Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
S K Tripathy vs M/O Defence on 4 May, 2026
1 O.A.No. 260/00579 of 2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00579 of 2018
Reserved on 30.04.2026 Pronounced on 04.05.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Susanta Kumar Tripathy, aged about 46 years,
Son of Late Sudarshan Tripathy, at present
working as Danger Building Worker under
General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Badmal,
present address Qtr.No.13078/1, Office of
Estate Pin-767070, permanent resident of
Tikarapada, Bolangir, Dist.-Bolangir.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through
Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block,
Central Secretariat, New Delhi-110001.
2. General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Bolangir
(P), At-Badmal, P.O. Gandapatrapali, Saintala,
Dist.- Bolangir-767032, Odisha.
3. Director General of Ordnance Factory, Govt. of
India, Ministry of Defence Ordnance Factory
Board, 10-A, S.K.Bose Road, Kolkata-700001.
......Respondents
(i) Director General Ordnance (Coordination &
Service), Directorate of Ordnance, 10-A, S.K.
Bose Road, Kolkata-700001.
RAVI KUMAR
2026.05.04
09:43:41 +05'30'
2 O.A.No. 260/00579 of 2018
(ii) Chief Managing Director (CMD). Munitions
India Limited, Ammunition Factory Khadki,
Pune- 411003.
(iii) The General Manager, Ordnance Factory,
Badmal - 767 070, Dist. Bolangir, Odisha.
[Incorporated through amendment]
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. N.R.Routray, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. R.S.Patnaik, Counsel
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
The applicant has filed this OA on 10.12.2018 praying to direct the respondents to promote him to the post of Danger Building Worker (DBW)/Skilled w.e.f. 31.10.2002, i.e. the date of promotion of his juniors namely Sri M.Sahoo and others vide order dated 01.11.2002, with all consequential benefits by quashing the order dated 28.03.2018 rejecting his prayer to the above extent. He has also filed MA seeking to condone the delay.
2. Respondents filed their counter objecting/contesting the very maintainability and sustainability of this OA on the ground of law of limitation by placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Vijay Kumar Kaul Vs UOI, (2012) 7 SCC 610, Karnataka Power Corpn Ltd. Vs K. RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.04 09:43:41 +05'30' 3 O.A.No. 260/00579 of 2018 Thangappana, AIR 2006 SC 1581, D.C.S.Negi Vs UOI & Ors, dated 07.03.2011 in SLP (C) No.7956 of 2011, Satish Kumar Gajbhiye, IPS Vs UOI & Ors, dated 25.07.2011 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 16575-16576 of 2011 and of this Bench in the case of Labanya Bhoi Vs UOI & Ors dated 26.04.20213 in OA No. 251/2013.
3. Respondents have also contested the case of the applicant insofar as merit is concerned by stating that on 14.06.1999, applicant joined as DBW/SS in OFBL. He remained on probation for a period of two years. While continuing as such, in a disciplinary proceedings, he was imposed with the punishment of "Censure" vide order dated 24.01.2000. Disciplinary proceedings having been taken against him, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 18.05.2000. The order of suspension was revoked on 07.07.2000. The disciplinary proceedings ended with imposition of punishment vide order dated 07.07.2000. Another punishment was also imposed on him vide order dated 18.09.2001. His suspension period from 18.05.2000 to 06.07.2000 was treated as dies non vide order RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.04 09:43:41 +05'30' 4 O.A.No. 260/00579 of 2018 dated 24.02.2001. The probation period of the applicant was extended upto 23.06.2002 vide order dated 09.01.2002. The applicant passed the Trade Test for the post of DBW/Skilled Grade vide order dated 21.10.2002. While the applicant was continuing as DBW/Skilled Grade on probation, he was terminated from service vide order dated 23.11.2002. He preferred appeal and by the order of the Appellate Authority dated 10.07.2004, he was reinstated in service treating the interregnum period from the date of termination till reinstatement as dies non with further direction that the punishment imposed on him vide order dated 07.07.2000 and 18.09.2001 shall be made operative from the date of his reinstatement. His probation period was deemed to have completed w.e.f. 24.06.2002. The applicant passed the required Trade Test vide order dated 27.11.2007 for promotion to DBW/Skilled Grade and, thereafter, he was promoted to DBW/Skilled Grade w.e.f. 01.07.2008 vide order dated 25.04.2009 and, thereafter, promoted to the post of DBW/HS-II w.e.f. 07.03.2018. On 16.12.2015 and 08.01.2018, the applicant RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.04 09:43:41 +05'30' 5 O.A.No. 260/00579 of 2018 submitted representations seeking refixation of his seniority from 2002 for promotion to the post of DBW/Skilled Grade. His representations were considered and disposed of vide letters dated 10/11.03.2016 and 28.03.2018 justifying meritless of his grievance. The applicant was imposed punishment of reduction to the minimum of his pay scale of pay with cumulative effect for a period of three years vide order dated 07.07.2000 in culmination of a major disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and another punishment of withholding of next increment of pay when due without cumulative effect for a period of three years was imposed on him vide order dated 18.09.2001 with further direction that penalty shall be kept animated and shall became operative after the currency of penalty imposed on him vide order dated 07.07.2000. He passed the Trade Test vide office order dated 21.10.2002 and his service was terminated vide order dated 23.11.2002. In terms of the rule, vide OF's letter No. 800/Genl/A/I dated 13.03.1995, the result of the Trade Test is valid for the period of three years. Since, the applicant was undergoing punishment, the result of his Trade Test could not be RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.04 09:43:41 +05'30' 6 O.A.No. 260/00579 of 2018 given effect to and, meanwhile, the validity of the Trade Test expired. In terms of the DoP&T OM dated 15.12.2004, an employee cannot be promoted during the currency of the penalty and after the currency is over, promotion shall commence from the date of actual promotion and in no case it shall be related back to the date when his junior was promoted. The DoP&T OM No. 20011/2/92-Estr. (D) dated 03.11.1995 provides that DPC will consider promotion of an employee after the currency of minor penalty imposed on an employee is over. Meanwhile, during the currency of the penalty, the applicant was also terminated from service vide order dated 23.11.2002 and reinstated to service by the order of the Appellate Authority dated 10.07.2004 but, as per the order, after his reinstatement he undergone the punishment already imposed on him. Thereafter, after passing the Trade Test on vide order dated 27.11.2007, he was promoted to DBW/Skilled Grade w.e.f. 01.07.2008 vide order dated 25.04.2009. According to the respondents, there was infirmity or illegality committed in the matter and, therefore, the OA is liable to be dismissed. In course of hearing, Ld. Counsel RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.04 09:43:41 +05'30' 7 O.A.No. 260/00579 of 2018 appearing for the respondents, besides the points noted above, has submitted that the applicant seeks promotion from the date his juniors were promoted in 2002 without challenging their order of promotion or without making anyone of them as respondents n this OA and, therefore, this OA is also liable to be dismissed on the above ground.
4. Applicant has filed rejoinder more or less reiterating the stand taken in the OA.
5. According to the Ld. Counsel for the applicant, the juniors to the applicant were promoted retrospectively w.e.f. 31.10.2002 whereas the punishment of the applicant was dated 23.11.2002 and, therefore, the applicant ought to have been promoted w.e.f. 31.10.2002. The respondents compelled the applicant to appear at the Trade Test again in 2007 although he had passed earlier in 2002 and, therefore, the respondents committed gross injustice to the applicant even rejecting his representation without considering the above aspect of the matter. Hence, the applicant prayed for grant of relief claimed in this OA.
6. Heard. Perused the records.
RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.04 09:43:41 +05'30' 8 O.A.No. 260/00579 of 2018
7. According to the applicant, he submitted representation on 16.11.2006 and 08.11.2007 praying for his promotion when his juniors were promoted after passing the Trade Test in 2002. The respondents in their counter in Para 17 have submitted that after a considerable period of time the applicant submitted representation on 16.12.2015 and 08.01.2018 seeking refixation of his seniority from 2002. Neither the applicant has produced any supporting evidence in the OA or even in the rejoinder to satisfy this Bench that such representations dated 16.11.2006 and 08.11.2007 he had ever submitted but no action was taken. The onus lies on the applicant to establish by producing evidence in support of submission of such representations when the respondents did not admit the same. But, he failed to do so, even after receipt of the counter, through his rejoinder. Therefore, the submission of those representations cannot be accepted in absence of any documentary evidence. For the sake of argumendo, if the applicant had submitted representations on 16.11.2006 and 08.11.2007 and no action was taken by the respondents, he also kept mum till his next representation dated RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.04 09:43:41 +05'30' 9 O.A.No. 260/00579 of 2018 16.12.2015 and did not agitate the matter before appropriate forum. We are reminded by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of P.S. Sadasivasway Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152, wherein it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that a person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time, but it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters.
8. The applicant has filed MA for condonation of delay. It may be noted that an application for condonation of delay should be RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.04 09:43:41 +05'30' 10 O.A.No. 260/00579 of 2018 drafted with careful concern and not in a half hazard manner harbouring the notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system. An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective. Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto. The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a non-challan manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters. The above principle is no more res integra whereas the application for condonation lacks of all details in the instant case.
