II. At that time, in the establishment of the Academy, only the post of MT Driver was authorised. There was no separate sanction of Grade-II, Grade-I or Special Grade posts. Therefore, the question of granting promotion in the Academy did not arise.
4.2 In this Academy, only the ACP Scheme of 1999 was implemented, under which financial upgradations are granted after completion of 12 and 24 years of service. The applicant was accordingly given 2nd ACP benefit on 07.04.2007 in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000. Thus, his demand for promotion under the three-grade promotional scheme is not SUSHIL KUMAR admissible.
SRIVASTAVA 4.3 Regarding pay fixation, the respondents admit that the applicant was earlier promoted as MT Driver Grade-II in Military Farm, Meerut in 1989. However, on implementation of the Revised Pay Rules, 1997, his pay was fixed in Rs.3050-4590. This, according to them, was the correct scale for Grade-II after restructuring. The higher scale of Rs.4000-6000 was applicable only to Grade-I, to which the applicant was not entitled.
4.4 As per the Government of India order dated 01.11.2001, the posts of MT Drivers were restructured into four grades. Under this order, all existing MT Drivers Grade-II were re-designated as Ordinary Grade in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590. Since this was a case of restructuring and re-designation, there was no requirement to issue any fresh promotion or Part-II order in respect of the applicant.
4.5 The applicant was not senior enough to be considered for Grade-I, as per the seniority roll. The scale of Rs.4000-6000 was meant for MT Driver Grade-I, which the applicant could not claim as of right. His pay fixation in Rs.3050-4590 was therefore correct and justified.
Page No.54.6 The applicant has already received the benefits due to him under the ACP Scheme and his pay has been fixed strictly in accordance with the rules. Hence, his claim for promotion and higher pay scale has no merit, and the Original Application deserves to be dismissed.
5. During the pendency of the Original Application, the respondents filed a Preliminary Objection on 25.09.2012, to which the applicant filed a reply on 07.11.2012. Thereafter, a Supplementary Counter Affidavit and its reply were also exchanged between the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that under the Government of India orders dated 05.12.1996, 29.06.1998 and 01.11.2001, a three-tier promotional scheme was introduced for Civilian Motor SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Drivers, wherein promotion from Grade-II to Grade-I is to be made on seniority-cum-fitness basis subject to trade test. The applicant had completed the qualifying service, passed the prescribed trade test and thus became fully entitled for promotion to Grade-I. However, while several of his juniors were promoted, the applicant was left out without any valid reason, which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
6.1 It is further submitted that the applicant had approached this Tribunal earlier also in O.A. Nos. 1343/2000, 323/2008 and 584/2011, wherein directions were given to the respondents to consider his representation. However, the respondents failed to comply in its true spirit and mechanically rejected his claim through a non-speaking order dated 04.08.2011. This not only amounts to arbitrary action but also violates the settled principle of law that while promotion may not be a fundamental right, consideration for promotion certainly is. The continued denial of promotion and admitted anomalies in pay fixation have caused grave prejudice to the applicant.
Page No.66.3 In these circumstances, it is prayed that the impugned order may be quashed and the respondents may be directed to grant the applicant promotion to MT Driver Grade-I from the due date, with all consequential benefits including proper pay fixation and arrears.
7. To the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant was posted to the Academy only as an MT Driver in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 and not as MT Driver Grade-II. In the Provisional Establishment of the Academy, no separate posts of Grade-II, Grade-I or Special Grade existed and therefore the promotional scheme relied upon by the applicant is not applicable. Instead, the Academy implemented the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme of 1999, under which the SUSHIL KUMAR applicant was duly granted the second financial upgradation on SRIVASTAVA 07.04.2007 in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000. Hence, the applicant has already received the benefits to which he was entitled under the rules.
7.1 It is further submitted that on implementation of the Revised Pay Rules, 1997 and subsequent restructuring of the cadre vide order dated 01.11.2001, the applicant, being a Grade-II Driver, was correctly re- designated as MT Driver (Ordinary Grade) in the scale of Rs.3050-4590. The higher pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 pertained only to Grade-I, which could not be claimed by the applicant as of right, particularly when he was junior in the seniority roll. Since his pay fixation has been done in accordance with the applicable rules and he has already received financial upgradations under ACP, no further relief is admissible.
7.3 The respondents finally contend that the grounds taken in the Original Application are devoid of merit,and the relief sought by the applicant is legally unsustainable. The OA, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the Page No.7 pleadings, documents and the impugned speaking order dated 04.08.2011.
