V. VINCENT VELANKANNI versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 126, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Issues
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 126 : 2024 INSC 748
V. Vincent Velankanni  
v. 
The Union of India and Others
(Civil Appeal No(s). 8617 of 2013)
30 September 2024
[Sandeep Mehta* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the seniority of the appellant is to be reckoned from the 
date of induction/initial appointment or as per the date of promotion/
confirmation in the skilled grade.
Headnotes†
Service Law – Promotion – Seniority – Date of induction – 
Date of promotion – The GO dated 24.12.2002 issued by the 
Ordinance Factory Board placed on record clarifies the position 
regarding counting of seniority by laying down that seniority 
will be counted from the date of promotion to skilled grade 
and not from the date of induction/entry/promotion in semi-
skilled grade – However, the appellant has placed reliance 
on GO dated 04.08.2015, the rule position qua the fixation 
of seniority has been restored to be governed by OM dated 
04.11.1992, according to which the relevant date for fixation 
of seniority would be the date of initial appointment and not 
the date of upgradation/promotion to the skilled grade:
Held: The clarification issued vide GO dated 04.08.2015 does 
not operate retrospectively as it is specifically provided in the 
said GO that “henceforth”, the seniority in respect of Industrial 
Establishments will be governed by the relevant clause of OM 
dated 04.11.1992 – It is trite law that an Office Memorandum/
Government Order cannot have a retrospective effect
unless and 
until there is an express provision to make its effect retrospective 
or that the operation thereof is retrospective by necessary 
implication – If a Government Order is treated to be in the nature 
of a clarification of an earlier Government Order, it may be 
made applicable retrospectively – Conversely, if a subsequent 
Government Order is held to be a modification/amendment of the 
earlier Government Order, its application would be prospective 
as retrospective application thereof would result in withdrawal of 
* Author
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
127
V. Vincent Velankanni v. The Union of India and Others
vested rights which is impermissible in law and the same may also 
entail recoveries to be made – In the instant case, the subsequent 
GO dated 04.08.2015 cannot be read simply as a clarification and 
therefore cannot be made applicable retrospectively – The said 
GO has substantively modified the position governing seniority 
in the Industrial Establishments by reviving the earlier OM dated 
04.11.1992, and supersedes the orders/circulars dated 24.12.2002 
and 13.01.2003, which were holding the field over more than a 
decade – Therefore, giving retrospective effect to the GO dated 
04.08.2015 would have catastrophic effect on the seniority of the 
entire cadre – As much water has flown under the bridge and 
retrospective application of the GO issued in 2015 would open 
floodgates of litigation and would disturb the seniority of many 
employees causing them grave prejudice and heartburn as it would 
disturb the crystallized rights regarding seniority, rank and promotion 
which would have accrued to them during the intervening period – 
This Court is of the view that applicability of the Government Order 
dated 04.08.2015 cannot enure to the benefit of the appellant as 
its operation is clearly prospective. [Paras 41, 42, 43, 50, 51]
Case Law Cited
Pawan Pratap Singh and Others v. Reevan Singh and Others [2011] 
2 SCR 831 : (2011) 3 SCC 267; Sonia v. Oriental Insurance Co. 
Ltd. and Others [2007] 8
SCR 883 : (2007) 10 SCC 627; Sree 
Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and Others v. Dr. Manu and 
Another [2023] 7 SCR 366 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 640; Malcom 
Lawrence Cecil D’Souza v. Union of India and Others (1976) 1 SCC 
599; R.S. Makashi and Others v. I.M. Menon and Others [1982] 
2 SCR 69 : (1982) 1 SCC 379; K.R. Mudgal and Others v. R.P. 
Singh and Others [1986] 3 SCR 993 : (1986) 4 SCC 531; B.S. 
Bajwa and Another v. State of Punjab and Others [1997] Supp. 
6 SCR 451 : (1998) 2 SCC 523 – relied on.
BSNL v. R. Santhakumari Velusamy [2011] 14 SCR 502 : (2011) 
9 SCC 510; Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’ Assn. v. State 
of Maharashtra [1990] 2 SCR 900 : (1990) 2 SCC 715; Suresh 
Chandra Jha v. State of Bihar and Others [2006] Supp. 8 SCR 
831 : (2007) 1 SCC 405; L. Chandrakishore Singh v. State of 
Manipur and Others [1999] Supp. 3 SCR 323 : (1999) 8 SCC 
287; Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and Others [1999] Supp. 
4 SCR 302 : (1999) 9 SCC 596; L. Chandrakishore Singh v. State 
of Haryana, AIR 1975 SC 613 – referred to.
128
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
List of Keywords
Service Law; Promotion; Date of induction; Date of promotion; 
Seniority; GO dated 04.08.2015; GO dated 24.12.2002 issued by 
Ordinance Factory Board; Industrial establishment; Skilled grade; 
Semi-skilled grade; Retrospective effect; Prospective operation.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8617 of 2013
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.2011 of the High Court of 
Madras in WP No. 583 of 2011
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 10944 - 10946 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
R Nedumaran, Vijay Kumar, Prashant Bhushan, Anurag Tiwary, 
Advs. for the Appellant.
Vikramjeet Banerjee, ASG, Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv., Abid Ali Beeran 
P, Saswat Adhyapak, Sarath S Janardanan, Joydip Bhattacharya, 
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Nachiketa Joshi, Ms. Priya Mishra, Rajesh Kumar 
Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Mehta, J.
