In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated:- 16-07-2008 Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice P.K.MISRA and The Honourable Mr.Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN Writ Petition Nos.10250, 11603, 11667 an 11672 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 W.P.No.10250 of 2008 1.Union of India, rep. by its Chief Engineer, Headquarters, Southern Command, Pune. 2.The Commander Works Engineer, Pallavan Salai, Chennai. .. Petitioners Versus 1.V.Parasuraman 2.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai-600 104. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in O.A.No.680 of 2006 dated 18.9.2007 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and quash the same. W.P.No.11603 of 2008 Union of India, rep. by its Commander Works Engineer, Pallavan Salai, Chennai. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.S.Rajendran 2. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai-600 104. .. Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in O.A.No.620 of 2006 dated 12.10.2007 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and quash the same. W.P.No.11667 of 2008 1. Union of India, rep. by its Chief Engineer, Headquarters, Southern Command, Pune. 411 001 2. The Commander Works Engineer, Pallavan Salai, Chennai. .. Petitioners Vs. 1.T.K.Raghunathan 2. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai-600 104. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in O.A.No.631 of 2006 dated 12.10.2007 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and quash the same. W.P.No.11672 of 2008 Union of India, rep. by its Commander Works Engineer, Pallavan Salai, Chennai. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.A.V.Fernandes 2.G.Manokaran 3.G.Ravi 4.Vemkat rao 5.Manirajam 6.Babu 7.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai-600 104. .. Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in O.A.No.490 of 2006 dated 18.09.2007 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and quash the same. Mr.G.Nanmaran .. For Petitioner in all the W.Ps. Mr.R.S.Anandan .. For R1 in W.Ps.10250/2008 and 11667/2008. Mr.Karthik Mukundan .. For R1 in W.P.11603/2008 Mr.L.Chandrakumar .. For R1 in W.P.11672/2008 COMMON ORDER M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J The orders passed will govern the disposal of these writ petitions. In all the writ petitions, the Union of India represented by Chief Engineer, Headquarters at Pune and the Commander Works Engineer, Chennai are the petitioners. W.P.No.10250 of 2008 This writ petition is filed for the issuance of writ of certiorari to set aside the order dated 18.9.2007 passed in O.A.No.680 of 2006 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench. 2. The first respondent in the writ petition joined the services as Mazdoor in the year 1962 and he was promoted as Motor Pump Attendant in the year 1972. There was a merger of 10 skilled categories and consequently, the post was re-designated as Fitter General Mechanic Skilled. The first respondent was promoted as Fitter General Mechanic Highly Skilled Grade II with effect from 31.3.1995 and subsequently promoted as Fitter General Mechanic Highly Skilled Grade I on 13.3.2002. The first respondent retired from service on 31.3.2003. The hierarchy of post available to Industrial Personnel till 20.5.2003 was distributed as Skilled, Highly Skilled Grade II, Highly Skilled Grade I and Master Craftsman respectively. In pursuant to the recommendations of the V Central Pay Commission, there was cadre restructuring of Artisan Staff in Defence Establishment and it came into effect from 1.1.1996. In pursuant to restructuring of the cadre, erstwhile Highly Skilled Grade II (HSG II) and Highly Skilled Grade I (HSG I) had been merged to form a single grade called Highly Skilled Grade (HSG). The post of Master Craftsman is not form part of the said hierarchy as it is not treated as a promotion post for highly skilled grade either under normal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ promotion rules or under Accelerated Career Programme Scheme (ACP). 3. The grade structure of Skilled, HS-II and HS-I was in the ratio of 65:20:15. After merger of HS-II and HS-I as Highly Skilled, the revised grade structure became in the ratio of 65:35 (20+15) for Skilled and Highly Skilled respectively. The selection from Highly Skilled Grade to the grade of Master Craftsman shall be 10% of Highly Skilled Cadre (i.e. 10% of 35% of the total) and the placement in this cadre shall be with effect from 1.1.1996 and up to the date of the issuance of the orders. The placement of the individuals consequent upon the restructuring and ratio revision was made with effect from 1.1.1996 in relaxation of the conditions, namely Trade Test etc., as one time measure and as a special case pertaining to the employees who have either retired or died after 1.1.1996. 