9. The factual position is not in dispute that the applicant, initially appointed as Farm Hand in 1983, was promoted to the post of MT Driver Grade-II in 1989 in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1400 (revised to Rs. 3050- 4590). Subsequently, upon the reduction of vacancies in the Military Farms Department, he was declared surplus and redeployed to JLA, Bareilly, under the surplus absorption scheme along with 21 similarly placed drivers.
10. The impugned order notes this factual matrix and records as follows:
SUSHIL KUMAR "AND WHEREAS, at the time of his promotion from Farm Hand to MF SRIVASTAVA Driver Gde-II, the nomenclature for entry level driver in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1400/- in Military Farms Directorate was MT Driver (Gde-II) and that this nomenclature was not in vogue at JLA, Bareilly, where the entry level driver carried the nomenclature of Civil MT Driver (Ordinary Grade) in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1400/- (revised to Rs. 3050-4000/-)."
It further states:
"AND WHEREAS, ........................ the applicant was never promoted to the promotional post of Driver Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs. 1150-1500/- (revised to Rs. 4000-6000/-) in Military Farm, Bareilly before his transfer to JLA, Bareilly on being rendered surplus .........................."
11. The Government of India, Ministry of Defence order dated 01.11.2001 introduced restructuring of the cadre of Motor Drivers, under which all existing Grade-II Drivers were re-designated as MT Driver (Ordinary Grade) in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590. The applicant, therefore, stood re-designated as such. The impugned order has also dealt with this aspect in detail, observing that:
"AND WHEREAS, as stated above the entry level of Civilian MT Driver was called CMD (Gde-II) at Military Farms Directorate, which was later converted to Civilian MT Driver (Ordinary Grade) under the authority of Government of India letter dated 01.11.2001 when the cadre of drivers was restructured. The next promotional post of CMD (Gde-I) in the pay scale of Rs. 1150-1500/- was re-designated as CMD (Gde-II) in the revised pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-."Page No.8
12. It is also evident from the record that the applicant was granted the benefit of second financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme with effect from 07.04.2007 in the scale of Rs.4000-6000. The respondents have thus extended to him the benefits admissible under the applicable rules and policy. In view of the restructuring and his redeployment as surplus, the plea of the applicant that he should have been promoted to Grade-I straightaway has rightly been rejected by the competent authority. The speaking order categorically concludes:
"NOW THEREFORE, the undersigned having considered all the facts and circumstances obtaining in the case rejects application dated 11.03.2011 in respect of Shri Ravinder Singh, Civil MT Driver (Ordinary Grade) at JLA, Bareilly."
13. Furthermore, it is an admitted fact that the applicant has already SUSHIL KUMAR been retired. Recently, the Apex Court in the case of Government of West SRIVASTAVA Bengal & Ors. vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors., reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3512 by referring the case of Bihar State Electricity Board and Others v. Dharamdeo Das reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1768 has categorically settled the legal position regarding the effectivity and timing of promotions. It has been held:
"It is a well settled principle that promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted, rather than from the date a vacancy arises or the post is created. While the Courts have recognized the right to be considered for promotion as not only a statutory right but also a fundamental right, there is no fundamental right to the promotion itself... Bihar State Electricity 10 Board and Others v. Dharamdeo Das"
14. In the same decision, the Apex Court again by referring the case of State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath & Ors, reported in 1991 Supp (1) SCC 334 further held that:
"Retrospective seniority cannot be given to an employee from a date when he was not even borne in the cadre, nor can seniority be given with retrospective effect as that might adversely affect others... 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."
15. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the contention of the applicant that he ought to have been granted promotion to Grade-I from an earlier date is wholly Page No.9 untenable. It is trite that while an employee has a right to be considered for promotion, there is no vested right to promotion itself or to claim seniority/promotion from a retrospective date, particularly when the applicant was not holding the promotional post. The applicant, having been redeployed as surplus, cannot seek parity with those who continued in the parent establishment, since his past seniority was not protected upon absorption. Moreover, he has already been extended the benefit of second financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000, which adequately safeguards his financial interests.
16. In the above conspectus, and considering that the impugned order dated 04.08.2011 is a detailed and speaking order passed after due SUSHIL KUMAR application of mind, we find no legal infirmity warranting interference. SRIVASTAVA The Original Application is, therefore, devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. No order as to costs.
17. No order as to costs.
All pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil