Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns two writ petitions filed by employees of the Ministry of Defence, Ordnance Factory Board. The petitioners, G.S. Rajkumar and M. Kalaiselvan, were originally employed at Heavy Vehicle Factory (HVF), Avadi, and were later transferred to Heavy Alloy Penetrator Project (HAPP), Trichy. They sought promotion to higher grades and reckoning of seniority from the date of their promotion in HVF. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Madras Bench, dismissed their original applications (O.A. No. 1094 of 2016 and O.A. No. 1675 of 2016) on grounds of laches and lack of discrimination. The High Court noted that the petitioners were not parties to earlier proceedings where similar relief was granted to other employees. The court held that seniority cannot be claimed retrospectively from the date of promotion in the parent department after transfer, unless discrimination is established. The court also observed that the petitioners approached the tribunal after a long delay and that the tribunal's orders were well-reasoned. Consequently, the High Court dismissed both writ petitions, finding no grounds to interfere with the CAT's decisions.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Seniority - Transfer - Reckoning of seniority from date of promotion in parent department - Petitioners, transferred from Heavy Vehicle Factory to Heavy Alloy Penetrator Project, sought seniority from date of promotion in parent department - Tribunal dismissed applications on grounds of laches and lack of discrimination - High Court held that seniority cannot be claimed retrospectively unless discrimination is proved and that the petitioners were not parties to earlier proceedings which granted similar relief to others - Held that the impugned orders do not warrant interference (Paras 1-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners are entitled to have their seniority reckoned from the date of their promotion in their parent department (Heavy Vehicle Factory) after being transferred to another establishment (Heavy Alloy Penetrator Project) and whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in dismissing their original applications.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed both writ petitions, upholding the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal. No costs.
Law Points
- Seniority cannot be claimed retrospectively from date of promotion in parent department when employee is transferred to another establishment
- unless discrimination is proved
- Laches
- Delay defeats equity
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (01) 554
W.P.Nos.20122 & 20125 of 2022
S.M.Subramaniam, M.Jothiraman
G.S.Rajkumar and M.Kalaiselvan
Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench; Union of India; Chairman and DGOF, Ordinance Factory Board; Senior General Manager, Heavy Vehicle Factory; General Manager, Heavy Alloy Pentrator Project (HAPP); Junior Works Manager, LB-II, Heavy Vehicle Factory
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, dismissing original applications seeking seniority and promotion benefits.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of CAT orders and direction to respondents to promote them to higher posts and reckon seniority from the date of promotion in their parent department.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were aggrieved by the CAT orders dismissing their applications for seniority and promotion benefits.
Previous Decisions
CAT dismissed O.A. No. 1094 of 2016 on 19.09.2018 and O.A. No. 1675 of 2016 on 09.06.2022.
Issues
Whether the petitioners are entitled to have their seniority reckoned from the date of their promotion in their parent department after transfer to another establishment.
Whether the CAT erred in dismissing the applications on grounds of laches and lack of discrimination.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that they were entitled to seniority from the date of promotion in the parent department and that the CAT failed to consider that similar relief was granted to others.
Respondents contended that the petitioners were not parties to earlier proceedings and that there was no discrimination; the applications were barred by laches.
Ratio Decidendi
Seniority cannot be claimed retrospectively from the date of promotion in the parent department after transfer to another establishment unless discrimination is proved. Laches and delay in approaching the tribunal are valid grounds for dismissal. Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and not to be exercised when the tribunal's order is well-reasoned.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners were not parties to the earlier proceedings and therefore cannot claim parity.
The Tribunal has elaborately considered the issues and dismissed the original applications on the ground of laches and also on merits.
We do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the Tribunal.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed original applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, which were dismissed. Aggrieved, they filed the present writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