4. After cadre restructuring, the revised seniority list was prepared and circulated to all the Garrison Engineers (GEs) for perusal of the concerned individuals and obtaining their signatures. At the time of circulation of Seniority List, the first respondent in this writ petition viz., V.Parasuraman, Fitter General Mechanic HSG- I had retired from service with effect from 31.3.2003 and therefore he was not able to take note of the said list. As per the policy, all the employees who have retired/expired between 1.1.1996 and 19.5.2003 were included in the merged seniority list and the name of the first respondent was also included in the merged seniority list and his serial number was 41. As on 20.5.2003, there were already 15 members of Fitter General Mechanic (Master Craftsman) existing in Commander Works Engineer (CWE) Chennai area selected by the first petitioner and they were serving as Master Craftsman with effect from 2001 and their selection was made purely on merit basis and they were seniors to the first respondent. 5. The first respondent alleged that his juniors were promoted pursuant to cadre restructure and merger and his name was omitted to be considered and hence he filed O.A.No.680 of 2006 before the Tribunal praying for a direction to direct the petitioners herein/respondents to confer the post of Master Craftsman with effect from 1.1.1996 as conferred to his juniors by considering his representation dated 15.9.2005 and consequently refix the pay scales and pensionary benefit and disburse the arrears of pay and arrears of pension taking into account his seniority. The respondents therein filed counter opposing the claim of the applicant/first respondent. The Tribunal taking into account the orders passed by the Ernakulam Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in setting aside paragraph 3 (d) of the letter of the Ministry of Defence dated 20.5.2003 and the subsequent corrigendum dated 27.3.2006 had held that the first respondent herein should have been conferred with MCM post along with his juniors with consequential benefits and hence it directed the respondents to take action to fix seniority of the applicant in accordance with the instructions issued by the first respondent dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.3.2004 and conferred the benefits accrued to him without any delay and within a time frame. The petitioners who were arrayed as respondents 1 and 2 therein, aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal have filed this writ petition. W.P.No.11603 of 2008 6. The Union of India, represented by its Commander Works Engineer, Chennai-2 has filed this writ petition for setting aside the order dated 12.10.2007 in O.A.No.620 of 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench. 7. The first respondent herein was entered the service of the petitioner herein on 10.11.1983 and was promoted as Fitter General Mechanic (Skilled) (FGMS) with effect from 6.7.1994. He was further promoted as Fitter General Mechanic Highly Skilled Grade II (HSG II) on 30.6.1995 and Fitter General Mechanic Highly Skilled Grade I (HSGI) with effect from 31.3.1999 and thereafter selected as Master Craftsman (MCM) with effect from 20.5.2003. 8. In pursuant to the restructuring of the cadre, the hierarchy of Skilled, Highly Skilled Grade II (HSGII) and Highly Skilled Grade I (HSGI) was merged to form a single cadre namely Highly Skilled Grade (HSG) and the post of Master Craftsman shall not be part of that hierarchy. The post HSG-I is the feeder category for promotion to the post of Master Craftsman (MCM). 9. The first respondent become aggrieved for the reason that his juniors in HSG-I namely S.Rajendran, G.Manoharan and G.Ravi, by virtue of their selection as MCM during 1999 became seniors, filed Original Application in O.A.No.602 of 2006 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench praying for appropriate direction directing the petitioner herein/respondent in the O.A. to promote him as MCM in Fitter General Mechanic Grade with effect from 1.1.1996 on par with his immediate juniors namely Manoharan and Ravi with all consequential benefits including monetary benefits. The respondent therein had opposed the said application. The Tribunal in its final orders, has held that as per the corrigendum dated 27.3.2006, which came to be issued in pursuant to the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, the individuals who got promotions between 1.1.1996 and 19.5.2003 have to be protected after giving effect to the restructuring of the cadre and thereby the first respondent herein/applicant has to be given promotion as MCM among 10% of 35% of HS and only after the said promotion, the corrigendum dated 27.3.2006 has to be given effect. The Tribunal at the time of passing the said order has noted that though the first respondent/applicant claim promotion over his juniors G.Manoharan and G.Ravi, he has not chosen to implead them. But, in view of the orders passed in the connected applications in O.A.Nos.490 and 680 of 2006, it directed the respondent therein / https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner herein to confer the first respondent with MCM post along with his juniors with consequential benefits. The petitioner who was arrayed as the first respondent in the said original application, aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, has filed this writ petition. W.P.No.11667 of 2008 10. The Union of India, represented by its Headquarters Chief Engineer and the Commander Works Engineer, Chennai-2 are the petitioners in this writ petition. 