Civil Appeal No(s). 8617 of 2013
1.	
The instant appeal by special leave takes exception to the judgment 
dated 10th October, 2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature 
at Madras in Writ Petition,1 whereby the Division Bench of the High 
Court accepted the writ petition2 preferred by the private respondents 
herein3 and reversed the judgment dated 24th December, 2010 passed 
by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench4 in Original 
1	
Writ Petition No. 583 of 2011
2	
Ibid
3	
Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5
4	
‘CAT’, hereafter
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
129
V. Vincent Velankanni v. The Union of India and Others
Application5 preferred by the private respondents herein. The CAT 
had rejected the Original Application,6 challenging the proposed 
action of revision and fixation of their seniority in the Engine Factory, 
Avadi, Chennai.7
2.	
The brief facts in a nutshell, relevant and essential for the disposal 
of the instant appeal are noted hereinbelow.
3.	
The appellant and the private respondents were engaged on 
semi-skilled posts such as Fitters and Machinists in respondent 
No.2-Factory. A common select list of candidates based on merit 
was issued by the General Manager of respondent No.2-Factory in 
the year 1995 wherein the appellant herein was placed at a higher 
position than the private respondents. An appointment order dated 
17th January, 1996 was issued in the favour of the appellant for the 
post of ‘Fitter General(semi-skilled)’ in respondent No.2-Factory. 
He was initially placed on probation for a period of two years which 
was further extended for a period of six months w.e.f. 17th January, 
1998. The appellant satisfactorily completed the probation period on 
16th July, 1998. Thereafter, he was promoted to the ‘Skilled’ grade 
on 6th January, 1999.
4.	
A draft seniority list dated 28th July, 2006 was issued by respondent 
No.2-Factory, whereby the seniority of ‘Fitters’ was fixed as per their 
respective dates of promotion to the skilled grade and the appellant 
was placed at a lower
position than the private respondents. 
5.	
Aggrieved of the draft seniority list,8 the appellant submitted a 
representation dated 13th November, 2006 to the General Manager 
of respondent No.2-Factory seeking necessary amendments in 
the draft seniority list and to fix his position appropriately and 
thereafter, to publish a final seniority list. The General Manager 
rejected the aforesaid representation submitted by the appellant vide 
communication dated 9th July, 2007, observing that his seniority had 
been fixed from the date of holding the skilled grade, and thus the 
position of the appellant in the seniority list was not liable to be altered.
5	
Original Application No. 318 of 2009
6	
Ibid
7	
‘respondent No. 2-Factory’, hereafter
8	
Dated 28th July, 2006
130
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
6.	
Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred Original Application No. 
821 of 2007 before the CAT challenging the draft seniority list dated 
28th July, 2006.
7.	
Another employee, namely, Mr. P. Kumaresan who was appointed 
as a Mechanist in respondent No.2-Factory in January 1996, also 
filed Original Application No. 831 of 2007, before the CAT, wherein 
Mr. P. Kumaresan also claimed that he had to be placed at the 6th 
position instead of the 27th position as set out in the draft seniority 
list. Original Application9 preferred by Mr. P. Kumaresan came to 
be allowed by the CAT holding that the seniority fixed in the draft 
list was incorrect. The CAT noted that respondent No.2-Factory had 
allowed the promotion to the juniors of Mr. P. Kumaresan on the 
ground that he was still undergoing the extended period of probation. 
The CAT held that it is settled law that once the extended period 
of probation is completed, the employee should be confirmed in 
service from the date of initial selection and should be assigned the 
original rank in the seniority list. Thus, once the extended period of 
probation came to an end and the employee was found suitable, 
he had to be confirmed in service, promoted with seniority and all 
consequential benefits to the next grade with reference to the date 
of initial appointment.
8.	
The CAT allowed Original Application No. 821 of 2007 preferred by 
the appellant herein vide order dated
23rd January, 2009, basing its 
decision on the order passed in Original Application No. 831 of 2007 
considering the fact that both the workers were identically employed 
in respondent No.2-Factory and directed that the appellant was 
entitled to be considered for his claim of seniority and directed the 
respondents10 to revise the seniority list accordingly. 
9.	
The private respondents herein filed Original Application No. 318 of 
2009 before CAT against the proposed action of revision of seniority 
list and promotions in accordance with the order dated 23rd January, 
2009 passed in the Original Application No. 821 of 2007 filed by the 
appellant. The said Original Application11 was dismissed by CAT 
vide order dated 24th December, 2010 while granting the liberty to 
9	
Original Application No. 831 of 2007
10	
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
11	
Original Application No.318 of 2009
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
131
V. Vincent Velankanni v. The Union of India and Others
the applicants therein(private respondents herein) to file a review 
application for assailing the orders passed in Original Application No. 
831 of 2007 and Original Application No. 821 of 2007.
10.	 However, private respondents herein rather than filing a review 
application, chose to assail the orders passed by the CAT by preferring 
a Writ Petition12 before the Madras High Court which came to be 
allowed vide order dated 10th October, 2011. The Union of India13 and 
respondent No. 2-Factory were directed by the High Court to restore 
the seniority of the writ petitioners(private respondents herein), holding 
that the writ petitioners are senior to the appellant herein, both as 
per the date of initial appointment and also in the promotional post 
of skilled grade. The High Court held that an employee selected in 
the semi-skilled grade is required to complete the probation period 
satisfactorily and has to pass the requisite trade test prescribed for the 
post before he can be confirmed and promoted to the skilled grade. 
