Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Ashish Srivastava vs Union Of India on 4 February, 2026
CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00318 of 2015 Ashish Srivastava Vs. UOI & Ors.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/00318 of 2015
Dated, this 4th day of February, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member- Judicial
Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
Ashish Srivastava, aged about 32 years, s/o Sri V. K. Srivastava, R/o
B-163 HAL Township, Lucknow.
.....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Dharmendra Awasthi
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New
Delhi.
2. Director General, Ordnance Factory Board, Ayudh Bhawan, 10-A,
S. K. Bose Road, Kolkata.
3. The General Manager, Ordnance Factor Project, Korwa.
4. Director, Central Water Commission, New Delhi.
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Yogendra Sharma
ORDER (ORAL)
Per Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to promotion, the applicant has sought following reliefs:
"(a) Issue an order, direction and command to the respondent nos. 1 to 3 to consider the claim of the applicant for promotion from the post of JTS to STS during 2014-15 as the probation period of the applicant came to an end w.e.f. 31.12.2013 and also he passed the required departmental examination with a further direction to fix the applicant‟s pay in the promotional post i.e. on the post of STS w.e.f. 07.04.2014 by adding one increment @ 3% with Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/- in Pay Band-3 of Rs. 15600-39100/- with all consequential benefits.
(b) Issue an order, direction and command to the respondents to pay arrears for correct fixation of pay and other benefits taking into account the Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/- in Pay Band-3 of Rs. 15600- 39100/- along with interest @ 12% per annum.
(c) Issue an order, direction and command to the respondents to consider and decide the representation/appeal of the applicant dated 19.08.2014 followed by reminder dated 24.03.2015 with a stipulated period of time by passing a reasoned and speaking order.Page 1 of 7
CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00318 of 2015 Ashish Srivastava Vs. UOI & Ors.
(d) Issue such other order/direction which may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(e) Allow the Original Application with cost against the respondents in view of the facts and circumstances, legal provisions and Grounds raised in the application."
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the applicant was appointed to the post of Assistant Works Manager (Mechanical Engineering) in the Indian Ordnance Factories Service (IOFS) on probation vide order dated 08.03.2010 and he joined the post on 07.09.2010. Vide order dated 08.04.2014, respondent no. 2 promoted several persons with effect from 07.04.2014, including persons junior to the applicant to the post of Works Manager, but the applicant was excluded. In the meantime, the applicant got selected for the post of Assistant Director in the Central Water Commission and after rendering technical resignation from IOFS joined under respondent no. 4 on 19.05.2014. Aggrieved by his exclusion in the list of promoted persons vide order dated 08.04.2014, he has preferred this OA.
3. The applicant states that he passed in two out of 4 papers in the departmental examination in the year 2011 and that he took the departmental examination again in October, 2013 for the remaining two papers, but his result was not declared and no order for extension of probation period or confirmation in service was issued by respondent no. 2 in violation of office memorandum (OM) dated 30.08.2010 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT).
4. Per contra, the respondents state that the confirmation/ completion of probation period in respect of Group 'A' officers in IOFS is processed through a series of different actions and activities requiring passing of departmental examination, the satisfactory training period and the report of competent authority regarding performance of the officer during the period of probation in the Unit where he is posted. It Page 2 of 7 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00318 of 2015 Ashish Srivastava Vs. UOI & Ors. is further stated that the applicant's period of probation was extended upto 31.12.2013 for not having passed in two out of four papers in the departmental examination based on the report received from the National Academy of Defence Production (NADP); the applicant was issued show cause notices on two occasions for not clearing the departmental examination; the applicant eventually took the departmental examination on 17th & 18th October 2013 and cleared all the four papers; however, his performance report from the Unit where he was working was pending; finally, based on the report received from NADP vide their letter dated 25.03.2014 and the report from Ordnance Factory project, Korwa vide their letter dated 11.04.2014, the probation period in respect of the applicant was completed with effect from 31.12.2013 with the approval of the competent authority vide letter dated 24.04.2014 of respondent no. 2. In the meantime, the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for promotion to the post of Works Manager in Senior Time Scale had been held. The applicant tendered technical resignation from IOFS on 15.02.2014 which was accepted and the applicant was relieved on 16.05.2014. The respondents contend that that applicant himself could not clear the departmental examination conducted by NADP by the crucial date of eligibility for promotion to Senior Time Scale, i.e., 01.01.2014 and that there has been neither any delay on their part nor any discrimination has been meted out to the applicant.
5. We have heard both the parties.
6.1 To enable examination of rival contentions, DoPT's OM dated 30.08.2010 on timely confirmation based on observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced below:
"Subject: Timely confirmation in various Central Civil Services- issue of guidelines.Page 3 of 7
CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00318 of 2015 Ashish Srivastava Vs. UOI & Ors.
The undersigned is directed to say that the Supreme Court in its judgement on 08.07.2010 in civil appeal No.596 of 2007 (appeal of Khazia Mohameed Muzammil v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.) examined the contention of automatic/deemed confirmation after the expiry of the probation period. After examining the various judgements, the Apex Court were of the considered opinion as to what view has to be taken would depend on the facts of a given case and the relevant rules in force.
2. In para 22 of the judgement, the Apex Court observed as follows:
"Before we part with this file, it is required of this Court to notice and declare that the concerned authorities have failed to act expeditiously and in accordance with the spirit of the relevant rules. Rule 5(2) of 1977 Rules has used the expression „as soon as possible‟ which clearly shows the intent of the rule framers explicitly implying urgency and in any case applicability of the concept of reasonable time which would help in minimizing the litigation arising from such similar cases. May be, strictly speaking, this may not be true in the case of the appellant but generally every step should be taken which would avoid bias or arbitrariness in administrative matters, no matter, which is the authority concerned including the High Court itself. Long back in the case of Shiv Kumar Sharma vs Haryana State Electricity Board (1998) Supp. SCC (669) this Court had the occasion to notice that due to delay in recording satisfactory completion of probation where juniors were promoted, the action of the authority was arbitrary and it resulted in infliction of even double punishment. The Court held as under: „While there is some necessity for appointing a person in government service on probation for a particular period, there may not be any need for confirmation of that officer after the completion of the probation period. If during the period a government servant is found to be suitable, he would be allowed to continue in service. The archaic rule of confirmation, still in force, gives a scope to the executive authorities to act arbitrarily or mala fide giving rise to unnecessary litigations. It is high time that the Government and other authorities should think over the matter and relieve the government servants of becoming victims of arbitrary actions.‟ We reiterate this principle with respect and approval and hope that all the authorities concerned should take care that timely actions are taken in comity to the Rules governing the service and every attempt is made to avoid prejudicial results against the employee/ probationer. It is expected of the Courts to pass orders which would help in minimizing the litigation arising from such similar cases. Timely action by the authority concerned would ensure implementation of rule of fair play on the one hand and serve greater ends of justice on the other. It would also boost the element of greater understanding and improving the employer employee relationship in all branches of the States and its instrumentalities.
3. In this Ministry's O.M. No. 18011/186-Estt(D) dated 28.03.1988 (copy enclosed), instructions have already been issued to the effect that confirmation will be made only once in service in the entry grade, but for some exceptions specified therein. Instructions on timely action to confirm or extend the probation have also been issued vide O.M. No. 18011/2/98-Estt.(C) dated 28.08.1998. Seniority has also been delinked from confirmation in the O.M. No. 20011/5/90-Estt.(D) dated 04.11.1992.
4. The above directions of the Apex Court are brought to the notice of all Ministries/Departments for ensuring compliance of the above instructions."Page 4 of 7
CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00318 of 2015 Ashish Srivastava Vs. UOI & Ors.