11. The first respondent in the writ petition joined the services as Mazdoor in the year 1972 and he was promoted as Motor Pump Attendant in the year 1980. There was a merger of 10 skilled categories and consequently, the post was re-designated as Fitter General Mechanic Skilled. The first respondent was promoted as Fitter General Mechanic Highly Skilled Grade II with effect from 1995. Thereafter he did not qualify in the trade test conducted for promotion to the post of Fitter General Mechanic Highly Skilled Grade-I. The hierarchy of post available to Industrial Personnel till 20.5.2003 was distributed as Skilled, Highly Skilled Grade II, Highly Skilled Grade I and Master Craftsman respectively. In pursuant to the recommendations of the V Central Pay Commission, there was cadre restructuring of Artisan Staff in Defence Establishment and it came into effect from 1.1.1996. In pursuant to restructuring of the cadre, erstwhile Highly Skilled Grade II (HSG II) and Highly Skilled Grade I (HSG I) had been merged to form a single grade called Highly Skilled Grade (HSG). The post of Master Craftsman is not form part of the said hierarchy as it is not treated as a promotion post for highly skilled grade either under normal promotion rules or under Accelerated Career Programme Scheme (ACP). 12. The grade structure of Skilled, HS-II and HS-I was in the ratio of 65:20:15. After merger of HS-II and HS-I as Highly Skilled, the revised grade structure became in the ratio of 65:35 (20+15) for Skilled and Highly Skilled respectively. The selection from Highly Skilled Grade to the grade of Master Craftsman shall be 10% of Highly Skilled Cadre (i.e. 10% of 35% of the total) and the placement in this cadre shall be with effect from 1.1.1996 and up to the date of the issuance of the orders. The placement of the individuals consequent upon the restructuring and ratio revision was made with effect from 1.1.1996 in relaxation of the conditions, namely Trade Test etc., as one time measure and as a special case pertaining to the employees who have either retired or died after 1.1.1996. 13. After cadre restructuring, the revised seniority list was prepared and circulated to all the Garrison Engineers (GEs) for perusal of the concerned individuals and obtaining their signatures. As per the policy, all the employees who have retired/expired between https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1.1.1996 and 19.5.2003 were included in the merged seniority list and the name of the first respondent was also included in the merged seniority list and his serial number was 95. As on 20.5.2003, there were already 15 members of Fitter General Mechanic (Master Craftsman) existing in Commander Works Engineer (CWE) Chennai area selected by the first petitioner and they were serving as Master Craftsman with effect from 2001 and their selection was made purely on merit basis and they were seniors to the first respondent. 14. The first respondent alleged that while trade test was conducted in December 1994 for promotion to the post of Fitter General Mechanic, Highly Skilled Gr.II, his name was left out, whereas his juniors were permitted to attend the test and consequently promoted as Gr.II with effect from 31.3.1995 itself, on passing the said test. As such, he claims that he should be given promotion on par with his junior B.Gajendran with effect from 31.3.1995 and to confer the promotion post of Master Craftsman with effect from 1.1.1996. The first respondent herein filed O.A.No.631 of 2006 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench to call for the records relation to the proceedings of the first respondent dated 18.2.2006, wherein the request made by him for his promotion as MCM was rejected on the ground that he was not qualified on the basis of Ministry of Defence letter dated 21.9.1982. The Tribunal taking into account the admitted facts by the petitioners herein/respondents in the O.A. about the non inclusion of the applicant in the Trade Test held on December 1994 the seniority of the applicant should have been refixed on par with his juniors as on March 1995 in the post of HS Gr.II as the mistake was committed by the petitioners/respondents. The Tribunal further held that the applicant should not be penalised for that and ultimately direct the petitioners/respondents to take action to fix the seniority of the applicant/first respondent in the post of HLS Gr.II on par with his juniors i.e. with effect from March 1995 and then fix his seniority in accordance with the instructions issued as per the order dated 3.3.2004 and confer the benefits accrued to the applicant without any further delay. The petitioners who were arrayed as respondents 1 and 2 therein, aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal have filed this writ petition. 