Due to the extension of the probation period of the respondents in 
the Writ Petition No.583 of 2011(including the appellant herein), they 
were required to be placed below the persons who were promoted 
to the skilled grade earlier to them. The High Court held that in the 
skilled grade, the writ petitioners(private respondents herein) were 
senior to the third
respondent(appellant herein). It was also held that 
the promotions to the skilled grade and the highly skilled grade were 
carried out in the years 1998 and 2003, respectively but the third 
respondent (appellant herein) chose to file the Original Application14 
in the year 2007 and no reason was forthcoming for the gross delay. 
The relevant extract from the High Court’s judgment dated 10th 
October, 2011 is reproduced hereinbelow: -
“7. A mere reading of the counter affidavit would show that 
the probation of the third respondent in W.P. No. 583 of 2011 
was extended by six months and for the third respondent 
in W.P. No. 584 of 2011, it was extended by three months 
by virtue of their failure to complete probation of two years 
and to pass the required trade test prescribed for the 
posts. Accordingly, the third respondent in W.P. No. 583 of 
12	
Writ Petition No. 583 of 2011
13	
Respondent No. 1
14	
Original Application No. 821 of 2007
132
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
2011 was placed in the skilled grade only with effect from 
6.1.1999 and third respondent in W.P. No. 584 of 2011 
was promoted only with effect from 5.10.1998 whereas 
the petitioners in both the petitions were promoted to the 
skilled grade on 3.7.1998.
8. It is not in dispute that the Semi-Skilled grade is only 
has to complete the probation period satisfactorily and 
pass the requisite trade tests prescribed for the posts. 
In the present case, it is clear that due to extension of 
the probation period, the respondents were placed below 
the persons who were promoted to Skilled grade earlier 
than them. Even if the date of appointment is taken into 
consideration, the petitioners are seniors to the third 
respondent in these petitions.
9. That apart, the petitioners were promoted to the skilled 
grade in the year 1998 and to the highly skilled grade in 
the year 2003. But the third respondent in these petitions 
have chosen to file the original applications only in the 
year 2007 and no reason is forthcoming for the delay.
10. In view of the counter affidavit filed by the Department 
which is in favour of the petitioners and the fact that the 
petitioners are seniors to the third respondent in these 
petitions both as per the date of initial appointment and 
also the date of promotion to the skilled grade, we are of 
the view that revising the seniority list at the instance of 
the third respondent in the Writ Petitions
in the guise of 
implementing the order of the Tribunal, is illegal. Therefore, 
in our considered opinion, the order of the Tribunal is to 
be interfered with.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions are allowed 
and the order of the Tribunal is set aside. The respondents 1 
and 2 are directed to restore the seniority of the petitioners 
confirming their original date of promotion to the Highly 
Skilled Grade. After revising the seniority, the respondents 
are further directed to consider the case of the petitioners 
for subsequent promotion on par with their juniors.”
(quoted verbatim from the paper book)
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
133
V. Vincent Velankanni v. The Union of India and Others
The judgment dated 10th October, 2011 passed by the Division 
Bench of the High Court is the subject matter of challenge in the 
instant appeal.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant: 
11.	 Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the High 
Court premised its findings on a totally erroneous reasoning that the 
challenge laid by the appellant to the draft seniority list was delayed 
and that the private respondents herein(writ petitioners) were senior 
to the appellant as on the date of initial appointment.
12.	 Learned counsel contended that the draft seniority list in the 
appellant’s cadre was published in the year 2006 for the first 
time after the appointment of the appellant as well as the private 
respondents. Immediately on receiving the draft seniority list, the 
appellant herein made a representation against the same and when 
a favourable decision was not forthcoming, he approached the CAT 
for challenging the validity thereof. He submitted that the finding of 
the High Court that the private respondents herein(writ petitioners) 
were senior to the appellant as on the date of initial appointment is 
totally against the record. 
13.	 He further urged that the extant rules do not provide that the promotion 
from Fitter(semi-skilled) to Fitter(skilled) would be dependent on 
passing the trade test. Thus, as soon as the appellant completed 
the probation period, his services
would have to be confirmed and 
reckoned from the date of initial appointment, and by virtue thereof, 
the appellant would be entitled to be placed above the private 
respondents in the order of seniority. 
14.	 Learned counsel submitted that the period spent during training/
probation has to be reckoned for computation of length of service and 
the same cannot be excluded while assigning seniority to an employee. 
In support of his arguments, learned counsel placed reliance on the 
judgment of this Court in the case of L. Chandrakishore Singh v. 