(emphasis supplied) It is evident from the O.M. quoted above that delay should be avoided in confirmation of the government servant on completion of probation and that the seniority has been delinked from confirmation. 6.2 It is noted that the Master Circular on Probation/Confirmation in Central Services issued by DoPT vide OM dated 11.03.2019 has the following provisions having bearing on the instant case:
"EXTENSION OF PROBATION PERIOD
15. If during the period of probation, a probationer has not undergone the requisite training course or passed the requisite departmental examinations prescribed (proficiency in Hindi, etc.), if any, the period of probation may be extended by such period or periods as may be necessary, subject to the condition that the total period of probation does not exceed double the prescribed period of probation.
16. If the Appointing Authority thinks it fit, they may extend the period of probation of a Government servant by a specified period but the total period of probation should not exceed double the normal period. In such cases, periodic reviews should be done and extension should not be done for a long period at a time.
17. Where a probationer who has completed the period of probation to the satisfaction of the Central Government is required to be confirmed, he shall be confirmed in the Service/ Post at the end of his period of probation, having completed the probation satisfactorily.
...
CONFIRMATION ...
27. The date from which confirmation should be given effect is the date following the date of satisfactory completion of the prescribed period of probation or the extended period of probation, as the case may be. The decision to confirm the probationer or to extend the period of probation as the case may be should be communicated to the probationer normally within 6 to 8 weeks. Probation should not be extended for more than a year and, in no circumstance, an employee should be kept on probation for more than double the normal prescribed period of probation. The officer will be deemed to have successfully completed the probation period if no order confirming, discharging or reverting the officer is issued within eight weeks after expiry of double the normal period of prescribed probation."
(emphasis supplied) It follows from the above guidelines that the date of confirmation in service is the date following the date of successful completion of probation and that if no order for confirming, reverting or discharging Page 5 of 7 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00318 of 2015 Ashish Srivastava Vs. UOI & Ors. the officer is issued within 8 weeks after expiry of double the normal period of prescribed probation, the officer would be deemed to have successfully completed the probation period.
6.3 It is not in dispute that the extended period of probation in the applicant's case ended on 31.12.2013. As no order appears to have been issued for confirming the applicant's service by the respondents, as per the guidelines quoted in paragraph 6.2 above, the applicant is entitled to have been deemed as confirmed in service on 01.01.2014, i.e., the date following the date of completion of his extended probation period, in our view. As the seniority has been delinked from confirmation in terms of the guidelines referred to in paragraph 6.1 above, the applicant stood at par with his batchmates in the matter of seniority on completion of his probation with effect from 31.12.2013, in our opinion.
6.4 As per the respondents, the crucial date of eligibility for promotion to the post of Works Manager in Senior Time Scale was 01.01.2014 and the reason for not promoting the applicant to that post was that the DPC had been held by the time the requisite reports were received from NADP and his Unit and approval accorded by the competent authority for his completion of probation with effect from 31.12.2013.
6.5 As the applicant stood at par with his batchmates as on 31.12.2013, i.e., on completion of his probation, and as the crucial date of eligibility for considering promotion to the post of Works Manager in Senior Time Scale was 01.01.2014, there is no reason to deny him promotion to Senior Time Scale at par with his juniors. The respondents' contention that the DPC had been held before completion of applicant's probation was approved holds no water in our view as review meeting of DPC could have been held to consider the applicant's Page 6 of 7 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00318 of 2015 Ashish Srivastava Vs. UOI & Ors. case. Accordingly, we hold that the applicant is entitled to be promoted to Senior Time Scale with effect from the date his juniors were promoted.
7.1 In view of the foregoing, this OA is disposed of with direction to the respondents to promote the applicant to Senior Time Scale with effect from the date of promotion of his juniors by holding a review meeting of DPC, or otherwise, and to release arrears of pay and other consequential benefits, without interest, to the applicant within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7.2 Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of.
7.3 Parties shall bear their own costs.
(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member (A) Member (J)
vidya
Vidya Ben Digitally signed by Vidya Ben
Waghela
Waghela Date: 2026.02.09 15:03:12 +05'30'
Page 7 of 7