YASH PAUL vs DEFENCE

1


Item No. 77 - Court 3

Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
New Delhi

OA No. 3209/2023

th
This the 24 day of August, 2026

Hon’ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon’ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member(A)

1. Yash Paul, aged 76 years,
S/o Sh. Chothu Ram,
Retired as Ordnance Officer Civilian (S),
R/o WZ-157 A, Street No. 8, Shiv Nagar,
Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058.
2. D.R. Sharma, aged 76 years,
S/o Sh. Gurdyal Sharma,
Retired as Ordnance Officer Civilian (S),
R/o JG-3/122 C, Vikas Puri,
New Delhi-110018.
3. Rajinder Singh, aged 76 years,
S/o Sh. Daulat Singh,
Retired as Senior Store Superintendent,
R/o C-22, Fateh Nagar, Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi-110018.
4. Krishan Gopal Sharma, aged 76 years,
S/o Sh. Ghanshyam Dutt,
Retired as Ordnance Officer Civilian (S),
R/o RZ 400 B2, Raj Nagar-II,
Palam Colony, New Delhi-110077.
5. Virender Kumar Arora, aged 74 years,
S/o Sh. Madan Lal,
Retired as Ordnance Officer Civilian (S),
R/o WZ-210, 1st Floor, Gali No. 3,
Virender Nagar, P.O. Janakpuri,
New Delhi-110058.
6. Ashok Kumar Kantor, aged 70 years,
S/o Sh. Diwan Chand,
Retired as Ordnance Officer Civilian (S),
R/o K-62, 2nd Floor, New Mahavir Nagar,
New Delhi-110018.
7. Satya Dev, aged 75 years,
S/o Sh. Sardar Singh,
Retired as Ordnance Officer Civilian (S),
R/o S-4/56, Old Mahavir Nagar,
New Delhi-110018.
SOURJYA
SOBHANIYA

2


Item No. 77 - Court 3

8. Bhupinder Kumar Oberoi, aged 70 years,
S/o Sh. [not mentioned in the OA extract],
Retired as Ordnance Officer Civilian (S),
R/o G3A G/F Plot No. 6, Jaina-II DC,
Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058.
9. Prem Kumar, aged 74 years,
S/o Sh. Malik Chand,
Retired as Ordnance Officer Civilian (S),
R/o 15/28A, First Floor, Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi-110018.
10. N.K. Sharma, aged 74 years,
S/o Sh. Ram Chand Sharma,
Retired as Ordnance Officer Civilian (S),
R/o House No. 15, Ashok Puri,
Behind Union Bank of India,
New Railway Road, Gurugram-122001.

..Applicant(s)

(By Advocates: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)

Versus
1. Union of India, through the Secretary,
Ministry of Defence, South Block,
New Delhi-110011.
2. The Director General,
Directorate General of Ordnance Services,
MGO's Branch, IHQ of MOD (Army),
DHQ, New Delhi-110005.
3. The Commandant,
Ordnance Depot, Shakurbasti,
C/o 56 APO.
4. The Commandant,
Central Ordnance Depot,
Delhi Cantt.-110010.
5. The Commandant,
Central Vehicle Depot,
Delhi Cantt.-110010.
6. The Officer-in-Charge,
AOC Records,
PIN-900453, C/o 56 APO.

...Respondents

(By Advocate: Mr. Dilbagh Singh)





SOURJYA
SOBHANIYA

3


Item No. 77 - Court 3

O R D E R(Oral)
Hon’ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member(J)
The present OA has been filed by 10 applicants, who were
initially appointed to the post of Store Keeper and were
subsequently promoted to the post of Senior Store Keeper, Store
Superintendent, Senior Store Superintendent and, lastly, to the
post of Ordnance Officer Civ. (S)/(Material Manager), from which
posts they retired.
2. The applicants and certain other similarly situated
persons had approached this Tribunal seeking counting of their
past service for the purpose of seniority and other consequential
benefits. The respondents had granted such benefits to certain
persons. The said action was challenged by the Store Keepers in
O.A. No. 2317/1995, which was decided on 08.07.1996, holding
that the ex-Civilian School Masters, who had been redeployed as
Store Keepers, could not count their past service for the purpose
of seniority as Senior Store Keepers.
3. Thereafter, similarly situated Store Keepers approached
this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1981/1996, which was allowed vide
judgment dated 03.06.2002. It was declared that Civilian School
Masters deployed as Store Keepers were not entitled to count
their past service for seniority in the grade of Senior Store
Keepers and consequential benefits were directed to be granted
to the applicants therein. The said judgment was challenged
before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No.
4810/2002 , which was dismissed vide order dated 17.01.2017 .
4. Thereafter, the respondents implemented the said
judgment and, vide order dated 06.12.2019, restored the
seniority of similarly situated persons above the ex-Civilian
School Masters and granted consequential benefits of promotion
to the higher posts.
5. One such case was filed by similarly situated Store
Keepers in O.A. No. 1987/2019, which was allowed vide order
dated 31.05.2025. The said order was never challenged and was
SOURJYA
SOBHANIYA

