Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
S Vanarasu vs M/O Defence on 2 February, 2026
1 OA/310/00630/2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00630/2015
Dated this the 2nd day of February, Two Thousand Twenty Six
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN. MEMBER (J)
AND
HON'BLE MR. M.L. SRIVASTAVA MEMBER(A)
S. Vanarasu,
Electrician, HS-1/MES/198752,
Military Engineering Service,
Naval Air Station,
Arakkonam. .. Applicant
By Advocate M/s. Paul & Paul
Vs.
1. Union of India
rep by Commander Works Engineers (Navy)
Military Engineering Services,
Fort St George, Chennai.
2. Garrison Engineer (M)
Naval Air Station,
Arakkonam.
3. K. Ravi Kumar,
Electrician (S) MCM,
MES/198762,
Military Engineering Service,
Naval Air Station,
Arakkonam.
2 OA/310/00630/2015
4. Y. Venkatraj
Electrician (S) MCM,
MES/133709,
Military Engineering Service,
Naval Air Station, Arakkonam. .. Respondents
By Advocate Mr. G. Dhamodaran for R.1 & 2
Mr. D. Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar for R.3
Mr. R. Sadhasharam for R.4
3 OA/310/00630/2015
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) The applicant has filed the OA challenging the impugned communication, dated 07.10.2014 whereby the promotion given to the 3 rd and 4th respondents to the post of Master Craftsman (MCM) was justified by the respondents 1 & 2. A further direction is sought by the applicant to grant proper seniority to him in the post of Highly Skilled and promotion to the post o MCM with all consequential monetary benefits.
2. The factual matrix of the case are as follows:
The applicant is presently working as Highly Skilled Grade-I in the Electrical Trade under the control of the 2 nd respondent. He was originally appointed as Electrician (Skilled) on 24.11.1993. The 3 rd respondent was appointed subsequently on 27.11.1993. In 1998, both the applicant and the 3rd respondent were declared to have passed the Trade test for promotion to Highly Skilled-II, as per communication, dated 13.04.1998. The 3 rd and 4th respondents were juniors to the applicant in the Skilled Grade, and the applicant has maintained an unblemished service record throughout his career. Although the applicant passed the Trade test in 1998, he was promoted to Highly Skilled Grade-II only vide order, dated 23.10.2003.
He later came to know that the 3 rd respondent had been promoted to HS Grade-II earlier, on 29.11.1999, under the SC quota, and was consequently 4 OA/310/00630/2015 shown as senior to the applicant. The applicant submitted a representation dated 08.08.2014 to the 1st respondent seeking proper fixation of seniority and consequential promotions. While this representation was pending, respondents 1 and 2, by communication, dated 18.08.2014, granted further promotion to both the 3rd and 4th respondents as Master Craftsman, again overlooking the applicant's claim. The applicant then submitted another representation, dated 17.09.2014 questioning the basis of the promotions granted to the 3rd and 4th respondents, particularly the 4th respondent, who was admittedly junior to him in the seniority list published in 2014. In response, the 1st respondent issued the impugned communication dated 07.10.2014, rejecting the applicant's claim and stating that the promotions of the 3rd and 4th respondents were in order. Aggrieved by the said communication, the applicant has filed the present OA.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the 3 rd Respondent was appointed as Electrician - Skilled in the 2nd Respondent Naval Air Station on 27.11.1993, whereas the applicant was appointed as Electrician - Skilled on 24.11.1993. Both of them had cleared the Trade test which is mandatory for the promotion to the post of Highly Skilled Grade - II, which they did in January, 1998. Although the applicant is senior to the 3rd Respondent, the 3rd Respondent was promoted to the post 5 OA/310/00630/2015 of Highly Skilled II on 29.11.1999 on the ground that the vacancy was reserved for the SC category. Since the 3rd Respondent belongs to the SC category, he was accommodated in the said post despite being junior to the applicant.
