Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Jessy James Alias Jessy Kuriachan vs M/O Defence on 27 November, 2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A No. 180/00102/2016
Thursday, this the 27th day of November, 2025.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr. BRAJ MOHAN AGRAWAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Jessy James @ Jessy Kuriachan, aged 51 years,
D/o V.D. James, Valiyaveettil House,
Kadavanthra, Kochi-682 020
Electronic Fitter, HS-II,
NSRY, Naval Base, Kochi-4 - Applicant
[By Advocate : Ms. Niharika Hemaraj]
Versus
1. Command Administration and Personal Officer,
Head Quarters, Southern Naval Command,
Wellington Island, Kochi-4
2. The Flag Officer,
Command-in-Chief,
Southern Naval Command,
Wellington Island, Kochi-4
3. Union of India represented by Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
Raksha Bhavan, New Delhi - Respondents
[By Advocate: Mr. Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, SPC ]
2025.11.27
V R ARUNKUMAR
16:05:34+05'30'
2
O.A No. 180/102/2016
The Original Application having been heard on 18.11.2025, the Tribunal on
27.11.2025 delivered the following:
ORDER
Per: Mr. Braj Mohan Agrawal, Administrative Member Applicant was an ex-naval apprentice absorbed as Control Fitter Electric (SK) in the Nayal Ship Repair Yard at Kochi. She was appointed in compliance of this Tribunal order in OA No.159/2002 dated 06.08.2004 (Annexure A-1) by Southern Naval Command w.e.f. 03.05.20025 (Annexure A-7). The applicant claims that the respondents in spite of several representations is not granting the applicant her due seniority from the date of arising of the vacancy on 24.08.2001 to which the applicant was appointed. The applicant claims that the respondents have not considered the claim of the applicant in spite of similar orders being passed by them in other cases as evidenced by Annexure A-5.
The applicant claims that certain others have been found eligible for conversion from NPS to CCS(Pension) Rules 1972 under a different command, while the applicant's representation was arbitrarily rejected. A true copy of the Memorandum dated 26.04.2021 issued by the Admiral Superintendent, Naval 2025.11.27 V R ARUNKUMAR 16:05:34+05'30' 3 O.A No. 180/102/2016 Dockyard, Mumbai is produced and marked as Annexure A-11. Such discrimination shown in conferring the benefits is arbitrary, illegal and against the interest of justice.
2. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed the Original Application with the following reliefs:-
(i) To call for the records leading to Annexure A3 dated 19.06.2013 and quash the same.
(ii) Direct the respondents herein to refix the applicant's seniority in the appropriate category namely Control Fitter Electric (SK) from 28.08.2001 notionally and grant her all other benefits accruing from such refixation however without any back wages.
(iii) Issue necessary orders or direction directing the 2 nd respondent herein to consider and pass necessary orders in Annexure A-4 representations submitted by the applicant herein taking into consideration Annexure A-1 and A-5 orders passed by this Tribunal
(iv) Grant such other and further reliefs as are just, proper and necessary that this Tribunal may deed fit to grant and
(v) Award to the applicant the costs of these proceedings
(vi) Call for all the records leading to the decision reflected in the minutes communicated to the applicant vide Annexure A10 and quash the same;
(vii) Declare that the applicant is eligible to be granted the benefits of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules of 1972;
2025.11.27 V R ARUNKUMAR 16:05:34+05'30' 4 O.A No. 180/102/2016
(viii) Direct the respondents herein to grant the applicant the benefits provided in the Central Civil Services (Pension) rules of 1972 3 It is seen from the records that the OA was dismissed by the Tribunal's order dated 10.08.2022. The operative portion of the order is reproduced:-
"10. Be that as it may, the fact remains that as per the judgments narrated herein above the applicant has no right to claim seniority with effect from the date of vacancy. On the contrary, counsel for the respondents has drawn our attention to the fact that as soon as the vacancy arose the applicant's case was considered and she was given appointment which suffice the purpose of decision of this Tribunal in the earlier OA No.159/2002.
