Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Naresh Kumar Nirmal vs Union Of India on 18 September, 2025
O.A. No.330/468 of 2013
With
O.A. No.330/491 of 2013
(Reserved on 28.08.2025)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
Pronounced on 18th day of September, 2025
Original Application No.468 of 2013 with
O.A. No.491 of 2013
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)
In O.A. No.468/2013
PUNIT
KUMAR
MISHRA
Naresh Kumar Nirmal, Ticket No. 8676/L, Son of Sri Ram Chandra
Singh, Resident of 04/106, Type-II, New Defence Colony, G.T. Road,
C.O.D., Kanpur-208013 (U.P.). .... Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Ashutosh Sharma in both the cases
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, North
Block, New Delhi
2. Director General, Ordance Factories, Government of India,
Ministry of Defence, Ordnance Factory Board, Ayudh Bhawan, 10-A,
Shahid Khudiram Bose Road, Kolkata-70000.
3. Additional Director General, Ordnance Factory Group, Head
Quarter, G.T. Road, Kanpur.
4. General Manager, Ordnance Parachute Factory, Kanpur
5. Umesh Kumar Shukla, Ticket No. 8668/L, Presently Posted in
the office of Ordnance Parachute Factory, Kanpur
...... Respondents
In O.A. No.491/2013
Tribhuwan Singh, Ticket No.8456/L, S/o Suryanath Singh, R/o H
No.186-A-2, Ompurwa, Chakeri Raod, Kanpur
.... Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, North
Block, New Delhi
Page 1 of 13
O.A. No.330/468 of 2013
With
O.A. No.330/491 of 2013
2. Director General, Ordance Factories, Government of India,
Ministry of Defence, Ordnance Factory Board, Ayudh Bhawan, 10-A,
Shahid Khudiram Bose Road, Kolkata-70000.
3. Additional Director General, Ordnance Factory Group, Head
Quarter, G.T. Road, Kanpur.
4. General Manager, Ordnance Parachute Factory, Kanpur
5. Siman Singh, Ticket No.8423/L, Presently Posted in the office of
Ordnance Parachute Factory, Kanpur
PUNIT
KUMAR
MISHRA
... Respondents
By Advocate :- Shri Raghvendra Pratap Singh in both the cases
ORDER
By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):-
Heard Shri Ashutosh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Raghvendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the official respondents in both the cases at the time of hearing of the cases.
2. The Original Application No.468/2013 under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed for the following reliefs:
I. To quash the order dated 24.02.2013 passed by respondent-3.
II. To direct the respondents to give the notional seniority to the applicant w.e.f. his junior Sri Umesh Kumar Shukla/respondent-5.
III. To issue any other suitable and further relief as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
IV. To issue award cost of this Original Application to the applicant.Page 2 of 13
O.A. No.330/468 of 2013 With O.A. No.330/491 of 2013
3. The Original Application No.491/2013 under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed for the following reliefs:
I. To quash the order dated 21.03.2013 passed by respondent-3.
II. To direct the respondents to give the notional seniority to the applicant w.e.f. his junior Sri Siman Singh/respondent-5.
III. To issue any other suitable and further relief as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA circumstances of the case.
IV. To issue award cost of this Original Application to the applicant.
4. The brief facts as narrated in O.A. No.468/2013 is that the applicant is presently working as a Tailor highly skilled Grade-II in P.B.- 1 in pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 +Grade pay Rs.2400 in the Ordnance Parachute Factory, Kanpur. The applicant was selected for Trade Apprentice in which the applicant has obtained 427 marks in National Council for Vocational Training (hereinafter referred as 'N.C.V.T.") and his junior i.e. respondent-5 obtained 371 marks and their names were mentioned at serial No. 14 and 17 in the Select List of Trade Apprentice.
4.1 Thereafter, the applicant appeared in the refresher training for the post of Tailor Semi Skilled. On 23.1.2004, a letter was issued by respondent-3 for collection of Police Verification Report Forms, wherein it was clearly stipulated that the applicant was declared qualified in the trade test for the post of Tailor/Semi Skilled, which was held on 06.01.2004 and as such, the applicant was directed to collect PVR Forms by the aforesaid factory on 9.2.2004 at 8:30 A.M. positively.