9. It is also noticed that the prayer of the applicant to promote him to the post of DBW/Skilled Grade w.e.f. 31.10.2002, i.e. from the date of promotion of his junior, namely M.Sahoo and RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.04 09:43:41 +05'30' 11 O.A.No. 260/00579 of 2018 others, vide order dated 01.11.2002. It is not the case of the applicant that the promotion to the post, in question, is made irrespective of availability of vacancy nor it is his case that though vacancies in the promotional post were still available, he was deprived of his promotion. In the circumstances, for allowing the relief prayed for by him, the order of promotion of one of his juniors is liable to be quashed so as to create a vacancy for his accommodation in the promotional post. The applicant in the instant OA did not challenge and seek the promotion order of his junior to be quashed by making him as party respondents in this OA. We are reminded by a decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered on 23.07.2023 in W.P.(C) No. 5674/2005 (S) holding as under:
"7. The petitioner has not challenged any vires of the rules or any policy decision of the Government which affects his seniority or promotion. In the event of such challenge, there may be no need to implead the affected parties but where there is no such challenge to policy or rule and challenge is only to the promotion orders of the juniors, the juniors are necessary parties. In other words, if the petitioner succeeds and the impugned order of promotion is set aside, it will have an adverse impact on the persons who were promoted by the said order. This cannot be done without hearing those parties whose rights are sought to be affected. A bizarre argument is advanced stating that the order of promotion of juniors may not be RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.04 09:43:41 +05'30' 12 O.A.No. 260/00579 of 2018 disturbed but a mandamus may be issued to promote the petitioner from a date earlier or from the date juniors were promoted. I am not able to persuade myself with this line of argument. This is a matter of common knowledge that whenever promotions are made, the same are made against certain number of vacant posts. In the event of supersession, those posts are occupied by the junior persons. If that promotion order is not under challenge and the promotion order is not set aside, any mandamus in favour of the petitioner to promote him will tantamount to enhancement of cadre strength. In other words, withstanding the promotion order herein because of which promotional posts are already occupied by the junior promotees, if petitioner is also directed to be promoted, it will have an impact of indirectly directing for creation of a post to accommodate the petitioner. I am afraid, this is beyond the jurisdiction of the writ Court. This is settled in law that the writ Courts normally cannot direct for issuance of promotion order. This view was taken by Supreme Court way back in Management Of Brooke Bond India (P) Ltd. v. Workmen, AIR 1966 SC 668. The relevant paragraphs reads as under:
"Even so after a finding of mala fides or victimisation, it is not the function of a tribunal to consider the merits of various employees itself and then decide whom to promote or whom not to promote. If it finds that promotions have been made which are unjustified on the ground of mala fides or of victimisation, the proper course for it to take is to set aside the promotions and ask the management to consider the cases of superseded employees and decide for itself whom to promote, except of course the persons whose promotion has been set aside by the tribunal."
10. Further, W.P.(C) No. 8045 of 2016 was filed seeking promotion from the date junior was promoted without challenging the promotion of his so called junior and without RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.04 09:43:41 +05'30' 13 O.A.No. 260/00579 of 2018 making him as party, which was dismissed on 17.10.2024 by the Hon'ble High Court by observing as under:
14. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and followed by the High Court in the cases referred hereinabove, it is evidently clear that in the present case, not impleading juniors who have superseded the petitioner and granted promotion ignoring claim of the petitioner and claiming promotions at a belated stage depending upon the decision of pending representations made by the petitioner from time to time, the petition cannot be maintained and equity cannot be exercised in favour of the petitioner. A petition of this nature is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed on the ground that it suffers from non-
joinder of necessary party and also on the ground of delay and laches. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramrao v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Assn., (2004) 2 SCC 76, held that in absence of the "promotees" as parties, it was not permissible for the High Court to issue the directions by reason of the impugned judgment. In the case of Indu Shekhar Singh v. State of U.P, (2006) 8 SCC 129, in absence of the parties, the High Court could not have determined the question of inter se seniority. In the case of Union Public Service Commission Vs. S. Thiagarajan, (2007) 9 SCC 548, it was held that the orders of the High Court and the Tribunal are liable to be set aside on the RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.04 09:43:41 +05'30' 14 O.A.No. 260/00579 of 2018 ground that the necessary parties have not been impleaded. Further, in the case of Vijay Kumar Kaul v. Union of India, (2012) 7 SCC 610, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in absence of any junior promoted ignoring the claim of the petitioner, the petition cannot be maintained and suffers from non-joinder of the parties and, that, there cannot be any trace of doubt that an affected party has to be impleaded so that the doctrine of audi alteram partem is not put into any hazard. As discussed above, the applicant did not challenge the order of promotion of his so called juniors nor he has made them party, he seeks promotion w.e.f. 31.10.2002 by filing this OA on 10.12.2018, i.e. after more than one and half decade and by now it is about two and half decades, even without making anyone as a party, whose interest shall be adversely affected, which will also have adverse cascading effect to many others, who have meanwhile promoted to subsequent grade, in case the relief is granted to the applicant. Further, it is noticed that granting the benefit to the applicant, as prayed for in this OA, is likely to create a chaotic condition in administration because it may have effect on the RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.04 09:43:41 +05'30' 15 O.A.No. 260/00579 of 2018 punishments subsequently given to the applicant in culmination of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him for his misdeed and misdemenour.
12. In view of the facts and law discussed above, we are of the considered view that allowing the relief to the applicant prayed for in this OA would tantamount to unsettling a matter in 2026, which had been set at rest in 2002, that too in violation of the codified norms set out by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a series of decisions as above. Hence, from all counts, we find that this OA deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed along with pending MA, if any. Costs made easy.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)
RK/PS
RAVI KUMAR
2026.05.04
09:43:41 +05'30'