11. In view of the above, we find that this application can be dismissed on the ground of delay laches as well as on merit. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.."
By order in R.A. No.22/2022 dated 12.12.2022, the RA was allowed and the order of dismissal was recalled. It is seen from the records that amendment application was allowed by order dated 15.09.2021 and amended OA was permitted to be filed.
4. Following relevant part-para and para from order of this Tribunal in OA No.159/2002 (Annexure A-1) are reproduced below:-
2025.11.27 V R ARUNKUMAR 16:05:34+05'30' 5 O.A No. 180/102/2016 "6......Further, if there is vacancy which accrued in 1999 reserved for Scheduled Castes and if none in that category is available we find that it is for the respondents to take up the matter for de-reservation and filling up by a general candidate.
8. In the result, in the light of the above discussions we set aside Annexure A7 and A9 and direct the respondents to consider the absorption of the applicant in her turn against the vacancy of Control Fitter(SK) as she is eligible for such absorption despite the crossing 27 years of age which limit does not apply for absorptionists. The respondents are directed to complete the exercise as aforesaid and issue resultant orders as expeditiously as possible at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs."
5. The respondents in their reply statement submitted that Smt Jessy James is an ex-apprentice, who had undergone apprenticeship training in the trade of Control Fitter in the non-designated trade during the year 1990-1991. On successful completion of apprenticeship, her name was kept in the waiting list as per the procedure in vogue for consideration of appointment against vacancies arising in future. As per the then existing Recruitment Rules/practice, the apprentices in the waiting list were considered for absorption/appointment against vacancies that arose in the respective trades according to their seniority. The upper age limit for absorption/appointment of ex-apprentices to the post of Tradesman(Skilled) was prescribed as 40 years as per SRO 339(Sl.3) dated 19 Nov 1979. However, this Recruitment Rules have been revised by SRO 150/2000 fixing 2025.11.27 V R ARUNKUMAR 16:05:34+05'30' 6 O.A No. 180/102/2016 upper age limit as 27 years, which came into force with effect from 29 July 2000, which was further brought down to 25 years vide SRO 262/2002. In terms of Government of India instructions contained in SRO 150/2000 of 1 Jun 2000, the applicant had crossed the upper age limit of 27 years (even after applying the age relaxation as admissible including apprenticeship period) and therefore the name of this individual was deleted along with 100 similarly placed ex-apprentices in different trades from the list of ex-apprentice candidates, who were waiting for appointment against regular vacancies which may arise in future. This fact was duly communicated to the applicant.
In compliance of this Tribunal's order dated 06.08.2004, the applicant was appointed as Fitter Electric Control(SK) on 03.05.2005
6. The respondents further submitted that in accordance with Department of Personnel and Training OM No.20011/1/2006-Estt(D) dated 03March 2008 (Annexure R-2) 'when appointments against unfilled vacancies are made in subsequent year or years either by direct recruitment or promotion, the persons so appointed shall not get seniority of any earlier year (viz. year of vacancy/panel or year in which recruitment process is initiated) but should get the seniority of the year in which they are appointed on substantive basis.' As 2025.11.27 V R ARUNKUMAR 16:05:34+05'30' 7 O.A No. 180/102/2016 such seniority of any employees is to be reckoned from the date of actual appointment/absorption in the post/trade and not based on the date of occurrence of vacancy.
7. It has further been submitted by the respondents that the court order being relied on by the applicant is not identical to the matter of the applicant as OA 446/2011(A-5) referred pertains to inclusion of the applicant in pension scheme under CCS(Pension) Rule 1972. The judgement in OA 764/2008 referred by the Tribunal in A-5 is based on a different instance wherein the applicant in OA 764/2008 was stated to be overlooked by the respondents for appointment. Hence, the same cannot be related to the claim of the applicant for seniority from a date wherein the applicant was not in service at all.
8. In their additional reply statement the respondents further submitted that the seniority of an employee is to reckoned from the date of actual appointment/absorption in the post/trade and not based on the date of occurrence of vacancy. Therefore, the claim of the applicant is violative of the Government rules as appended in Annexure R2.
