Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
T Aldrines vs M/O Defence on 9 December, 2025
1 of 11
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
M.A. No.310/00199 of 2024
DATED TUESDAY, THE 9 TH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
CORAM :
HON'BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, MEMBER(A)
T. Aldrines,
S/o H.Thomas
MES Qtrs No. T 19/10,
Kamarajar Road,
Redfields, Coimbatore - 641018
..........Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. T.K.S. Gandhi)
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Rep by its Secretary,
Department of Defence
101-A, South Block,
New Delhi 110001;
2. The Engineer-in-Chief,
Department of Defence
Defence Headquarter
Plot No-30, Sena Bhawan,
Teen Murti Marg Road,
(Near South Block)
Delhi-110011
3. The Directorate General of Personnel/ CSCC
Engineer-in Chief's Branch,
Integrated HQ of MoD (Army),
Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg,
New Delhi-110011;
4. The Chief Engineer
Head Quarters - Southern Command
2 of 11
Department of Defence
Pune-411001;
5. The Chief Engineer,
Head Quarters - Chennai Zone
Department of Defence
Island Grounds, Chennai - 600009;
6. The Additional Director General (Projects)
C/o Chief Engineer's Office - Chennai Zone,
Department of Defence
Island Grounds, Chennai-600009;
7. Commander Works Engineer,
Department of Defence
Wellington Barracks Post,
The Nilgiris District - 643231. ......Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. Su. Srinivasan, Sr. CGSC)
3 of 11
ORDER
(Hon'ble Ms. Veena Kothavale, Member(J) This Miscellaneous Application is filed by the applicant for condoning the delay of 2065 days in filing the Original Application.
2. It is stated in the application that Original Application is being filed for setting aside the Seniority List of 2017 and the Seniority List of 2017-2018 for the post of FGM (SK) prepared by the 7th Respondent and to direct the 7th Respondent to promote the applicant by applying the correct promotion policy as per 6 th Pay Commission and as per Letter of Directorate General of Personnel to Chief Engineer, Southern Command, Pune in DO No. B/77030/VICPC/IND/25/CSCC dated 25.04.2014 and grant to him all attendant and financial benefits so denied owing to wrong promotion policy.
3. The reason for filing OA belatedly after lapse of 2065 days is explained stating that the 7th Respondent has been applying wrong seniority principles on a continuous basis since 2013 and the applicant and other employees have been representing about the wrong policies being followed by the 7th Respondent. Consequently, Respondents 2 to 4 have been issuing various guidelines to Respondents 5 to 7 regarding the promotion policy but even these guidelines issued from the 2013 to 2016 were fully or partially inconsistent with each other. The 7 th Respondent did not even following these guidelines. The correct legal position is stated in the 6 th Pay Commission 4 of 11 report. The applicant had sent representations dated 26.10.2018, 30.03.2019, 10.12.2019 and 13.10.2020 to the 7th Respondent regarding this issue. The 7 th Respondent prepared a 'List of Objectors' dated 28.02.2023 but the said list does not include the name of the applicant. Thereafter the 7 th Respondent has released promotion list dated 02.06.2023 on the basis of wrong promotional policy.
4. It is further stated that applicant did not file OA earlier when the 1 st Seniority list of January 2017 and of 2017-2018 were released because at that point of time he had represented to the Respondents 1 to 7 to correct the issue of wrongful promotion policy. The Respondents 2 to 7 were in the process of considering the matter and issuing various decisions up to 21.06.2023. However, it is now established that Respondents 2 to 7 are interpreting the policy as per their own convenience and have arrived at wrong conclusions. Therefore, it has become necessary to approach this Tribunal. Since the issue was under consideration of Respondents 2 to 7 and was being deliberated from 2013 till 21.6.2023, OA can be construed to be within the period of limitation prescribed in Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act 1985. However, as the impugned seniority lists under challenge are of the year 2017 and 2017-2018, it has necessitated filing of application for condoning the delay.
5. The respondents have filed their reply raising serious objections to condoning the huge delay. They have denied the claims made by the applicant stating that his claims are contradictory, vague and devoid of logic and facts and are based on wrong 5 of 11 information. It is stated that DPC for Mate to FGM (SK) was conducted in the year 2016 and subsequently seniority list of 2017-2018 was circulated to all individual employees. There is no error in the seniority list of the year 2017-18 of FGM (SK) and correct promotion policy has been applied. As there were representations on the seniority list and due to prevalence of COVID-19 Pandemic, further DPC could not be held. However, applicant was not in list of objectors included in CWE Wellington letter No.10335/A/454/E1NB dated 28 Feb 2023. After receiving instructions from HQ to follow the existing policy and to take decision at CWE level, DPC was conducted. Applicant has waited for his promotion order from FGM (SK) to FGM (HS II) issued on 09/12/2023 to revive his protest on Seniority list at a belated stage.
6. It is further stated that long time has elapsed since Seniority list was issued. Applicant had no reservations and was convinced with the correctness of Seniority. Therefore, applicant had not earlier approached this Hon'ble Tribunal for legal recourse. For the first time applicant is approaching this Tribunal questioning the seniority list prepared for the year 2017-2018 and seeking main relief from the year 2014. There is no explanation for the delay in approaching this Hon'ble Tribunal and there is no proof that the applicant had actively approached the respondents for the redressal of his grievances.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that Mazdoors had become Mates only w.e.f. 08.02.2011 instead of 09.09.2008 which is the proper date as per 6 th Pay 6 of 11 Commission directive and as per directions of Respondents 1 to 6. However, Chowkidars/ Safaiwalas are wrongfully given effective date of 09.09.2008 as having become Mates. Even though the Chowkidars/ Safaiwalas had taken up Trade Test for SK only in 2015 and 2016, they are wrongfully promoted as SK from 27.10.2014 by ante dating their promotion without any legal basis. The 7 th Respondent is continuously erring by adopting wrong promotion policy and thereby promoting Chowkidars and Safaiwalas, who were junior to the applicant, to senior positions. Applicant's legitimate right to be promoted to vacant positions has been consistently defeated and he is denied any promotion for the past 9 years. Only in November 2023 the applicant was promoted as HS-II (FGM), but he is still continued to be placed wrongfully below Chowkidars/ Safaiwalas in seniority. Therefore, applicant has approached this Tribunal for setting aside the Seniority List of 2017 and the Seniority List of 2017-2018 for the post of FGM (SK) prepared by the 7 th Respondent and to direct the 7th Respondent to promote the applicant by applying the correct promotion policy and hence prays for condoning the delay.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that it is settled law that the challenge to the promotion could be made normally within a period of six months in any event not more than a year. Though this Hon'ble Tribunal has power to condone the delay in approaching this Tribunal beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Administrative Tribunal Act 1985, however, the applicant should show sufficient cause that prevented him in approaching this Hon'ble Tribunal. The Hon'ble 7 of 11 Supreme Court has held in several cases that though no limitation is prescribed for filing Writ Petition under Article 226, even for approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, three years from the date of cause of action is considered as reasonable period. However, in the instant Miscellaneous Application, the applicant has not given any acceptable or justifiable reason. Therefore, the MA is liable to be dismissed for the reasons of delay and latches and so the O.A as it is devoid of any merits and hit by limitation. The learned counsel has relied on the judgements in (i) P. S. Sadasivaswamy Vs State of Tamil Nadu [1975 (1) SCC 152] and (ii) Banda Development Authority vs. Motilal Agarwal and others [(2011(5) SCC 394] in support of his submissions.
9. On perusal of the application and reply thereto, it is crystal clear that the issue in question is relatable to the effective dates when the Mazdoors on one hand, and Chowkidars/ Safaiwalas on the other, had become Mates and their inter se seniority. Applicant claims that Chowkidars/ Safaiwalas were wrongfully promoted as SK from 27.10.2014 by ante-dating their promotion. Therefore, it is evident that even though applicant is questioning the seniority list prepared for the year 2017-2018, in actuality, he is seeking relief from the year 2014. The applicant never questioned or challenged the promotions given to his juniors at that point of time. Even when seniority list of 2017-2018 was circulated to him, he did not choose to challenge the same. Though applicant claims that he had given representations dated 26.10.2018, 30.03.2019, 10.12.2019 and 13.10.2020 to the 7th Respondent, he did not take to legal 8 of 11 recourse when no action was taken on his representations. It is categorically stated by the respondents that applicant was not in the List of Objectors included in CWE Wellington letter No.10335/A/454/E1NB dated 28 Feb 2023. When his name was not shown in the list he did not challenge. Fact of the matter remains that applicant did not take legal action at appropriate time and never approached this Tribunal at relevant point of time.
10. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act 1985 which deals with limitation provides for a maximum period of one year to challenge an order or to redress a grievance, from the relevant date. If application is filed after one year, applicant must satisfy the Tribunal and show he had sufficient cause for the delay. In this application, applicant has stated that he had given representations dated 26.10.2018, 30.03.2019, 10.12.2019 and 13.10.2020. If there was no response to his representations, he should have taken appropriate legal action within one year after expiry of six months therefrom. If he was aggrieved by the Seniority list of January 2017 & 2017-2018, he should have challenged the same within one year. However, except for narrating the chronology of events, applicant has not uttered a single word as to why he could not take legal recourse within the prescribed time limit.
11. In the case of P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs State of Tamilnadu [1975 (1) SCC 152], which is similar to the case on hand where juniors were promoted and case was filed belatedly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observations: -
9 of 11 "A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extra-ordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. The petitioner's petition should, therefore have been dismissed in limine.
Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the court. It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the court in considering legitimate grievances as also its normal work. We consider that the High court was right in dismissing the appellant's petition as well as the appeal."
12. Further, in the case of State of T. N. v. Seshachalam, (2007) 10 SCC 137, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, testing the equality clause on the bedrock of delay and laches pertaining to grant of service benefit, has made the following observations: -
"16. ... filing of representations alone would not save the period of limitation. Delay or laches is a relevant factor for a court of law to determine the question as to whether the claim made by an applicant deserves consideration. Delay and/or laches on the part of a government servant may deprive him of the benefit which 10 of 11 had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India would not, in a situation of that nature, be attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant."
13. In the case of State of Uttaranchal & Anr vs Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari & Ors, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: -
"13. We have no trace of doubt that the respondents could have challenged the ad hoc promotion conferred on the junior employee at the relevant time. They chose not to do so for six years and the junior employee held the promotional post for six years till regular promotion took place. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is that they had given representations at the relevant time but the same fell in deaf ears. It is interesting to note that when the regular selection took place, they accepted the position solely because the seniority was maintained and, thereafter, they knocked at the doors of the tribunal only in 2003. It is clear as noon day that the cause of action had arisen for assailing the order when the junior employee was promoted on ad hoc basis on 15.11.1983.
22. We are absolutely conscious that in the case at hand the seniority has not been disturbed in the promotional cadre and no promotions may be unsettled. There may not be unsettlement of the settled position but, a pregnant one, the respondents chose to sleep like Rip Van Winkle and got up from their slumber at their own leisure, for some reason which is fathomable to them only. But such fathoming of reasons by oneself is not countenanced in law. Any one who sleeps over his right is bound to suffer. As we perceive neither the tribunal nor the High Court has appreciated these aspects in proper perspective and proceeded on the base that a junior was 11 of 11 promoted and, therefore, the seniors cannot be denied the promotion. Remaining oblivious to the factum of delay and laches and granting relief is contrary to all settled principles and even would not remotely attract the concept of discretion."
14. In the case on hand also, applicant accepted his belated promotion from Mate to FGM (SK) without any challenge. He also did not challenge the promotions given to his juniors at the relevant point of time. Even when the Seniority List was issued in 2017, he did not challenge it. The applicant was promoted from FGM (SK) to FGM (HS II) on 09/12/ 2023. Thereafter, applicant has filed this OA only in 2024, which in effect, seeks relief from the year 2014. Applicant has chosen to sleep over the matters and this Tribunal cannot remain oblivious to the factum of delay and laches.
15. In view of the foregoing discussions and the settled position of law flowing from the above referred judgements, we do not find any rhyme or reason to condone the delay. Accordingly, MA is dismissed. Consequently, OA at diary stage also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Sisir Kumar Ratho) (Veena Kothavale)
Member(A) Member(J)
09.12.2025
asvs.
A.S.V. Sagar Digitally signed by ASAPU
SRINIVASA VIDYASAGAR
P.S., CAT, Date: 2025.12.31 15:14:43
Chennai Bench. +05'30'