State of Haryana.15 
15.	 He further submitted that the movement of the employee from semi-
skilled to skilled grade tantamounts to confirmation/ upgradation and 
15	
AIR 1975 SC 613
134
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
not a promotion. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on 
the judgment of this Court in the case of BSNL v. R. Santhakumari 
Velusamy.16
16.	 Learned counsel also placed reliance on the Office Memorandum17 
dated 4th November,1992, issued by the Government of India, 
Department of Personnel and Training, which was in force at the 
time when the appellant and the private respondents were appointed, 
wherein, it is provided: -
“Seniority for Promotion
Order effective from 4th November, 1992
[Government of India, Department of Personnel and 
Training, Office Memorandum No. 20011/5/90-Estt. (D), 
dated the 4th November, 1992]
Seniority to be determined by the order of merit indicated 
at the time of initial appointment.- The seniority of 
Government servants is determined in accordance with 
the general principles of seniority contained in M.Η.Α., 
Ο.Μ. No. 9/11155-RPS, dated the 22nd December, 1959 
(See Section II). One of the basic principles enunciated 
in the said OM is that, seniority follows confirmation and 
consequently permanent officers in each grade shall rank 
senior to those who are officiating in that grade.
2. This principle has been coming under judicial scrutiny in 
a number of cases in the past; the last important judgment 
being the one delivered by the Supreme Court on 2-5-1990, 
in the case of Class II Direct Recruits Engineering Officers’ 
Association v. State of Maharashtra. In Para. 47 (A)
of the 
said judgment, the Supreme Court has held that once an 
incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his 
seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment 
and not-according to the date of his confirmation.
3. The general principle of seniority mentioned above has 
been examined in the light of the judicial pronouncement 
16	
[2011] 14 SCR 502 : (2011) 9 SCC 510
17	
‘OM’, hereafter
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
135
V. Vincent Velankanni v. The Union of India and Others
referred to above and it has been decided that seniority 
may be delinked from confirmation as per the directive 
of the Supreme Court in Para, 47 (A) of its judgment, 
dated 2-5-1990. Accordingly, in modification of the 
General Principle 3, proviso to General Principle 4 
and proviso to General Principle 5 (i) contained in 
O.M. No. 9/11155-RPS, dated the 22nd December, 
1959 and Para. 2.3 of O.M., dated the 3rd July, 1986, 
it has been decided that 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.
4. These orders shall take effect from the date of issue 
of this Office Memorandum. Seniority already determined 
according to the existing principles on the date of issue of 
these orders will not be reopened even if in some cases 
seniority has already been challenged or is in dispute 
and it will continue to be determined on the basis of the 
principles already existing prior to the date of issue of 
these orders.”
(emphasis supplied)
He thus urged that the seniority of a person regularly appointed would 
have to be reckoned based on the merit indicated at the time of the 
initial appointment and not as per the date of confirmation. To support 
this submission, he also placed reliance on the Constitution Bench 
decision of this Court in
Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’ 
Assn. v. State of Maharashtra.18
He thus implored the Court to accept the appeal, set aside the 
impugned judgment rendered by the High Court, and restore the 
judgment of the CAT.
Submissions on behalf of the respondents: 
17.	 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 
submitted that the appellant was appointed as Fitter General(semi-
18	
[1990] 2 SCR 900 : (1990) 2 SCC 715
136
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
skilled) on 17th January, 1996. The semi-skilled grade is only a 
trainee grade and in order to be confirmed in service and for being 
promoted to the skilled grade, the employee would have to complete 
the probation period satisfactorily and pass the requisite trade test 
prescribed for promotion to the skilled grade. Only on passing the 
trade test, the employee would qualify for a permanent status and 
promotion to the skilled grade.
18.	 He further submitted that it is a settled law that in cases where there 
are no rules governing the field, it is the placement in the initial merit 
list that will decide the seniority, however, if the rules are in vogue, 
then the same will prevail. In this regard, he placed reliance on 
Suresh Chandra Jha v. State of Bihar and Others.19
19.	 Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on Statutory 
Regulatory Order20 No. 185 of 1994 dated 1st November, 1994 to 
urge that any appointment in the industrial establishment is done 
against the skilled grade and hence, the period spent in the semi-
skilled grade till completion of probation period and qualifying the 
prescribed trade test for promotion to the skilled grade is considered 
only as a trainee grade. Resultantly, the seniority/merit position at 
the time of induction in the trainee grade would have no bearing 
on the inter se seniority of the employees which would have to be 
reckoned from the date the employee is
confirmed and promoted to 
the skilled grade upon completing the probation period and clearing 
the trade test. 
20.	 He further placed reliance upon the Government Order21 dated 24th 
December, 2002 issued by the Ordinance Factory Board, Ministry 
of Defence, Government of India, which was issued to clarify the 
counting of seniority in trades mentioned in SRO No. 185 of 1994 
applicable to the Industrial Establishments and urged that the said 
GO clarifies beyond the pale of doubt that the semi-skilled grade is 
a trainee grade and the seniority will be counted from the date of 
promotion to the skilled grade and not from the date of induction/
entry in the semi-skilled grade.
19	
[2006] Supp. 8 SCR 831 : (2007) 1 SCC 405
20	
‘SRO’, hereafter
21	
‘GO’, hereafter
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
137
V. Vincent Velankanni v. The Union of India and Others
21.	 Learned counsel pointed out that the two years’ probation period 
of the appellant was extended by six months w.e.f. 17th January, 
1998, and the appellant could complete the probation period only on 
16th July, 1998. Subsequently, upon passing the trade test, he was 
promoted to the skilled grade w.e.f. 6th January, 1999. The appellant 
lost the seniority on account of his failure to complete probation in 
the period of two years and clearing the trade test whereas, the 
private respondents herein had completed probation in time and were 
found to be fit in the trade test and therefore, they were promoted 
to the skilled grade much before the appellant. Consequently, these 
employees i.e. private respondents herein were placed higher in 
seniority, as per clarification issued by Ordinance Factory Board 
vide GO dated 24th December, 2002. 