Page 3 of 13
O.A. No.330/468 of 2013 With O.A. No.330/491 of 2013 4.2 Thereafter, the applicant was medically examined on 25.5.2004, therefore, it is an admitted position that applicant has already fulfilled all condition in the month of May, 2004 for the appointment on the post of Tailor/Semi Skilled, but the respondents have not issued appointment order of applicant for the said post. Subsequently, the respondent-2 issued a letter dated 01.06.2004, by which, appointment letters of 44 individuals were issued for the post of PUNIT KUMAR Tailor/Semi Skilled in the pay scale of Rs. 2650-65-3300-70-4000, MISHRA whereas the applicant was issued appointment letter on 08.06.2004 and as such, due to fault of the respondents, the appointment letter could not be issued in favour of the applicant along with above 44 individuals. Therefore, junior persons were appointed prior to the applicant vide order dated 01.06.2004.
4.3 Subsequently, the Assistant Work Manager has issued a letter dated 15.6.2006 for promotion from Tailor/Semi Skilled to Tailor/Skilled grade and the name of applicant is found at Sl.No.42. However, the promotion would be effective w.e.f. 8.6.2006, which is clearly stipulated in the aforesaid letter. Thereafter, the pay of the applicant also fixed vide letter dated 30.9.2006 and the name of applicant found place at Sl.No.4, whereas the name of the respondent- 5 was mentioned at Sr. No.3, but the applicant could not know the said fact at that time.
4.4 However, after knowledge of the aforesaid fact, the applicant submitted a representation to the respondent-3 on 10.03.2010, explaining the facts in detail and claiming seniority above the respondent-5. In reply, the Joint Manager, Administration vide letter dated 11.11.2010 stated that application of the applicant was Page 4 of 13 O.A. No.330/468 of 2013 With O.A. No.330/491 of 2013 incomplete as the applicant has not made clear that on which employee he was claiming notional seniority. 4.5 In view thereof, the applicant again submitted representation on 20.11.2010 to the respondent-3, therein stated that Sri Umesh Kumar Shukla/respondent-5 is junior from him and requested to give him seniority.
4.6 However, on 13.12.2010, a promotion order was issued for PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA the post of Tailor/Highly in favour of the applicant and others employee and the name of the applicant was found at Sl. No.120 and his junior name Sri Umesh Kumar Shukla was found at Sl. No.118 and the effective date of promotion of the applicant shown as 09.06.2006 and the date of promotion of his junior's Sri Umesh Kumar Shukla shown as 02.06.2006.
4.7 On 30.06.2011, the applicant submitted representation before the respondent-4, claiming his seniority on the basis of the merits, in which the applicant obtained more marks to his juniors, but no heed was paid. However, in similar circumstances, the respondent- 3 issued an order on 11.08.2011 & 03.09.2012, by which notional seniority was given to senior employee w.e.f. his juniors. 4.8 In view of above orders, the applicant sent again a representation on 06.12.2012 before the respondents, but the same was rejected vide order dated 24.02.2013 passed by respondent-3. The order dated 24.02.2013 is impugned in O.A. No.468/2013.
5. Similarly the facts of O.A. No.491/2013 is that the applicant is presently working as a Tailor highly skilled Grade-I in P.B.- 1 in pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 +grade pay Rs.2400 in the Ordnance Parachute Factory, Kanpur. The applicant was selected for Trade Page 5 of 13 O.A. No.330/468 of 2013 With O.A. No.330/491 of 2013 Apprentice in which the applicant has obtained 400 marks in N.C.V.T. and his junior i.e. respondent no.5 obtained 386 marks and their names were mentioned at serial No. 17 and 18 in the Select List of Trade Apprentice.
5.1 Thereafter, the applicant appeared in the refresher training for the post of Tailor Semi Skilled in view of letter dated 31.12.2001 issued by respondent-4. Subsequently, the applicant submitted his PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA PVR Forms and was medically examined. Therefore, it is an admitted position that applicant has already fulfilled all condition in the month of February, 2002 for the appointment on the post of Tailor/Semi Skilled, but the respondents have not issued appointment order of applicant for the said post. Subsequently, the respondent-3 issued a letter dated 25.02.2002, by which, appointment letters of 44 individuals were issued, whereas, the appointment letter was issued in favour of the applicant on 28.02.2002, for the post of Tailor/Semi Skilled in the pay scale of Rs. 2650-65-3300-70-4000. Therefore, due to fault of the respondents, the appointment letter could not be issued in favour of the applicant and as such, junior persons were appointed prior to the applicant vide order dated 25.02.2002, 5.2 Subsequently, the Assistant Work Manager has issued a letter dated 06.03.2004, by which several juniors persons to the applicant were promoted from the post of Tailor/Semi Skilled to Tailor/Skilled Grade w.e.f. 22.02.2004. The applicant was also promoted vide order dated 17.03.2004 for the aforesaid order, but the promotion of the applicant was effective w.e.f. 26.02.2004. 5.3 Due to the aforesaid illegality, the applicant submitted a representation to the respondent-3 on 09.03.2010, explaining the facts Page 6 of 13 O.A. No.330/468 of 2013 With O.A. No.330/491 of 2013 in detail and claiming seniority above the respondent-5 and also stated that due to some late receiving of PVR, the applicant was appointed on 28.02.2002. In reply, the Joint Manager, Administration vide letter dated 11.11.2010 stated that application of the applicant was incomplete as the applicant has not made clear that on which employee, he was claiming notional seniority. 5.4 In view thereof, the applicant again submitted PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA representation on 18.11.2010 to the respondent-3, therein stated that Sri Siman Singh/respondent-5 is junior from him and requested to give him seniority.
5.5 However, on 13.12.2010, a promotion order was issued for the post of Tailor/Highly Skilled in favour of the applicant and others employee and the name of the applicant was found at Sl. No.45 and his junior name Shri Siman Singh was found at Sl. No.24 and the effective date of promotion of the applicant was shown as 01.01.2006 and the date of promotion of his junior was shown as 01.01.2006. 5.6 On 30.06.2011, the applicant submitted representation before the respondent-4, claiming his seniority on the basis of the merits, in which the applicant obtained more marks to his junior, but no heed was paid. However, in similar circumstances, the respondent-3 issued an order on 11.08.2011 & 03.09.2012, by which notional seniority was given to senior employee w.e.f. his juniors. 5.7 In view of above orders, the applicant sent again a representation on 06.12.2012 before the respondents, but the same was rejected vide order dated 21.03.2013 passed by respondent-3. The order dated 21.03.2013 is impugned in O.A. No.491/2013. Page 7 of 13
O.A. No.330/468 of 2013 With O.A. No.330/491 of 2013
6. On the other hand, counter affidavits have been filed in both the cases, wherein it has been stated that the applicant of O.A. No.468/2013 was appointed to the post of Tailor Semi-skilled w.e.f. 08.06.2004 on probation for two years. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Tailor Skilled w.e.f. 08.06.2006. Subsequently, as per OFB Letter dated 13.12.2010, one time relaxation under 4 grades structure was granted and the applicant was promoted to HS Grade-II in PB-1 PUNIT KUMAR (5200-20,200) +2400/- Grade Pay w.e.f. 09.06.2006. MISHRA 6.1 At the time of initial appointment, the appointment of the applicant was delayed for 07 days because of his late receipt of Police Verification Report. Due to late appointment, he became junior to 41 batchmates though he was 1st in merit list as per the marks obtained in the trade test. The applicant represented for notional seniority and as such, the matter for notional seniority was also referred to Ordnance Board. Factory letter No. OFB vide their 590/A/Policy/A/I/Vpl-II (Pt-I) dated 21.06.2012 clarified that while granting notional seniority it should be seen that it should not unsettle the settled seniority position in the factory. In this case, since many promotions have taken place, it would certainly unsettle the settled seniority. Therefore, The GM OPF vide his order dated 24.02.2013 rejected the representation of the applicant of O.A. No.468/2013 for notional seniority. 6.2 Similarly, the applicant of O.A. No.491/2013 was appointed to the post of Tailor Semi-skilled w.e.f. 26.02.2002 on probation for two years. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Tailor Skilled w.e.f. 26.02.2004. Subsequently, as per OFB Letter dated 13.12.2010, one time relaxation under 4 grades structure was granted and the applicant was promoted to HS Grade-II in PB-1 (5200- Page 8 of 13 O.A. No.330/468 of 2013 With O.A. No.330/491 of 2013 20,200) +2400/- Grade Pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and later on promoted as HS-I in PB-I (Rs.5200-20,200) +2800/- Grade Pay w.e.f. 01.05.2012. 6.3 At the time of initial appointment, the appointment of the applicant was delayed for 04 days because of his medical unfitness. Due to late appointment, he became junior to 72 batchmates though he was 2nd in merit list as per the marks obtained in the trade test. The applicant represented for notional seniority and as such, the matter for PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA notional seniority was also referred to Ordnance Board. Factory letter No. OFB vide their 590/A/Policy/A/I/Vpl-II (Pt-I) dated 21.06.2012 clarified that while granting notional seniority it should be seen that it should not unsettle the settled seniority position in the factory. In this case, since many promotions have taken place, it would be certainly unsettled the settled seniority. Therefore, The GM OPF vide his order dated 21.03.2013 rejected the representation of the applicant of O.A. No.491/2013 for notional seniority.
7. In reply, rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the applicants in both the cases, wherein, reiterating the averments as made in Original Application.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant in both the cases assailed the impugned orders on the ground that before promotion order, the applicants have already been sent a representation to the respondent-3 for notional promotion. As per O.M. No. 9/11/55-RPS, dated the 22nd December, 1959 and O.M., dated the 3rd July, 1986, the seniority of a person regularly appointed to a post according to rule would be determined by the order of merit indicated at the time of initial appointment and not according to the date of confirmation/appointment.
Page 9 of 13
O.A. No.330/468 of 2013 With O.A. No.330/491 of 2013 8.1 Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that in similar circumstances, the respondents vide order dated 03.09.2012 given notional seniority to the senior persons while in case of applicants, they have not considered the genuine grievance of the applicants and as such, this is a case of discrimination. It is settled law that the seniority list of the employees ought to have been published every year and same was made available to the employees for their PUNIT KUMAR information and calling objection, if any, but in the instant case, no MISHRA seniority list was published every year and as such, when the applicants came to know the wrong seniority list, the applicants sent a representation for notional seniority in 2010 itself. Hence, impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside.
9. Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant in both the cases and submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders as the respondents have considered all the points raised by the applicant, while deciding the representation of the applicants. The applicants represented their case very late and in the meantime, many promotions were made and as such, settled seniority cannot be unsettled at the belated stage. Hence, instant Original Applications are liable to be dismissed.
10. We have considered the submissions so raised by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.
11. From perusal of the records, it is apparent that earlier the applicants of O.A. No.468/2013 & O.A. No.491/2013 have approached this Tribunal by way of Original Application No.1471/2012 & 1562/2012 respectively and this Court vide order dated 19.10.2012 & 09.11.2012 Page 10 of 13 O.A. No.330/468 of 2013 With O.A. No.330/491 of 2013 respectively disposed of the aforesaid Original Applications with a direction upon the respondents to decide the representations, filed by the applicants in each cases. Thereafter, in compliance of the aforesaid orders, the respondents vide order dated 24.02.2013 and order dated 21.03.2013 rejected the representations of the applicants of O.A. Nos.1471/2012 and O.A. No.1562/2012. The order dated 24.02.2013 is under challenge in O.A. No.468/2013 and order dated PUNIT KUMAR 21.03.2013 is under challenge in O.A. No.491/2013For better MISHRA appreciation of the matter, both the impugned orders are quoted as under:-
Order dated 24.02.2013
08. It is to mention that the seniority list of employees was published every year and the same was made available to the employees for their information and for making representation, if any. But Shri Naresh Kumar Nirmal, vide his representation dated 29.06.2011 applied for grant of seniority after a lapse of more than 5 years. Here, it is pertinent to mention that during this period, many promotions of Industrial Employees have taken place.