4


Item No. 77 - Court 3

implemented by the respondents. Thereafter, another similarly
situated person approached this Tribunal in O.A. No.
1089/2022, which was also allowed vide order dated
01.07.2025.
6. The order dated 01.07.2025 passed in O.A. No.
1089/2022 was challenged by the respondents before the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 5795/2026. The
Hon’ble High Court, vide order dated 30.04.2026, noted that the
order in O.A. No. 1987/2019 had never been challenged and had
also been implemented. Relying upon the judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka & Ors. v. C.
Lalitha , State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Lt. Col.
Suprita Chandel v. Union of India & Ors., the Hon’ble High
Court held that similarly situated persons have to be treated
similarly and that the benefit of a judgment should enure to all
persons similarly situated even if they do not approach the
Court.
7. The same issue was thereafter considered by a Coordinate
Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 4609/2024, decided on
13.08.2026. The Tribunal, after noticing the orders passed in
O.A. Nos. 1987/2019 and 1089/2022 and the judgment of the
Hon’ble High Court in W.P.(C) No. 5795/2026, directed the
respondents to extend similar benefits to the applicant therein,
subject to the applicant being similarly situated and otherwise
eligible in accordance with law, and further directed that his
case be considered in the Review DPC being
conducted/proposed to be conducted pursuant to the aforesaid
orders.
8. The present applicants are also similarly situated. They
had, after obtaining the relevant documents through RTI,
submitted their individual representations seeking extension of
the aforesaid benefit. The said representations were rejected vide
orders dated 18.08.2023, 05.09.2023 and 12.09.2023, primarily
on the ground that the judgment dated 03.06.2002 in O.A. No.
1981/1996 was applicable only to the applicants therein and
SOURJYA
SOBHANIYA

5


Item No. 77 - Court 3

could not be extended to similarly situated employees in the
absence of any Government order on the subject.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the
prayer and submitted that the applicants had retired long back
and were not parties to the proceedings in O.A. No. 1981/1996.
It is also submitted that the relevant records are no longer
available, having been lost/destroyed, and, therefore, the claim
of the applicants cannot be considered at this stage.
10. The aforesaid objection regarding non-availability of
records cannot be accepted. The records pertaining to the
present litigation and the service particulars of the persons
concerned are with the respondents. The respondents have been
aware of the controversy since its inception and have themselves
implemented the judgment dated 03.06.2002 as well as the
subsequent orders passed in O.A. No. 1987/2019 and O.A. No.
1089/2022. The respondents, being aware that the matter was
the subject matter of litigation and that the issue had remained
pending before the Courts, cannot now take the plea that the
records have been lost/destroyed to deny the benefit to similarly
situated employees.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and
particularly the fact that the issue already stands settled by the
aforesaid decisions, which have been implemented and have also
been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court, we are of the view that
the present applicants are entitled to similar treatment.
12. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to extend to the
applicants similar benefits as were granted to the applicants in
O.A. No. 1981/1996 and the similarly situated applicants in
O.A. Nos. 1987/2019 and 1089/2022, in accordance with law.
The respondents shall also consider their cases in the Review
DPC being conducted/proposed to be conducted pursuant to the
aforesaid orders and take consequential action in accordance
with law.
SOURJYA
SOBHANIYA

6


Item No. 77 - Court 3

13. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
14. The OA stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending
MAs, if any, also stand disposed of. No costs.

(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member(A) Member(J)
/ss/

SOURJYA
SOBHANIYA