On these grounds, learned counsel for the respondents implored 
the Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the order passed by the 
High Court.
22.	 Learned counsel for the private respondents herein22 adopted the 
submissions advanced by learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 
and 2.
23.	 We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions 
advanced at the bar by learned counsel for the parties and have 
gone through the impugned judgment and the material placed on 
record.
Discussion and Conclusion:
24.	 The fact that the appellant and private
respondents were inducted 
as semi-skilled grade employees in respondent No. 2-Factory in 
the year 1996 is not in dispute. The common select list dated 22nd 
November, 1995 is not placed on record by the parties. However, 
appellant filed an RTI,23 and the reply thereto dated 29th December, 
2011 clearly shows that at the time of initial induction, appellant was 
placed at the 7th position, whereas the private respondents24 were 
placed at the 30th, 31st and 32nd positions, respectively in the select 
list based on merit.
22	
Respondent Nos. 3, 4, and 5
23	
Right to Information
24	
Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5
138
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
25.	 The Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment 
dated 10th October, 2011 has recorded a categoric finding that 
even if the date of appointment is taken into consideration, the writ 
petitioners(private respondents herein) are senior to respondent 
No.3(appellant herein). This finding seems to be prima facie erroneous 
because admittedly, the appellant herein was placed at 7th position 
and the private respondents were placed at the 30th, 31st and 32nd 
positions in the order of merit, as borne out from the record. Further, 
in writ petition25 filed by the private respondents before the High Court 
and the counter affidavit filed by the respondents herein before this 
Court, there is no averment that these respondents were placed 
above to the appellant at the time of initial appointment. Rather the 
sole ground taken by the writ petitioners(private respondents herein) 
to oppose the prayer of the appellant was that the appellant was 
not able to complete his probation period and pass the trade test 
on time and thus, he was placed below the private respondents in 
the draft seniority list.
26.	 Before we adjudicate upon the issue of inter se seniority amongst the 
litigating parties, we find it necessary to comment on the appellant’s 
approach towards filing his claim concerning his promotion in the 
highly skilled grade.
27.	 The appellant and the private respondents faced a common 
selection process
and were appointed in the semi-skilled grade 
in the year 1996. The private respondents herein were promoted 
to the skilled grade on 11th January, 1998 and further promoted to 
the highly skilled grade on 20th May, 2003. On the other hand, the 
appellant was promoted to the skilled grade on 17th July, 1998(after 
completing his extended probation period of 6 months and clearing 
the mandatory trade test). Considering that the private respondents 
were promoted to highly skilled grade in May, 2003, the appellant in 
the normal course should also have been promoted to highly skilled 
grade by the end of the year 2003. However, as per the factual 
matrix, he was promoted to the highly skilled grade after around 5 
years i.e. on 26th March, 2008. A tabular chart depicting the date of 
appointment and the date of promotion to skilled and highly skilled 
grade is placed below: - 
25	
Writ Petition No. 583 of 2011
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
139
V. Vincent Velankanni v. The Union of India and Others
Name
Date of 
appointment 
in the Semi 
Skilled grade
Extension of 
probation
Effective 
date of 
satisfactory 
completion of 
probation
Date of 
promotion 
to Skilled 
grade
Date of 
promotion 
to the 
Highly 
skilled 
grade
V. Sivaraman 
(Respondent 
No. 3)
11.01.1996
NA
11.01.1998
03.07.1998
20.05.2003
G. Sudhakar 
(Respondent 
No. 4)
11.01.1996
NA
11.01.1998
03.07.1998
20.05.2003
P. Ramesh 
(Respondent 
No. 5)
11.01.1996
NA
11.01.1998
03.07.1998
20.05.2003
V. Vincent 
Velankanni 
(Appellant)
17.01.1996
By 6 months 
w.e.f. 
17.1.1998 by 
order dated 
5.2.1998
17.07.1988
06.01.1999
26.03.2008
28.	 The draft seniority list was published on 28th July, 2006. The appellant 
never questioned the denial of promotion to the highly skilled grade, 
till much after the publication of the draft seniority list. Admittedly, 
co-employees who were below the appellant in the select list of 
the year 1996 were promoted in the intervening period without any 
objection being raised by the appellant. After the publication of the 
draft seniority list in the year 2006, he chose to challenge the same 
and to consider his promotion to highly skilled grade with effect from 
20th May, 2003 by filing an Original Application26 before CAT only in 
the year 2007. Thus, it was the first time in 2007 that the appellant 
claimed his promotion with retrospective effect. However, this benefit 
of retrospective promotion was
neither granted by the CAT nor by the 
High Court and thus, there is no need to delve into this aspect further. 
29.	 The primary issue which requires adjudication is as to whether the 
seniority of the appellant is to be reckoned from the date of induction/
initial appointment or as per the date of promotion/confirmation in 
the skilled grade. 
30.	 It is a well-settled proposition that once an incumbent is appointed to 
a post according to the rules, his seniority has to be reckoned from 
26	
Original Application No. 821 of 2007
140
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the date of the initial appointment and not according to the date of 
confirmation, unless the rules provide otherwise.