Therefore, considering the request of Shri Naresh Kumar Nirmal at this beleted stage is bound to unsettle the settled seniority position of other employees of the Factory. Hence, in terms of OFB letter dated 21.06.2012 referred to above, it is not found to be just and proper to grant the seniority as requested by Shri Naresh Kumar Nirmal vide his representation dated 29.06.2011 and also his representation dated 06.12.2012.
09. Accordingly, the request of Shri Naresh Kumar Nirmal T No 8676/L for the grant of seniority as requested by him vide representation dated 29.06.2011 and also his representation dated 06.12.2012, after due consideration in terms of instructions on the subject including the instructions contained in OFB letter dated 21.06.2012, is rejected.
Order dated 21.03.2013
08. It is to mention that the seniority list of employees was published every year and the same was made available for their information and for making representation, if any. But Sri Tribhuwan Singh vide his representation dated 09.03.2010 applied for grant of seniority after a lapse of more than 6 years. Here, it is pertinent to mention -that during this period, many promotions of Industrial Page 11 of 13 O.A. No.330/468 of 2013 With O.A. No.330/491 of 2013 Employees have taken place. Therefore, considering the request of Sri Tribhuwan Singh at this belated stage is bound to unsettle the settled seniority position of other employees of the Factory. Hence, in terms of OFB letter dated 21.06.2012 referred to above, it is not found to be just and proper to grant the seniority as requested by Sri Tribhuwan Singh vide his representation dated 09.03.2010, 20.09.2010 and also his representation dated 06.12.2012.
09. Accordingly, the request of Sri Tribhuwan Singh T No 8456/L for the grant of seniority as requested by him vide representation dated 09.03.2010, 20.09.2010 and also his representation dated 06.12.2012, after due consideration in terms of instructions on the subject including the instructions contained in OFB letter dated 21.06.2012, is PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA rejected.
12. From perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that the respondents have considered the each and every aspect of the matter. Admittedly, the applicant of O.A. No.468/2013 was appointed to the post of Tailor Semi-skilled w.e.f. 08.06.2004 on probation for two years. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Tailor Skilled w.e.f. 08.06.2006. Similarly, the applicant of O.A. No.491/2013 was appointed to the post of Tailor Semi-skilled w.e.f. 26.02.2002 on probation for two years. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Tailor Skilled w.e.f. 26.02.2004. The applicants represented for the first time in the year, 2010, claiming seniority over the respondent-5 in both the cases and thereafter, the applicant in both the cases were again promoted in the year, 2010 itself. It is well settled principle of service jurisprudence that settled seniority positions cannot be unsettled after long lapse of time.
13. This Court has time and again dealt with the effect of altering the seniority list at a belated stage and how it may adversely affect the employees whose seniority and rank has been determined in the meantime. Similar issue fell for consideration before the Apex Page 12 of 13 O.A. No.330/468 of 2013 With O.A. No.330/491 of 2013 Court in case of R.S. Makashi and Others v. I.M. Menon and Others1, it has been held as under: -
"33. .... We must administer justice in accordance with law and principles of equity, justice and good conscience. It would be unjust to deprive the respondents of the rights which have accrued to them. Each person ought to be entitled to sit back and consider that his appointment and promotion effected a long time ago would not be set aside after the lapse of a number of years. ...."
14. Further, in case of B.S. Bajwa and Another v. State of PUNIT KUMAR Punjab and Others2, the Apex Court held that the seniority list should MISHRA not be reopened after a lapse of reasonable period as it would disturb the settled position which is unjustifiable. The relevant extract is as follows: -
"7. ... It is well settled that in service matters the question of seniority should not be reopened in such situations after the lapse of a reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable...."
15. In view of the above discussions, no relief is permissible to the applicants in both the cases in respect of their seniority at this belated stage. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders in both the cases. Therefore, the instant Original Applications are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly, dismissed being devoid of merit.
16. All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
17. No order as to costs.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member(Administrative) Member (Judicial) PM/ 1 (1982) 1 SCC 379 2 (1998) 2 SCC 523 Page 13 of 13