4. He further submitted that the documents filed by the official respondents in this OA clearly show that the vacancy in question was an UR vacancy and not an SC vacancy. As a result, the applicant lost a promotional opportunity in 1999 in an arbitrary manner and was promoted to the post of HS-II only on 14.10.2003. Subsequently, both the applicant and the 3rd Respondent were promoted to the post of HS-I on the same day, i.e., 01.01.2006.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that the 3 rd Respondent was promoted to the post of MCM on 01.05.2012 on the premise that the available MCM vacancy was reserved for the ST category. However, the documents filed by the official respondents along with their reply (OA Pg No. 40 - DPC proceedings) indicate that the MCM vacancy in 2012 was in fact an UR vacancy. Since both the applicant and the 3 rd Respondent were promoted to HS-I on the same day, their inter-se seniority must be determined based on their initial date of entry into service. The applicant, 6 OA/310/00630/2015 being the senior at the time of entry, a fact also admitted by the official respondents should have been considered first for promotion to MCM. Therefore, granting promotion to the 3rd Respondent was contrary to the seniority position and hence illegal.
6. He further drew our attention to the "catch-up rule," which provides that when a Reserved Category candidate supersedes a General Category candidate due to reservation in promotion, the General Category candidate, upon reaching the same promotional post, will regain his original seniority for consideration to the next higher post. In the present case, the 3rd Respondent reached the post of HS-II before the applicant due to reservation. Thereafter, both were promoted to HS-I on the same day (01.01.2006). Therefore, for the next promotion to MCM, particularly since the vacancy was an UR vacancy, he applicant's case ought to have been considered first.
7. He drew our attention to the judgment of the Apex court in the case of S. Panner Selvam Vs State of Tamil Nadu (2015) 10 SCC 292 in respect of 'Catch-up-rule' and prayed for allowing the OA by granting the relief sought by the applicant.
7 OA/310/00630/2015
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 submitted that, before convening the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) through a Board of Officers for promotion to the post of MCM, the seniority and eligibility criteria were duly examined in accordance with the applicable policy and Government rules. He contended that the applicant's allegations regarding the overlooking of his claim and the alleged discrepancy in seniority are unfounded, as the seniority of the applicant vis-à-vis the 3rd Respondent at the level of Elect (SK) was correctly determined in the following manner:
1.Shri Y. Venkatraj (4th respondent) Elect (SK) -21.11.1992 - SC Category
2.Shri Vanarasu (Applicant) Elect (SK) -24.11.1993 -Gen Category
3.Shri Ravi Kumar (3rd respondent) Elect (SK) -27.11.1993- SC Category
9. He further submitted that the DPC was conducted in accordance with the 200-point roster, under which the 7th vacancy was reserved exclusively for the SC category. Accordingly, the vacancy was considered for the 3rd Respondent, as the 4th Respondent had not passed the requisite Trade Test for promotion. Although the applicant was senior to the 3rd Respondent, the 7th vacancy being an SC-reserved post, the 3 rd Respondent was rightly considered as per the prevailing policy. Consequently, the applicant became junior to the 3rd Respondent.
8 OA/310/00630/2015
10. He further stated that the 8th vacancy was earmarked for the Unreserved (UR) category. Therefore, the applicant was considered for that vacancy, as the 4th Respondent had not passed the mandatory Trade Test for promotion to the next higher grade. Even though the applicant was junior to the 4th Respondent, he was promoted to HS Grade-II on 14.10.2003 in accordance with existing policy. The 4 th Respondent passed the Trade Test in 2004 and, under the restructuring policy, was promoted to HS Grade-II with effect from October 2006. Thus, the applicant did not suffer any substantial loss in terms of monetary benefits or career prospects.
11. He therefore submitted that the promotions granted to the 3 rd and 4th Respondents were proper and strictly in accordance with seniority and applicable rules. Since the applicant did not meet the eligibility criteria for promotion to MCM, he could not be considered. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the OA.
12. A separate reply has been filed by the 3 rd respondent. Based on the reply, the learned counsel for 3rd respondent pointed out that the applicant has not challenged any of the orders more specifically the Office 9 OA/310/00630/2015 order No.106, dated 18.08.2014 or the seniority list in A- 6 of the OA. He further submitted that without prejudice to the above, the 3 rd respondent was initially appointed as Electrician Skilled on 27.1.1993 under SC Quota. He passed the Trade test in January 1998 for promotion to Electrician Highly Skilled Grade-II vide PTO No.15 dated 13.04.1998 (A- 3, Pg.14 of the OA). The 3rd respondent was promoted as Electrician HS- II with effect from 29.11.1999 vide Office Order, dated 09.12.1999 (A-4 Pg 15 of the OA) against one SC vacancy. This was not challenged by the applicant, and the applicant got his promotion as HS-II on 14.10.2003 vide order, dated 23.10.2003
13. He further submitted that during the restructuring of the Highly Skilled Grade, as per the Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter dated 14.06.2010, in the promotion cycle from HS-I to MCM for the period 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013, Mr. S. Thankappan (Elect., MCM), who belonged to the ST category, opted for VRS with effect from 30.04.2012. His post, which was being utilized against an UR slot, resulted in the creation of a wastage vacancy. Under the post-based roster system-- introduced on 02.07.1997 pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal & Others v. State of Punjab [(1995) 2 10 OA/310/00630/2015 SCC 745]--the 3rd Respondent was promoted, as he was eligible and the post was earlier held by a reserved category employee. Thus, it is evident that the 3rd Respondent's promotion was made strictly in accordance with the post-based roster system and not the vacancy-based roster. Subsequently, the next promotion was granted to the 4th Respondent, as the vacancy was an SC slot utilized against the SC category. Hence, the promotion granted to the 3rd Respondent was fully in line with the post- based roster requirements.
14. He further submitted that the "catch-up rule" referred to by the applicant does not apply in this case, as it pertains to consequential seniority and not to promotions made on the basis of a post-based roster. He also pointed out that the applicant has not claimed that Mr. S. Thankappan, who took VRS on 30.04.2012, belonged to the UR category, nor has he asserted that any UR vacancy arising from retirement, VRS, or resignation was denied to him. Therefore, the applicant's claim is contrary to the actual vacancy position and the principles of post-based roster promotions. He concluded that the promotions were granted strictly in accordance with the post-based roster system. The stand of Respondents 1 and 2 aligns with the submissions of the 3rd Respondent. Hence, the promotion of the 3rd Respondent is legal, and no illegality exists as alleged by the applicant. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the OA as being devoid of merit.
11 OA/310/00630/2015
15. The 4th respondent has not filed any reply statement. The applicant has filed a rejoinder reiterating the contentions made in the OA.
16. We have heard the submissions made by learned counsel on all sides at length, perused the pleadings, and materials available on record. The judgments referred to by the respective parties along with their written submissions were also carefully gone through by us.
17. It is pertinent to state that the applicant belongs to the General Category, while the 3rd Respondent belongs to the SC Category. The applicant has questioned the initial promotion of the 3 rd Respondent to the post of Highly Skilled-II on 29.11.1999. From the records, it is evident that the vacancy in question was earmarked for the General (UR) category and not for the SC category, as reflected in the documents filed by the official respondents. However, this issue cannot be adjudicated upon, as it does not form part of the applicant's prayer in the present OA.
18. It is also to be noted that both the applicant and the 3 rd Respondent were subsequently promoted to the post of Highly Skilled-I on the same date, i.e., 01.01.2006. Therefore, the 3rd Respondent cannot claim seniority over the applicant in the HS-I cadre. When the date of promotion 12 OA/310/00630/2015 is identical, seniority must be determined based on the initial date of entry into service. In this case, the applicant was appointed on 24.11.1993, whereas the 3rd Respondent was appointed on 27.11.1993. Accordingly, it is clear that the applicant is senior to the 3rd Respondent.