31.	 In the case of L. Chandrakishore Singh v. State of Manipur and 
Others,27 this Court held that in cases of probationary or officiating 
appointments which are followed by a confirmation, unless a contrary 
rule is shown, the services rendered as the officiating appointment 
or on probation cannot be ignored while reckoning the length of 
service for determining the position in the seniority list. This view 
has been reiterated in the case of Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of 
Orissa and Others.28 
32.	 The Constitution Bench of this Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engg 
Officers’ Assn.(supra) stated the legal position with regard to inter 
se seniority of direct recruits and promotees and while doing so, 
inter alia, it was held that once an incumbent is appointed to a post 
according to rules, his seniority has to be counted from the date of 
his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation.
33.	 This Court summarised the legal principles with regard to the 
determination of seniority in Pawan Pratap Singh and Others v. 
Reevan Singh and Others29 in the following terms: 
45.  From the above, the legal position with regard to 
determination of seniority in service can be summarised 
as follows:
(i)	
The effective date of selection has to be understood 
in the context of the service rules
under which the 
appointment is made. It may mean the date on which 
the process of selection starts with the issuance of 
advertisement or the factum of preparation of the 
select list, as the case may be.
(ii)	
Inter se seniority in a particular service has to be 
determined as per the service rules. The date of 
entry in a particular service or the date of substantive 
appointment is the safest criterion for fixing seniority 
inter se between one officer or the other or between 
27	
[1999] Supp. 3 SCR 323 : (1999) 8 SCC 287
28	
[1999] Supp. 4 SCR 302 : (1999) 9 SCC 596
29	
[2011] 2 SCR 831 : (2011) 3 SCC 267
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
141
V. Vincent Velankanni v. The Union of India and Others
one group of officers and the other recruited from 
different sources. Any departure therefrom in the 
statutory rules, executive instructions or otherwise 
must be consistent with the requirements of Articles 
14 and 16 of the Constitution.
(iii)	 Ordinarily, notional seniority may not be granted from 
the backdate and if it is done, it must be based on 
objective considerations and on a valid classification 
and must be traceable to the statutory rules.
(iv)	 The seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of 
occurrence of the vacancy and cannot be given 
retrospectively unless it is so expressly provided by 
the relevant service rules. It is so because seniority 
cannot be given on retrospective basis when an 
employee has not even been borne in the cadre and 
by doing so it may adversely affect the employees 
who have been appointed validly in the meantime.
34.	 Thus, it is trite that when an employee completes the probation period 
and is confirmed in service albeit with some delay, the confirmation 
in service shall relate back to the date of the initial appointment. Any 
departure from this principle in the form of statutory rules, executive 
instructions or otherwise must be consistent with the requirements 
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
35.	 In the backdrop of the above legal and factual background, let us now 
examine if whether the extant rules/regulations/circulars
prevailing 
in the establishment30 contained any stipulation that the completion 
of the probation period and the passing of the trade test is sin qua 
non for being promoted to the skilled grade and if so, whether the 
seniority of the employees selected on the same date would have 
to be reckoned from the date of confirmation/passing the trade test 
or from the date of initial appointment. 
36.	 A pertinent averment is made in the counter affidavit filed by the 
respondents emphasizing their stand that the semi-skilled grade is 
only a trainee grade and in order to place an employee in the skilled 
grade, he would have to complete the probation period satisfactorily 
30	
Respondent No. 2-Factory
142
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
and also clear the trade test as laid down in the SRO No. 185 of 
1994. The relevant extract from SRO No. 185 of 1994 dated 1st 
November, 1994 is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready 
reference. Note 6 of the said SRO reads as below: -
“Note 6. Wherever “Trade Test” is laid down in Column 12 
of this Schedule such trade test shall be prescribed by the 
General manager of the factory or the Ordnance Factory 
Board. The term “Trade Test” will include written, oral and 
practical examination and aptitude test and interview and 
also statutory qualification test where applicable.”
37.	 The GO dated 24th December, 2002 issued by the Ordinance Factory 
Board placed on record clarifies the position regarding counting of 
seniority in the trades of SRO No. 185 of 1994 for the industrial 
establishments. The language of this GO is considered germane to 
the controversy and hence, the relevant portion thereof is extracted 
hereinbelow: -
“With a view to overcome doubts in counting of seniority 
in respect of industrial employees who are working in 
trades listed at Annexure ‘A’ of SRO 185/1994 it has been  
decided to interpret rules relating to seniority in consonance 
with existing SRO provisions. Accordingly, the following 
rules for determining seniority may be followed in all OFs 
with immediate effect.
1) Semi-skilled posts are training post for skilled posts 
of trades listed at Annexure ‘A’ of SRO 185/1994.
2)
Educational Qualification/Technical Qualification will 
not be deciding factor while counting seniority for trades 
listed at Annexure ‘A’ of SRO 185/1994.
However, where passing of trade test/competency test 
or any other statutory certificate is required, the same 
must be adhered to and cannot be done away with.
3) Seniority will be counted from the date of promotion 
to Skilled grade and not from the date of induction/
entry/promotion in semi-skilled grade.
4)……
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
143
V. Vincent Velankanni v. The Union of India and Others
5)……
6) The above orders are in consonance with the existing 
SRO provisions and various court orders on the subject.”