2025.11.27 V R ARUNKUMAR 16:05:34+05'30' 8 O.A No. 180/102/2016
9. As regards the applicant's claim for Old Pension Scheme the respondents have submitted that the DoP&PW OM 57/04/2019-P&PW(B) dated 17 February 20 (Annexure-A8) stipulates that in all cases where the results of recruitment were declared before 01.01.2004 against vacancies occurring on or before 31.12.2003, the candidates declared successful for recruitment shall be eligible for coverage under the CCS(Pension) Rules 1972. Accordingly, such Government servants who were declared successful for recruitment in the result declared on or before 31.12.2003 against vacancies occurring before 01.01.2004 only are eligible for conversion to Old Pension Scheme............. As per Apprentices Act, 1961, the apprentices are to be appointed in the Naval Repair Organisations as Skilled (SK) or Highly Skilled-II (HS-II) on successful completion of apprenticeship, depending upon merit and availability of vacancies. It is pertinent to mention that mere successful completion of apprenticeship does not confer any claim on the candidate for absorption.
10. Regarding applicant's claim on differential treatment viz. Others who were absorbed in Naval Dockyard, Mumbai the respondents have clarified that as per Annual Recruitment Plan (ARP), the approval for recruitment was given only for 107 vacancies as against 1106 existing vacancies during the relevant period.
2025.11.27 V R ARUNKUMAR 16:05:34+05'30' 9 O.A No. 180/102/2016 Subsequently, Board proceedings for recruitment of the post of Tradesman (Skilled) were formulated for 107 vacancies in 2004 wherein 104 candidates were selected. Apprenticeship of 165 individuals was completed in Jun 2003 and 104 candidates were appointed during September-November 2004, against clearance given for 107 vacancies. However, the existing vacancies during the period were 1106. Hence, there was a delay in finalizing the number of vacancies for appointment of candidates at Western Naval Command (WNC), who have completed apprenticeship in June 2003. The sanctioned strength of Tradesman(Skilled) in Navel Dockyard, Mumbai is much higher than the sanctioned strength at Southern Naval Command. Hence, all apprentices passed out from DAS were absorbed in Naval Dockyard, Mumbai as per SRO in force within 2-3 months. However, in SNC, a roster is maintained and as and when vacancy arose, the eligible ex-Naval apprentices were considered for absorption without any selection formalities/age ceiling in accordance with SRO in force.
11. The respondents further submitted that it is pertinent to mention that para 3(ii) of Annexure-A8 says that some of the candidates selected through a common selection process were issued with offer of appointments and were also appointed before 01.01.2004 whereas the offers of appointment to other selected 2025.11.27 V R ARUNKUMAR 16:05:34+05'30' 10 O.A No. 180/102/2016 candidates were issued on or after 01 January 2004 due to administrative reasons/constraints including Court/CAT cases.
Though the applicant successfully completed the apprenticeship, she was appointed as Tradesman(Skilled) on 03.05.2005 against available vacancy through absorption of ex-Naval Apprentices under Apprentices Act, 1961 in compliance to the Tribunal's order dated 06.08.2004 in OA 159/2002. Hence it is evident that the applicant has not been appointed against a common selection process as described in para 3(ii) of the DoP&PW OM 57/04/2019-P&PW(B) dated 17 February 20 (Annexure-A8).
It is pertinent to mention that successful completion of apprenticeship does not confer any claim on the candidate for appointment.
12. The respondents have relied on the following judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India dated 30th April, 1991 {(1991) 2 SCR 567} and K. Meghachandra Singh and others v. Ningam Siro & others dated 19.11.2019 { (2019) 16 SCR 651} and the relevant paras have been reproduced respectively :-
"10. ......A decision in this regard was accordingly taken and the process for further allotment to any vacancy arising later was closed. Mr. Goswami relied upon certain appointments actually made subsequent to this stage and urged that by 2025.11.27 V R ARUNKUMAR 16:05:34+05'30' 11 O.A No. 180/102/2016 those dates the further vacancies in the Indian Police Service had arisen to which the appellant and other successful candidates should have been adjusted. We do not find any merit in this contention. It is not material if in pursuance of a decision already taken before closing the process of final selection, the formal appointments were concluded later. What is relevant is to see as to when the process of final selection was closed. Mere completing the formalities cannot be of any help to the appellant. We do not consider it necessary to mention all the details in this connection available from the large number of documents which we closely examined during the hearing at considerable length and do not have any hesitation in rejecting the argument of the learned counsel in this regard based on the factual aspect."
"1.4 The law for determination of seniority makes it abundantly clear that under Service Jurisprudence, seniority cannot be claimed from a date when the incumbent is yet to be borne in the cadre....."
13. It is noted that mere successful completion of apprenticeship does not confer any legal right to the applicant for recruitment. We conclude from the above that applicant was appointed as Fitter Electric Control(SK) on 03.05.2005 against available vacancies through absorption in compliance of this Tribunal's order dated 06.08.2004 in OA No.159/2002 which expressly stated to consider the absorption of the applicant in her turn against the vacancy of Control Fitter (SK) and accordingly she has been appointed on 03.05.2005. The applicant cannot claim seniority for the vacancies that arose on 24.08.2001 against which she was not appointed; and was not on the cadre of Southern Naval Command.
2025.11.27 V R ARUNKUMAR 16:05:34+05'30' 12 O.A No. 180/102/2016 Consequently, she is not entitled for Old Pension Scheme in terms of DoP&PW OM dated 03rd March 2023. Original Application is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. No costs.
(Dated the 27th November, 2025.)
(BRAJ MOHAN AGRAWAL) (JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
va
2025.11.27
V R ARUNKUMAR
16:05:34+05'30'
13
O.A No. 180/102/2016
List of Annexures in OA No.180/102/2016
Annexure A-1- True copy of judgement in OA No.159 of 2002 dated 06.08.2004 Annexure A-2- True copy of the representation dated 21.08.12. submitted by the applicant Annexure A-3- True copy of the reply dated 19.06.2013 issued to the applicant Annexure A-4- True copy of the representation dated 19.11.2015 submitted by the applicant Annexure A-5- True copy of the judgement in OA No.446 of 2011 dated 26.08.2011 Annexure A-6- True copy of the memorandum No.CS/2764/53 dated 25.04.2005 Annexure A-7- True copy of the appointment order No.CS 2764/53 dated 29.04.2005 Annexure A-8- True copy of the Office Memorandum No.57/04/2019- P&PW(B) dated 17.02.2020 Annexure A-9- True copy of the representation dated 17.02.2020 made by the applicant to the Under Secretary of the Department of Pension and PW through proper channel Annexure A-10- True copy of the File No.PA/03/2670/01 dated 31.12.2020 Annexure A-11- True copy of the Memorandum dated 26.04.2021 issued by the Admiral Superintendent, Naval Dockyard, Mumbai Annexure A-12- True copy of the letter No.NC-JCM-2023/Pension dated 03.03.2023 2025.11.27 V R ARUNKUMAR 16:05:34+05'30' 14 O.A No. 180/102/2016 Annexure A-13- True copy of the Office Memorandum No.57/05/2021- P&PW(B) dated 03.03.2023 Annexure A-14- True copy of the representation dated 29 th March, 2023 submitted by the applicant AnnexureA-15- True copy of the letter No.PA/03/2670/01(A)(i) issued to the applicant dated 28.12.2003 Annexure A-16- True copy of the letter No.CS2765/33 issued by the 2 nd respondent dated 19.10.2001 Annexure A-17- True copy of letter No.CS2765/33 issued by 2 nd respondent dated 17.12.2001 *** Annexure R 1- Copy of appointment letter CS 2764/53 dated 29 April 2005 Annexure R 2- Copy of DOPT OM No.20011/1/2006-Estt(D) dated 03 Mar 2008
- ****** 2025.11.27 V R ARUNKUMAR 16:05:34+05'30'