19. The issues for determination in the present OA are: (i) whether the promotion of the 3rd and 4th Respondents to the post of MCM, overlooking the seniority of the applicant, is legally sustainable; and (ii) whether the 'catch-up rule' or the 'post-based roster' should be applied in this case.
20. Before examining the issues, it is necessary to clarify the concepts of the "catch-up rule" and the "post-based roster". When a reserved category candidate is promoted earlier than an unreserved candidate on account of roster points, certain principles determine how seniority and further promotions are regulated. The „catch-up rule" provides that when a senior General Category (UR) employee is promoted at a later stage and reaches the same post as a junior SC/ST (reserved category) employee who had received accelerated promotion due to reservation, the senior UR employee "catches up" and regains his original seniority over the junior 13 OA/310/00630/2015 reserved category employee. The post-based roster system, on the other hand, allocates posts not vacancies based on a prescribed roster (such as a 13-point, 100-point, or 200-point roster) to ensure proportional representation of reserved categories in each grade. Under this system, promotions are governed by the category of the post as per the roster, irrespective of individual seniority positions.
21. In respect of "Catch-up Rule", it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Apex court in the case of S. Panner Selvam Vs State of Tamil Nadu (2015) 10 SCC 292, relied on by the learned counsel for the applicant. The relevant portions of the judgment are extracted hereunder:
"16.In Ajit Singh And Ors.(II) vs. State of Punjab And Ors., (1999) 7 SCC 209, the Constitution Bench was concerned with the issue whether the decisions in Virpal Singh Chauhan and Ajit Singh Januja case which were earlier decided to the effect upholding the 'catch-up rule', that is, the seniority of general category candidates is to be confirmed or whether the later deviation made in Jagdish Lal case against the general category candidates. In Ajit Singh (II) case, inter-
alia, the following points arose for consideration:- (i). Can the roster-point promotee count their seniority in the promoted category from the date of their continuous officiation vis-à-vis general candidates, who were senior to them in the lower category and who were later promoted to the same level? (ii) Have Virpal [(1995) 6 SCC 684] and Ajit Singh [(1996) 2 SCC 715] been correctly decided and has Jagdish Lal [(1997) 6 SCC 538] been correctly decided?
(iii) Whether the "catch-up" principles are tenable?
14 OA/310/00630/2015
17. The Constitution Bench held that Articles 16(4) and (4A) did not confer any fundamental right to reservation and that they are only enabling provisions. Overruling the judgment in Jagdish Lal case and observing that rights of the reserved classes must be balanced against the interests of other segments of society in para (77), this Court held as under:-
"77. We, therefore, hold that the roster-point promotees (reserved category) cannot count their seniority in the promoted category from the date of their continuous officiation in the promoted post, -- vis-à-vis the general candidates who were senior to them in the lower category and who were later promoted. On the other hand, the senior general candidate at the lower level, if he reaches the promotional level later but before the further promotion of the reserved candidate -- he will have to be treated as senior, at the promotional level, to the reserved candidate even if the reserved candidate was earlier promoted to that level. We shall explain this further under Point 3. We also hold that Virpal, (1995) 6 SCC 684 and Ajit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 715 have been correctly decided and that Jagdish Lal, (1997) 6 SCC 538 is not correctly decided. Points 1 and 2 are decided accordingly."
xxxxxx
36. In the absence of any provision for consequential seniority in the rules, the 'catch up rule' will be applicable and the roster-point reserved category promotees cannot count their seniority in the promoted category from the date of their promotion and the senior general candidates if later reach the promotional level, general candidates will regain their seniority. The Division Bench appears to have proceeded on an erroneous footing that Article 16 (4A) of the Constitution of India automatically gives the consequential seniority in addition to accelerated promotion to the roster- point promotees and the judgment of the Division Bench cannot be sustained".