(emphasis supplied)
38.	 The validity of this GO31 was never assailed by the appellant at any 
stage either before the CAT or the High Court. A conjoint reading 
of SRO No. 185 of 1994 and the GO dated 24th December, 2002, 
which indisputably were applicable to the cadre of semi-skilled and 
skilled fitters in the respondent establishment32 at the relevant point of 
time would make it clear that the seniority in the skilled grade would 
have to be reckoned from the date of promotion to the skilled grade 
and not from the date of induction/entry in the semi-skilled grade 
and the candidate joining service in the semi-skilled grade would be 
mandatorily required to complete the probation period and also to 
clear the trade test for being promoted to the skilled grade. In the 
event of either of the two conditions not being met, the employee 
concerned would not be entitled to be promoted to the skilled grade.
39.	 The appellant, in support of his plea, has placed reliance on a GO 
dated 4th August, 2015, whereby the GO dated 24th December, 2002 
has been superseded and it has been decided by the Competent 
Authority that “henceforth”, the seniority in respect of Industrial 
Establishments would be governed by the relevant clause of OM 
dated 4th November, 1992(reproduced supra). The
said GO dated 
4th August, 2015 is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready 
reference: -
“No. Per/I/Seniority/2015-16
Date: 04-08-2015
To
The Sr. General Managers/ General Managers
All Ordnance & Ordnance Equipment Factories
Sub: Determination of Seniority in connection with direct 
Recruitment in the Industrial Establishment.
Ref: (i) OFB Circular No. 590/OFBOL/A/I dated 24.12.2002
31	
Dated 24th December, 2002
32	
Engine Factory, Avadi, Chennai
144
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(ii) OFB Circular No. 590/OFBOL/A/I dated 13.01.2003
In connection with counting of Seniority in Annexure-A 
trades of SRO 185/1994 in the Industrial Establishment, 
above referred OFB Circulars clarified and directed that 
seniority in respect of Industrial Employees will be counted 
from the date of up-gradation to Skilled Grade and not 
from the date of induction/entry/promotion in the Semi-
skilled grade.
Several references in this regard have been received at 
OFB and after due examination, it has been observed that 
the OFB Circulars under reference are not in line with the 
principles of seniority as laid down by DOPT from time 
to time.
Therefore, the Competent Authority has decided that in 
supersession of the above referred OFB Circulars dated 
24.12.2002 and 13.01.2003, henceforth, seniority in 
respect of IEs will be governed by the relevant clause of 
DOPT OM No.20011/5/90-Estt(D) dated 4th November, 
1992 and OM No.22011/7/86-Estt(D) dated 3rd July, 1986. 
Accordingly, promotion from Skilled to Highly Skilled Grade-
II will be made as per the seniority fixed for Semi-skilled 
grade (entry grade) which will be arrived at as per merit 
of the select panel, without making any linkage to the date 
of up-gradation to the Skilled Grade.
It may so happen that a person lower in the merit list of 
recruitment (in Semi-skilled grade) joins earlier due to early 
clearance of PVR. In such case, the person lower in the
merit list will complete his/her qualifying service and be 
up-graded to Skilled Grade on earlier date as compared to 
a person higher in the merit list. However, person higher in 
the merit list will not lose his seniority and will be placed 
above the person lower in the merit list after getting up-
gradation to Skilled Grade.
(S. K. Singh) 
Director/IR 
For Director General, Ordnance Factories”
(emphasis supplied)
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
145
V. Vincent Velankanni v. The Union of India and Others
40.	 By virtue of the above GO,33 the rule position qua the fixation 
of seniority has been restored to be governed by OM dated 4th 
November, 1992(reproduced supra), according to which the relevant 
date for fixation of seniority would be the date of initial appointment 
and not the date of upgradation/promotion to the skilled grade. The 
OM dated 4th August, 2015 further clarifies that the person higher 
in the merit list will not lose his seniority and will be placed above 
the person lower in the merit list after getting upgradation to the 
skilled grade.
41.	 However, the clarification issued vide GO dated 4th August, 2015 
does not operate retrospectively as it is specifically provided in the 
said GO that “henceforth”, the seniority in respect of Industrial 
Establishments will be governed by the relevant clause of OM dated 
4th November, 1992. 
42.	 It is trite law that an Office Memorandum/Government Order cannot 
have a retrospective effect unless and until there is an express 
provision to make its effect retrospective or that the operation thereof 
is retrospective by necessary implication. In this regard, we are 
benefitted by the observations of this Court in Sonia v. Oriental 
Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others,34 wherein it was held that:
“11. ….In any view of the matter, law is well settled that 
an Office Memorandum cannot have a retrospective effect 
unless and until intention of the
authorities to make it as 
such is revealed expressly or by necessary implication in 
the Office Memorandum.”