15. The Tribunal after considering the materials available on record, has quashed the said impugned letter dated 18.2.2006 and directed the first respondent to take action to fix seniority of the applicant in accordance with the instructions issued by the Engineer in Chief, Army Headquarters, New Delhi dated 3.3.2004 and confer benefits to him without further delay and within a stipulated time frame. The petitioners herein who are the respondents in the said O.A., aggrieved by the same has filed this writ petition. W.P.No.11672 of 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 16. The Union of India, represented by its Commander Works Engineer, Chennai-2 has filed this writ petition for setting aside the order dated 18.9.2007 in O.A.No.490 of 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench. 17. The facts narrated above are similar to the facts in this writ petition and therefore the facts in this case have not been stated. 18. The first respondent herein filed O.A.No.490 of 2006 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, to call for the records relating to proceedings of the petitioner dated 3.1.2006 wherein, the request made by him for his promotion as MCM was rejected on the ground that he was not qualified on the basis of Ministry of Defence letter dated 21.9.1982. The Tribunal after considering the materials available on record has quashed the said impugned letter dated 3.1.2006 and directed the first respondent to take action to fix seniority of the applicant in accordance with the instructions issued by the Engineer in Chief, Army Headquarters, New Delhi dated 3.3.2004 and confer the benefits to him without further delay and within a stipulated time frame. The petitioner herein, who was the first respondent in the said O.A., aggrieved by the same has filed this writ petition. 19. Mr.G.Nanmaran, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, has submitted that the Tribunal has not properly understood the purport of the order dated 20.5.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A.Nos.740, 741 and 882 of 2003 dated 17.5.2005, wherein Clause 3(d) of the restructuring of cadre of Artisan staff in Defence Establishment in proceedings No.11(1)2002/(D)(Civil) dated 20.5.2003 came to be quashed. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel that following the merger, persons who got promotion as HS-I by way of passing trade test between 1.1.1996 and 19.5.2003 would be end block senior to HS-II already promoted from 1.1.1996 and thereafter up to 19.5.2003. Similarly, the persons who got promotion as a result of restructuring of cadre in relaxation of conditions of passing of trade test etc., would also be senior to HS-II. The learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel also submitted that the findings of the Tribunal that the corrigendum dated 27.3.2006 will have only prospective effect are unsustainable for the reason that when the original order came to be implemented with effect from 1.1.1996, the consequential order in the form of corrigendum cannot be given effect prospectively. 20. The Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, vide proceedings dated 20.5.2003 had restructured the cadre of Artisan staff in Defence Establishment in terms of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ recommendations of the V Central Pay Commission. There was a partial modification to the recommendations made by the V Central Pay Commission made in paras 54.16 -18 and 54.29 of the report and it is extracted as follows:- "2. The grade structure in the industrial as well as in the non-industrial trades. i)Skilled Rs. 3050 - 4590 ii) Highly Skilled (HS-I+HS-II) Rs. 4000 - 6000 iii) Master Craftsman Rs. 4500 - 7000 3.(a) Wherever the grade structure in the Industrial as well as in the Non-Industrial trades is already existing in the ratio of 65:20:15, in the erstwhile Skilled : HS-II: HS-I, the merger of HS-II and HS-I shall be treated to have come into effect from 1.1.1996 and the grade structure of skilled and Highly skilled categories shall be in the ratio of 65:35 (20+15). (b) The post of Master Craftsman shall not be part of the Hierarchy and the placement in this grade will not be treated as promotion for Highly Skilled Grade either under normal promotion rules or under ACP Scheme. (c) The selection from Highly Skilled grade to the grade of the Master Craftsman shall be 10% of Highly Skilled cadre (i.e. 10% of 35% of the total) and the placement in this grade shall be w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and upto the date of the issue of these orders. (d) The placement of the individuals in the posts resulting from the restructuring and ratio revision, shall be made w.e.f. 1.1.1996, in relaxation of the conditions, if any i.e. trade test etc., as one time measure. (e) The above provisions may also be made applicable, as a special case, in relaxation of the existing rules/instructions to the employees who have either retired or died after 1.1.1996". Thereafter, the proceedings dated 3.3.2004 was issued by the Director General of Personnel, Military Engineer Services, Engineer-in-Chief's Branch, Army Headquarters, New Delhi, wherein, the grade structure of Industrial cadre has been revised into two phases and the same is extracted below:- "3.The grade structure in the Industrial as well as in the non-industrial trades, wherever already available and the pay scales of the Defence artisan staff shall stand modified wef 1.1.96 as under:- i. Skilled : Rs. 3050-4590 ii. Highly Skilled : Rs. 4000-6000 iii. Master Craftsman : Rs. 4500-7000 (a) The post of HS I and HS II shall be merged retrospectively w.e.f. 01/01/1996 HS I will be en-block senior to HS-II. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (b) All existing HS-I and HS-II employees in the strength on 01.01.1996 (including those who were wasted out due to retirement death etc. on or after 1.1.96 but prior to 19.5.03) shall be redesigned as Highly Skilled and placed in the corresponding scale of pay. (c) The above merger shall be effective from 1.1.96 and relaxation of trade test DPC etc., as one time exception. (d) Vacancies arising between 1.1.96 and 19.05.03 in HS post will be filled by promotion to the tune of 35% based on seniority without any trade test as one time measure. (e) A trade wise seniority list of all highly skilled as on 1.1.96 (after merging) should be prepared and circulated to all concerned. (f) Promotions made from HS II to HS I after 1.1.96 shall become infructuous in view of the merger of posts. (g) Since the Grade of HS II & HS I has been merged and designated as HS in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 wef 1/1/96 as clarified by the DOP&T/MOD the second ACP for eligible skilled HS employees should be given in the pay scales of Rs.5000-8000 since Master Craftsman in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 is not a part of the hierarchy and placement in this grade shall not be treated as promotion for highly skilled grade either under normal promotion rules or under ACP scheme. (h) As stated above wef 9.8.99 or from the date the individual completes 24 years of service after 9.8.99 the skilled HS worker should be granted second ACP in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 if otherwise eligible vide letter No.856104/47ACP/Ind/CSCC dated 10 Oct 2003. (i) The selection from highly skilled grade to the grade of the Master Craftsman shall be 10% of highly skilled grade (i.e.10% of 35% of the total)". 21. Some persons who were aggrieved by the fact that their placement have not been correctly done, filed Original Applications 740, 741 and 882 of 2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bech. Their grievance was that para 3(d) of the proceedings dated 20.5.2003 issued by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi, permitted retrospective placement by relaxing the requirement of mandatory trade test, which when implemented, would allow those who failed to be promoted to HS-I due to not passing the trade test, to reclaim their lost seniority over those who had been legitimately promoted superseding them by passing the tests earlier. In other words, the contention was that the retrospective placement was arbitrary. The Tribunal taking into consideration the submissions made by the respective parties, has held that it would be wrong to deprive an employee of the benefit of seniority enjoyed by virtue of regular promotion by an act of retrospective revision of cadre structure entailing forfeiture of promotional seniority already availed. Therefore, for the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reason, the Tribunal had set aside para 3 of the Ministry of Defence letter dated 20.5.2003 and directed the official respondents to issue necessary procedural guidelines for uniform compliance by Defence Establishment within a period of three months from the date of issuance of the orders and consider the claim of the applicants once again and pass appropriate orders within a month of circulation of the guidelines. 22. The Ministry of Defence, Government of India in compliance of the above said order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench had issued a corrigendum dated 27.3.2006 and it is as follows:- "The placement of the individuals in the posts resulting from the restructuring and ratio revision shall be made w.e.f. 1.1.1996,