15 OA/310/00630/2015
22. We also found that the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh has decided the issue on "Catch-up-rule" and "post based roster" in the case of Kailash Chander Vs State of Haryana and Others (in CWP No.26007 of 2021) on 12.09.2025. The relevant portions of the judgment are extracted hereunder:
'This court cannot lose sight of the fact that when the framers of our Constitution enshrined the guarantee of equality of opportunity in public employment under Article 16, their vision was to harmonise the twin objectives of democratisation and administrative efficiency. Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India, in particular, enables the State to provide for reservation in appointments or posts for backward classes who, in the State's opinion, are not adequately represented in public services. Simultaneously, Article 335 of the Constitution imposes a constitutional obligation to consider the claims of reserved categories in recruitment and promotion, but only insofar as it remains consistent with the maintenance of efficiency in administration.
Thus, the Constitution mandates a delicate balance, where social justice is pursued, but not at the cost of merit or institutional integrity. It is this balance which the courts have time and again sought to protect. While promoting inclusion, the system must not become a source of alienation for those who, despite sustained performance and seniority, find themselves displaced by virtue of reservation-based acceleration alone. Promotion, as an incident of service, is not merely about elevation, it is about recognition, fairness, and morale. The exclusion of senior general category employees from rightful consideration, merely due to the accumulated advantage of earlier reserved promotions, undermines the equality mandate. This court is of the view that, in cases where a general category employee attains the same post as his junior who had earlier 16 OA/310/00630/2015 been promoted under the reservation policy, the 'catch-up rule' must be applied. This restores the senior's rightful position and protects against what may otherwise constitute reverse discrimination. To allow the reserved category junior to retain a continuous promotional advantage without reassessing seniority at the common post would amount to ignoring the equality clauses enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The principle of equality demands that, once parity in position is achieved, the originally senior general category employee should not be prejudiced in matters of pay, status, or further advancement.
Any deviation would erode the constitutional commitment to fairness, and compromise the larger objective of balanced and inclusive governance. Reliance may be placed on the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab 1996(2) SCT 278, wherein it was held as follows:
"16. We respectfully concur with the view in Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan (supra) that seniority between the reserved category candidates and general candidates in the promoted category shall continue to be governed by their panel position i.e. with reference to their inter se seniority in the lower grade. The rule of reservation gives accelerated promotion, but it does not give the accelerated 'consequential seniority'. If a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidate is promoted earlier because of the rule of reservation/roster and his senior belonging to the general category candidate is promoted later to that higher grade the general category candidate shall regain his seniority over such earlier promoted scheduled caste/tribe candidate. As already pointed out above that when a scheduled caste/tribe candidate is promoted earlier by applying the rule of reservation/roster against a post reserved for such scheduled caste/tribe candidate, in this process he does not supersede his seniors belonging to the general category. In this process there was no occasion to examine the merit of such scheduled caste/tribe candidate vis-a-vis his seniors belonging to the general category. As such it will be only rational, just and proper to hold that when the general category candidate is promoted later from the lower grade to the higher grade, he will be considered senior to a 17 OA/310/00630/2015 candidate belonging to the scheduled caste/tribe who had been given accelerated promotion against the post reserved for him. Whenever a question arises for filling up a post reserved for scheduled caste/tribe candidate in still higher grade then such candidate belonging to scheduled caste/tribe shall be promoted first but when the consideration is in respect of promotion against the general category post in still higher grade then the general category candidate who has been promoted later shall be considered senior and his case shall be considered first for promotion applying either principle of seniority-cum-merit or merit cum-seniority. If this rule and procedure is not applied then result will be that majority of the posts in the higher grade shall be held at one stage by persons who have not only entered in service on basis of reservation and roster but have excluded the general category candidates from being promoted to the posts reserved for general category candidates merely on the ground of their initial accelerated promotions. This will not be consistent with the requirement or the spirit of Article 16(4) or Article 335 of the Constitution."
The principle that the "catch-up rule" recognizes that reservation may advance a junior temporarily, but once the senior reaches the same post, his seniority must be restored, has been consistently followed by this Court in CWP No. 2382 of 1996 decided on 06.12.2006 titled "Prem Kumar Verma v. State of Haryana" and CWP No. 13889 of 2006 decided on 15.05.2008 titled "Charan Dass v. State of Haryana", wherein it was held that a senior general category employee, upon catching up with his junior in the reserved category, is entitled to stepping up of pay at par and the said judgment was generalized through Government instructions dated 05.03.2009 attached as Annexure P-3. Furthermore, it is apposite to take note of an almost identical matter, a similar claim was rejected by the respondents vide impugned order dated 03.02.2014, which was challenged in CWP No. 9870 of 2014 titled "Anant Ram Sharma v. State of Haryana" wherein this Court, vide judgment dated 02.07.2015, set aside the rejection order and 18 OA/310/00630/2015 allowed the claim of the petitioner for stepping up of his pay at par with his junior. The present case is squarely covered by the said decision as well.
This Court observes that the reasoning adopted in the impugned order dated 05.03.2020, that the petitioner had not regained his seniority at the stage of Revenue Clerk and that no seniority list of Zilledar was prepared, is wholly untenable. Once the petitioner and his junior both occupied the post of Zilledar, the principle of catch-up applied automatically, irrespective of whether a formal seniority list was drawn. The benefit cannot be denied on vague or technical grounds, as doing so would perpetuate inequality in contravention of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This court is sanguine of the fact that the petitioner's grievance is not merely about monetary parity, it is, in essence, a plea for recognition, for dignity, for fairness in the twilight of a long and honourable career in public service. It is an appeal that seeks to restore balance to a life spent in silent contribution to the functioning of the State and to deny him this parity, when the law is so clearly in his favour, would be to allow technicalities to overshadow justice. The Constitution of India does not permit such indifference as equality under Article 14 of the Constitution and fairness in service under Article 16 of the Constitution demand more than token acknowledgment, they require that rightful claims not be buried under bureaucratic delay or administrative omission. At this stage in life, when the petitioner seeks not future promotion but retrospective affirmation, this Court cannot look away since justice must not only be done, it must reach the doorstep of the petitioner with the quiet assurance that the law has not forgotten him.
In view of the settled position of law in Ajit Singh Janjua (supra), Charan Dass (supra), Prem Kumar Verma (supra), and the decision in Anant Ram Sharma (supra), the claim of the petitioner deserves acceptance."
19 OA/310/00630/2015
23. From the foregoing, it can be concluded that the catch-up rule was designed to maintain a balance between reservation policies and the seniority system. Its primary purpose is to ensure that seniority which reflects an employee's length of service and experience is not compromised by promotions granted under reservation. This rule is particularly significant in situations where a General Category employee might lose seniority solely because a Reserved Category employee was promoted earlier under the reservation policy.
24. Applying this principle to the present Original Application, the 3 rd Respondent had reached the post of Highly Skilled-II prior to the applicant due to reservation. Subsequently, both the applicant and the 3 rd Respondent were promoted to the post of Highly Skilled-I on the same date, i.e., 01.01.2006. In such a scenario, for the next promotion to the post of MCM--which is reserved for the Unreserved category, the applicant's case must be given due consideration, while taking into account the positions of the 3rd and 4th Respondents.
25. In the above circumstance, we find that the applicant has made out a case for the relief prayed for by him. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order,dated 07.10.2024 and the respondents 1 & 2 are directed 20 OA/310/00630/2015 to assign appropriate seniority to the applicant in the Highly Skilled Grade and promotion to the post of MCM with all monetary benefits. Such exercise shall be carried out by the said respondents as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
26. In the result, the OA is allowed on the above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(M.L. SRIVASTAVA) (M.SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
02.02.2016
mas
Digitally signed
MA by M A SUNDAR
Date:
SUNDAR 2026.02.12
14:37:32 +05'30'