43.	 If a Government Order is treated to be in the nature of a clarification 
of an earlier Government Order, it may be made applicable 
retrospectively. Conversely, if a subsequent Government Order is 
held to be a modification/amendment of the earlier Government 
Order, its application would be prospective as retrospective 
application thereof would result in withdrawal of vested rights which 
is impermissible in law and the same may also entail recoveries 
to be made. The principles in this regard were culled out by this 
Court in a recent judgment of Sree Sankaracharya University of 
33	
Dated 4th August, 2015
34	
[2007] 8 SCR 883 : (2007) 10 SCC 627
146
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Sanskrit and Others v. Dr. Manu and Another,35 in the following 
terms: -
“52. From the aforesaid authorities, the following principles 
could be culled out:
i)	
If a statute is curative or merely clarificatory of the 
previous law, retrospective operation thereof may 
be permitted.
ii)	
In order for a subsequent order/provision/amendment 
to be considered as clarificatory of the previous law, 
the pre-amended law ought to have been vague or 
ambiguous. It is only when it would be impossible to 
reasonably interpret a provision unless an amendment 
is read into it, that the amendment is considered to 
be a clarification or a declaration of the previous law 
and therefore applied retrospectively.
iii)	
An explanation/clarification may not expand or alter 
the scope of the original provision.
iv)	
Merely because a provision is described as a 
clarification/explanation, the Court is not bound by 
the said statement in the statute itself, but must 
proceed to analyse the nature of the amendment and 
then conclude whether it is in reality a clarificatory or 
declaratory provision or whether it is a substantive 
amendment which is intended to change the law and 
which would apply prospectively.”
44.	 Applying these principles to the case at hand, we are of the view 
that the subsequent GO dated 4th August, 2015 cannot be read 
simply as a clarification and therefore cannot be made applicable 
retrospectively. The said GO has
substantively modified the position 
governing seniority in the Industrial Establishments by reviving the 
earlier OM dated 4th November, 1992, and supersedes the orders/
circulars dated 24th December, 2002 and 13th January, 2003, which 
were holding the field over more than a decade. Therefore, giving 
retrospective effect to the GO dated 4th August, 2015 would have 
catastrophic effect on the seniority of the entire cadre.
35	
[2023] 7 SCR 366 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 640
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
147
V. Vincent Velankanni v. The Union of India and Others
45.	 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. In this connection, reference may be made to Malcom 
Lawrence Cecil D’Souza v. Union of India and Others,36 wherein 
this Court held that: -
“9.  Although security of service cannot be used as a 
shield against administrative action for lapses of a public 
servant, by and large one of the essential requirements of 
contentment and efficiency in public services is a feeling of 
security. It is difficult no doubt to guarantee such security 
in all its varied aspects, it should at least be possible to 
ensure that matters like one’s position in the seniority list 
after having been settled for once should not be liable to 
be reopened after lapse of many years….. Raking up old 
matters like seniority after a long time is likely to result 
in administrative complications and difficulties. It would, 
therefore, appear to be in the interest of smoothness and 
efficiency of service that such matters should be given a 
quietus after lapse of some time.”
46.	 In R.S. Makashi and Others v. I.M. Menon and Others,37 this Court 
observed as follows: -
“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. ….”
47.	 In K.R. Mudgal and Others v. R.P. Singh and Others,38 this Court 
observed in the following terms: -
“2. … A government servant who is appointed to any post 
ordinarily should at least after a period of 3 or 4 years 
36	
(1976) 1 SCC 599
37	
[1982] 2 SCR 69 : (1982) 1 SCC 379
38	
[1986] 3 SCR 993 : (1986) 4 SCC 531
148
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
of his appointment be allowed to attend to the duties 
attached to his post peacefully and without any sense 
of insecurity.”
48.	 In B.S. Bajwa and Another v. State of Punjab and Others,39 this 
Court held that the seniority list should 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….”
49.	 It can easily be inferred that in the intervening period, before the GO 
dated 4th August, 2015 came to be issued, seniority of multitudes 
of employees must have been fixed according to the GO dated 24th 
December, 2002, which is according to the date of promotion to 
skilled grade and not from the date of induction/entry in semi-skilled 
grade. As a matter of fact, respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 who were 
below the appellant in the order of merit at the time of induction in 
the semi-skilled grade, have been promoted to the skilled grade and 
the highly skilled grade much before the appellant by application of 
the GO dated 24th December, 2002. The appellant did not question 
their promotions before any Court or Tribunal at any stage. 
50.	 Thus, much water has flown under the bridge and
retrospective 
application of the GO issued in 2015 would open floodgates of litigation 
and would disturb the seniority of many employees causing them 
grave prejudice and heartburn as it would disturb the crystallized rights 
regarding seniority, rank and promotion which would have accrued to 
them during the intervening period. To alter a seniority list after such 
a long period would be totally unjust to the multitudes of employees 
who could get caught in the labyrinth of uncertainty for no fault of 
theirs and may suffer loss of their seniority rights retrospectively. 
51.	 Keeping in mind the afore-stated principles, we are of the view 
that applicability of the Government Order dated 4th August, 2015 
cannot enure to the benefit of the appellant as its operation is clearly 
prospective. 
39	
[1997] Supp. 6 SCR 451 : (1998) 2 SCC 523
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
149
V. Vincent Velankanni v. The Union of India and Others
52.	 In wake of the above discussion, we find that the impugned judgment 
of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity warranting 
interference.
53.	 This appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit. No order as to 
costs.
54.	 Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(Civil) D. No. 3704-3706 of 2012)
55.	 Delay condoned.
56.	 Leave granted.
57.	 In terms of the judgment passed in Civil Appeal No(s). 8617 of 2013, 
the present appeals are disposed of. No order as to costs.
58.	 Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result of the Case: Appeals disposed of.
†Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan