Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Anand Bihari Shah vs M/O Defence on 23 April, 2026
Reserved
(On 29.01.2026)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Dated : This the 23rd day of April 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Akhil Kumar Srivastava, Member (J)
Hon'ble Ms Mallika Arya, Member (A)
Original Application No. 978 of 2015
Anand Bihari Shah, S/o Shri Shriram Shah, Age 53 years, Posted
and working as Armament/Mech, Token No. 94, Section - SAG,
506 Army Base Work shop, Jabalpur (MP) R/o 4723/44N,
Jawahar Nagar Adhartal, Jabalpur, District Jabalpur (MP) Pin.
Code-482004.
.......Applicant
By Adv: In person
VERSUS
1. Union of India, Through the Principal Secretary, Ministry of
Defence, Raksha Bhavan South Block, New Delhi. Pin.
Code-110001
2. The Directorate General of EME, Army Head Quarters,
PIYU Digitally signed by PIYUSH
CHANDRA
DHQ, P.O. New Delhi. Pin. Code -110011
DN: C=IN, O=PERSONAL, T=
8210, Phone=
SH
52c5f90c50706321ed80814b0bb
ffca59b8a836271ee48dd9edc1c0
91e254044, PostalCode=
211003, S=Uttar Pradesh,
3. The Commandant, 506 Army Base Work Shop, Jabalpur,
SERIALNUMBER=
ca65182c1f5d538fc2be080fd402
CHAN 75e97b2024a3a558eccd51c71b9
c6d742f76, CN=PIYUSH
CHANDRA
Reason: I am the author of this
document
DRA Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2024.3.0
District Jabalpur, (MP) Pin Code -482001
4. The LAO, 506 Army Base Work Shop, Jabalpur, District
Jabalpur (M.P.) Pin. Code-482001.
........Respondents
By Adv: Shri S.P. Singh
1
ORDER
By Ms. Mallika Arya, AM The applicant is challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 25.09.2015 passed by respondent No. 3, wherein it has been ordered that the post of Armourer is a promotional post of Tradesman mate (Semi Skilled) with three years regular service in the grade. Hence, there is no provision for placing them in training for two to three years in the grade.
Hence, promotion of Armourer Mate to Highly Skilled grade is considered as promotion for all purposes including ACP. The applicant has submitted various representations to the respondents for grant of first ACP on completion of 12 years of service as Armourer / Mate. However, the respondents did not take any action on his representations before 25.09.2015. The respondent No. 3 issued an order on 25.09.2015 stating that the applicant is not entitled for grant of the benefit of first ACP on PIYU Digitally signed by PIYUSH CHANDRA DN: C=IN, O=PERSONAL, T= 8210, Phone= SH 52c5f90c50706321ed80814b0bb completion of 12 years of service. Thereafter, the applicant has ffca59b8a836271ee48dd9edc1c0 91e254044, PostalCode= 211003, S=Uttar Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER= ca65182c1f5d538fc2be080fd402 CHAN 75e97b2024a3a558eccd51c71b9 c6d742f76, CN=PIYUSH CHANDRA Reason: I am the author of this document DRA Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2024.3.0 filed the present OA before this Tribunal.
2. The applicant has filed his written arguments wherein he has submitted that on 30.01.2001, Ministry of Defence passed an order and clarified that employees who are entitled to get the 2 benefit of ACP on 09.08.1999, their services as Mate /S/S should be ignored and they should be given the benefit of ACP from the date of initial appointment. However, in the month of June 2002 the benefit of ACP has been given to four trades except the trade of Armourer. The Government of India, Ministry of Defence, passed a circular regarding restructuring of cadre of Artisan staff in Defence establishment in modification of the recommendation of 5th CPC and fixed the pay scale of HS-I and HS-II at Rs. 4000- 6000. The applicant submitted a representation before the respondents on 23.04.2004 and requested for grant of benefit of ACP w.e.f. 09.08.1999. However, no action has been taken in this regard. Thereafter, Executive Engineer Offg. Dir EME (Civil) for DG EME has written a letter for grant of ACP benefit to the Armourer of EME workshop. In response to the reply of RTI application, respondent No. 3 has made it clear to the applicant that the Armourer / Mate in pay scale of Rs. 210 - 290 will be upgraded after three years and thereafter in another three years PIYU SH Digitally signed by PIYUSH CHANDRA DN: C=IN, O=PERSONAL, T= 8210, Phone= 52c5f90c50706321ed80814b0bb ffca59b8a836271ee48dd9edc1c0 91e254044, PostalCode= 211003, S=Uttar Pradesh, it will be upgraded as HS Grade II in the pay scale of Rs. 330 -
SERIALNUMBER= ca65182c1f5d538fc2be080fd402CHAN 75e97b2024a3a558eccd51c71b9 c6d742f76, CN=PIYUSH CHANDRA Reason: I am the author of this document DRA Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2024.3.0
480. In another RTI application filed by the applicant, the respondent No. 3 vide their reply dated 15.12.2014 have clarified that there was no structure for the post of Armourer. It is only after 18.02.2006 the structure has been given to the post of Armourer.
Hence, by the impugned order dated 15.09.2015, respondent No. 3 3 has stated that the applicant is not entitled for grant of benefit of the first ACP on completion of 12 years of service. The applicant is also alleging malafide on behalf of the respondents since they have wrongly interpretated the remustering of the applicant to the post Armourer / Mate as promotion and denied the benefit of ACP to the applicant. Despite the recommendation from respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 3 that the Armourer post under 506 Army Base Workshop are entitled for the benefit of ACP, respondent No. 3 has passed the impugned order dated 25.09.2015 on the ground that the post of Armourer is a promotional post of Tradesman Mate (Semi Skilled) with three years regular service in the grade as there is no Skilled Grade between Semi Skilled and Highly Skilled. Hence, the applicant is not entitled for the benefit of ACP. The applicant has also quoted the case of other employees who are posted as Armourer / Mate under 506 Army Base Workshop, Jabalpur wherein benefit of ACP has been given and the same has been denied to the applicant. Hence, the PIYU SH Digitally signed by PIYUSH CHANDRA DN: C=IN, O=PERSONAL, T= 8210, Phone= 52c5f90c50706321ed80814b0bb ffca59b8a836271ee48dd9edc1c0 91e254044, PostalCode= 211003, S=Uttar Pradesh, applicant is alleging discrimination by denying the benefit of ACP SERIALNUMBER= ca65182c1f5d538fc2be080fd402 CHAN 75e97b2024a3a558eccd51c71b9 c6d742f76, CN=PIYUSH CHANDRA Reason: I am the author of this document DRA Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2024.3.0 scheme to the employees of Armourer / Mate vis-à-vis four other trades and also the benefit of ACP has been given to some Armourer and the same has been refused to him. Accordingly, the applicant has requested for quashing of the impugned order dated 25.09.2015 and grant of ACP on completion of 12 years of 4 service w.e.f. 09.08.1999 and also the benefit of 2nd ACP after completion of 24 years of service from the date of initial appointment.
3. The respondents have given their reply wherein they have submitted that Government of India introduced three grade structure vide MoD letter dated 15.10.1984. All trades except Armourer were brought under three grade structure. The Armourer remained in Highly Skilled Grade II with the pay scale of Rs. 330 - 480 at the entry level. However, all the other trades were in the pay scale of Rs. 260 - 400 at the entry level. Hence, the Armourer grade continued to enjoy higher pay scale as compared to all other trades. A new trade Armament Mechanic was introduced in 1985 in Highly Skilled Grade I with the pay scale of Rs. 380 - 560. Armourer Highly Skilled Gr. II and Fitter Highly Skilled Gr. II were earmarked as feeder trade to this trade.
Therefore, another benefit was extended to the Armourer by PIYU SH Digitally signed by PIYUSH CHANDRA DN: C=IN, O=PERSONAL, T= 8210, Phone= 52c5f90c50706321ed80814b0bb ffca59b8a836271ee48dd9edc1c0 91e254044, PostalCode= 211003, S=Uttar Pradesh, opening the promotional avenue for them to the Highly Skilled SERIALNUMBER= ca65182c1f5d538fc2be080fd402 CHAN 75e97b2024a3a558eccd51c71b9 c6d742f76, CN=PIYUSH CHANDRA Reason: I am the author of this document DRA Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2024.3.0 Grade I category. On the one hand Armourer were able to reach the highest level of pay of Rs. 380 - 560 within 6 years, whereas the other Mates could reach to that level only after rendering 9 years of service. The 5th CPC upgraded the pay scale of Highly Skilled Grade II to Highly Skilled Grade I and a common pay 5 scale of Rs. 4000 - 6000 was given which was termed as Highly Skilled Grade. Consequently 100% Armourers got the pay scale while only 55% of the Tradesmen of the other trades got this pay scale.
4. The Ministry of Defence vide letter dated 30.10.2001 made a provision to those employees who were recruited against Skilled Grade having the pay scale of Rs. 3050 - 4590. As the Armourers have been recruited against Highly Skilled Grade in the pay of Rs. 4000 - 6000 i.e. the promotional scale to Skilled Grade, they were not covered by the provisions of the above mentioned Ministry of Defence ID (Annexure A-6). Further Headquarters Base Workshop EME vide his letter dated 30.07.2011 (Annexure R-IV) clarified that Ministry of Defence ID dated 30.10.2001 is not applicable to Armourer Mate (semi skilled) as they were not recruited or promoted against the Skilled category as in the case of other Tradesmen as Fitters. On PIYU SH Digitally signed by PIYUSH CHANDRA DN: C=IN, O=PERSONAL, T= 8210, Phone= 52c5f90c50706321ed80814b0bb ffca59b8a836271ee48dd9edc1c0 91e254044, PostalCode= 211003, S=Uttar Pradesh, representation the workers of the Armourer trade including the SERIALNUMBER= ca65182c1f5d538fc2be080fd402 CHAN 75e97b2024a3a558eccd51c71b9 c6d742f76, CN=PIYUSH CHANDRA Reason: I am the author of this document DRA Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2024.3.0 applicant were apprised of the directions of the MoD letter dated 20.10.2002 (Annexure R-IV) through their respective officer-in-
charge. The issued was also raised to higher levels of the Government through their federation. Army Headquarters vide letter dated 18.11.2005 (Annexure R-VII) has clarified that the 6 benefit of Ministry of Defence ID dated 30.10.2001 cannot be extended to Armourers. The letter further states that the promotions of Armourers Mate to Highly Skilled grade is considered a promotion for all purposes including grant of ACP.
This matter was further examined by the Ministry of Defence in consultation with Defence (Finance) AG/PB and DOPT. Ministry of Defence vide letter dated 18.08.2008 has clarified as follows:-
".......As Trademen mate and Armourer are promotional posts hence, MOD/D(Civ-I) clarification given vide ID note No. 11(5)99- D(Civ-I) dated 30.10.2001 is not applicable in this case."
5. There has never been any discrimination with the Armourers vis-à-vis other tradesmen as claimed by the applicant.
The applicant submitted various representations seeking information under RTI Act which has been replied vide Annexure A-12, A-15, A-17, A-18, A-19, A-20 and A-21. In response to his representation dated 31.07.2015 (Annexure A-22) and representation dated 22.08.2015 (Annexure A-23) the case of the applicant was submitted to Local Audit Officer (Respondent No. PIYU Digitally signed by PIYUSH CHANDRA DN: C=IN, O=PERSONAL, T= 8210, Phone= SH 4), 506 Army Base Workshop for clarification. Respondent No. 4 52c5f90c50706321ed80814b0bb ffca59b8a836271ee48dd9edc1c0 91e254044, PostalCode= 211003, S=Uttar Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER= ca65182c1f5d538fc2be080fd402 CHAN 75e97b2024a3a558eccd51c71b9 c6d742f76, CN=PIYUSH CHANDRA Reason: I am the author of this document DRA Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2024.3.0 vide letter dated 18.09.2015 (Annexure R-IX) has contended that the post of Armourer is a promotional post of tradesman Mate (Semi Skilled) with three years regular service in the grade and on the basis of departmental test. There is no skilled grade between Semi Skilled and Highly Skilled in the 7 hierarchy of Armourer. Hence Armourers are promotional post. There is no provision of keeping them in training for 02- 03 years before placing in the grade. The Respondent No. 4 has further contended that promotion of Armourer Mate to Highly Skilled grade is considered as promotion for all purposes including grant of ACP. Keeping in view of the above, the Respondent No. 4 has concluded that the applicant is not entitled for grant of 1st ACP on completion of 12 years of service. The Applicant was informed accordingly vide letter dated 25 Sep 2015 (Annexure A-24).
6. The applicant has filed the OA in 2015 i.e. after a lapse of 11 years, although the reply to his representation was given in the year 2004. Therefore, the OA is hit by the bar of limitation. 138 Armourers working in the office of Respondent No. 3 had filed OA No. 120/2006 (Praven Kumar Borkar and others vs. Union of India and others) on the same issue before this Tribunal. This PIYU SH Digitally signed by PIYUSH CHANDRA DN: C=IN, O=PERSONAL, T= 8210, Phone= 52c5f90c50706321ed80814b0bb ffca59b8a836271ee48dd9edc1c0 91e254044, PostalCode= 211003, S=Uttar Pradesh, Tribunal vide order dated 04.04.2008 (Annexure R-X) dismissed SERIALNUMBER= ca65182c1f5d538fc2be080fd402 CHAN 75e97b2024a3a558eccd51c71b9 c6d742f76, CN=PIYUSH CHANDRA Reason: I am the author of this document DRA Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2024.3.0 the said OA. Thereafter a Writ Petition No. 616/2009 (K.K. Dwivedi and others vs. Union of India and others) was also filed challenging the order dated 04.04.2008 before Hon'ble Jabalpur High Court which was sub-judice at the time of filing of this OA. 8
7. The applicant has filed rejoinder wherein he has submitted that in case a wrong order is passed by this Tribunal it is not necessary to repeat the same mistake again and again. Further the order of this Tribunal in OA No. 120/2006 has not attained finality since it is sub-judice before the Hon'ble High Court of MP.
7. We have heard learned counsels for both the parties, considered their arguments, carefully perused the records available on the file.
8. The learned counsel for the parties were given time to file their written arguments, but only learned counsel for the applicant has filed his written arguments wherein there is no mention of final outcome of Writ pending before Hon'ble MP High Court.
Since nothing has been brought on record to the contrary, it is presumed that order of this Tribunal in OA No. 120/2006 dated 04.04.2008 has not been set aside by the Hon'ble Superior Court PIYU SH Digitally signed by PIYUSH CHANDRA DN: C=IN, O=PERSONAL, T= 8210, Phone= 52c5f90c50706321ed80814b0bb ffca59b8a836271ee48dd9edc1c0 91e254044, PostalCode= 211003, S=Uttar Pradesh, and it will have a binding effect on this Tribunal. Apart from the SERIALNUMBER= ca65182c1f5d538fc2be080fd402 CHAN 75e97b2024a3a558eccd51c71b9 c6d742f76, CN=PIYUSH CHANDRA Reason: I am the author of this document DRA Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2024.3.0 above we also observe that the OA is time bar since the representation of the applicant was rejected in 2004 and the applicant is filing this OA in 2015.
9
9. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Rathore v. State of M.P. (1990) SCC (L&S) 50 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"20. We are of the view that the cause of action shall be taken to arise not from the date of the original adverse order but on the date when the order of the higher authority where a statutory remedy is provided entertaining the appeal or representation is made and where no such order is made, though the remedy has been availed of, a six months' period from the date of preferring of the appeal or making of the representation shall be taken to be the date when cause of action shall be taken to have first arisen. We, however, make it clear that this principle may not be applicable when the remedy availed of has not been provided by law. Repeated unsuccessful representations not provided by law are not governed by this principle.
21. It is appropriate to notice the provision regarding limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Ac. Sub Section (1) has prescribed a period of one year for making of the application and power of condonation of delay of a total period of six months has been vested under sub-section (3). The civil courts's jurisdiction has been taken away by the Act and, therefore, as far as government servants are concerned, Article 58 may not be invocable in view of the special limitation. Yet, suits outside the purview of the Administrative Tribunals' Act shall continue to be governed by Article 58."
10. On merits we find that this Tribunal in OA No. 120/2006 has given a very detailed reasoning with the following PIYU Digitally signed by PIYUSH CHANDRA DN: C=IN, O=PERSONAL, T= 8210, Phone= observations:-
SH 52c5f90c50706321ed80814b0bb ffca59b8a836271ee48dd9edc1c0 91e254044, PostalCode= 211003, S=Uttar Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER= ca65182c1f5d538fc2be080fd402 CHAN 75e97b2024a3a558eccd51c71b9 c6d742f76, CN=PIYUSH "The apex court has observed in a number of cases that the CHANDRA Reason: I am the author of this document DRA Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2024.3.0 doctrine of equality in respect of pay has to be applied with caution and unless there is discrimination this doctrine should not be applied by treating difference as discrimination [sce Associate Banks Officers Association Vs. State Bank of India and others, JT 1997 (8) SC 422). It has also been observed by the apex court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ramashyraya Yadav and another, 1996 SCC (L&S) 714 that parity in employment is applicable only when all sets of employees similarly situated and discharging similar functions get different scales of pay. The respondents have also explained that the case of Dinesh Sonkusle cited by the applicants does not substantiate the 10 allegation of discrimination. The other case cited by the applicants is of Electrician and being a different trade is not comparable with the case of Armourer. In view of the aforesaid observations, we are convinced that the claim of the applicant for parity with other trades in respect of benefit under the ACP scheme, while enjoying better prospects and better scales otherwise, is wholly misplaced and unacceptable."
11. In view of the above findings we do not find any merit in the OA and the same is dismissed as time bar as well as on merits.
No costs.
(Mallika Arya) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava) Administrative Member Judicial Member /Piyush/ PIYU Digitally signed by PIYUSH CHANDRA DN: C=IN, O=PERSONAL, T= 8210, Phone= SH 52c5f90c50706321ed80814b0bb ffca59b8a836271ee48dd9edc1c0 91e254044, PostalCode= 211003, S=Uttar Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER= ca65182c1f5d538fc2be080fd402 CHAN 75e97b2024a3a558eccd51c71b9 c6d742f76, CN=PIYUSH CHANDRA Reason: I am the author of this document DRA Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2024.3.0 11