Pratima Devi vs M/o Defence

A 200/171/2015
O
1


Reserved

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
(Hybrid Mode)

Original Application No.200/171/2015

th
Jabalpur, this Tuesday, the 13 day of October, 2026


HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

HON’BLE MRS. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

Smt. Pratima Devi wife of Late Ram Khelawan Shukla, aged about 53
years, Made to retire from working Ordinance Factory Katni on 31.12.2012
as Examiner Highly Skilled-II, T.No.10/QA/2314, permanent Home Town
address – C/o Rajesh Dubey, Village – Dubari, Near Ramanand School, J.P.
Mode, Rewa (M.P.) – 486001.
-Applicant

(By Advocate – Shri Ajay Gupta)
V e r s u s

1. Chairman & Managing Director, Yantra India Limited, Head Quarter
Amravati Road, Ambajhari, Nagpur (M.H.) 442001.
2. Director of Ordnance (Coordination & Services), 10-A, S.K. Bose Road,
Kolkata – 700001.
3. General Manager, Ordnance Factory Katni (M.P.) 483503.
- Respondents
(By Advocate – Shri D.S. Baghel)


(Date of reserving order : 29.09.2026)


Page 1 of 9
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:18:11
+05'30'
MISHRA

A 200/171/2015
O
2

O R D E R

By Mallika Arya, AM.-
Through this Original Application, the applicant is seeking direction to
the respondents to grant her promotion to the post of Examiner Highly
Skilled Grade-I from due date with all consequential benefits.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed on
04.12.1986 on compassionate grounds as ‘Labour’. She was thereafter
promoted as Examiner HS-II w.e.f.01.06.2009. The applicant passed the
Trade Test for the post of Examiner ‘Highly Skilled-I’ vide Factory Order
Part-II No.3076 dated 19.07.2012 (Annexure A-2) and her name is
mentioned at Sr. No.5 of the order. However, despite passing the Trade
Test, she was not promoted along with the other four persons, who were
promoted from Examiner HS-II to Examiner HS-I w.e.f.19.07.2012 vide
order dated 14.08.2012 (Annexure A-3). The applicant preferred a
representation (Annexure A-4) pointing out her grievance. Since the
representation was kept pending for a considerable period of time, she filed
an Original Application No.913/2013 before this Tribunal, which was
disposed vide order dated 01.10.2013 (Annexure A-6) granting liberty to
the applicant to file fresh representation with a further direction to the
Page 2 of 9
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:18:11
+05'30'
MISHRA

A 200/171/2015
O
3
respondents to decide her representation within three months. However, her
representation has been rejected by the respondents vide the order dated
31.01.2014 (Annexure A-1).
2.1 The applicant submits that as per the SRO, promotion to the post of
Trade Examiner (M) HS-I is done on the basis of seniority and after passing
the trade test subject to the availability of vacancy and completion of
residency period in the feeder grade. In the seniority list of Examiner (M)
HS Grade-I, the name of the applicant was appearing at Sr. No.49 and there
were 6 vacancies, 5 for unreserved and 1 for ST as backlog available as on
02.07.2012. Against the five unreserved vacancies, four candidates at Sr.
Nos.45,46,47 & 48 got promoted w.e.f.19.07.2012, whereas one candidate
at Sr. No.50 was promoted w.e.f.01.01.2013 vide order dated 23.09.2013
(Annexure A-7). Since the applicant was placed at Sr. No.49 and one
vacancy was available at the material time, she should have been granted
promotion w.e.f.19.07.2012 along with four other persons placed
immediately above her in the seniority list.
3. In their reply, the respondents have stated that as per seniority list as on
01.04.2012 of Examiner (M) HS-I, the name of the applicant was appearing
Page 3 of 9
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:18:11
+05'30'
MISHRA

A 200/171/2015
O
4
at Sr. No.49 and there were only 05 vacancies (04 UR & 01 ST/Backlog)
available as on 02.07.2012. The candidates at Sr. Nos.45 to 48 in the
senioritiy list were promoted against the 04 UR vacancies w.e.f.19.07.2012
and 01 ST candidate at Sr. No.52, who had completed residency period on
02.11.2012 was promoted against 01 ST (backlog) vacancy.
3.1 Regarding promotion of Smt. Phool Bai at Sr. No.50 of the seniority
list, the promotion of Shri Kalloo Prasad from HS-I to MCM was due on
01.08.2012, which was held up due to submission of a representation of a
PH candidate. Shri Kalloo Prasad got promoted from HS-I to MCM
w.e.f.01.08.2012. Therefore, Smt. Phool Bai was promoted against the
vacancy which arose due to promotion of Shri Kalloo Prasad from HS-I to
MCM as per order dated 01.03.2013. The applicant could not be promoted
w.e.f.19.07.2012 since at that time only 05 vacancies were available out of
which 01 vacancy was on account of ST/Backlog. The next vacancy which
occurred due to retirement of Shri Ram Chandra Shukla was on 31.08.2012.
This was kept for 01 PH backlog vacancy.
th
4. In her rejoinder, the applicant has stated that the 5 vacancy had
occurred from 02.07.2012 due to superannuation of Shri Yashpal Singh,
Page 4 of 9
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:18:11
+05'30'
MISHRA

A 200/171/2015
O
5
who was a General candidate. This vacancy was not filled till 02.12.2015
although the applicant was suitable for promotion.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
5.
pleadings and the documents available on record.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that since the
applicant has retired on 31.12.2012, no relief can be granted to her at this
stage. He has placed reliance on a decision of this Tribunal in Original
Application No.428 of 2021, wherein this Tribunal has declined to grant
retrospective promotion in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Government of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi
& Ors , 2024 INSC 906. Even otherwise, the applicant has no case on
merits, as there were only 04 vacancies against the UR category as on
02.07.2012. The persons from Sr. Nos.45 to 48, belonging to UR category
th
got promoted against the UR category. Being placed at 49 position in the
seniority list as UR candidate, she could not be promoted due to non
availability of vacancy.
7. It is a well settled law that an employee has a right to be considered for
promotion in accordance with the applicable rules, but does not have an
Page 5 of 9
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:18:11
+05'30'
MISHRA

A 200/171/2015
O
6
indefeasible right to promotion merely upon acquiring eligibility. The right
to promotion has necessarily to be worked out with reference to the
applicable recruitment rules, the availability and classification of vacancies,
seniority, suitability and other prescribed conditions. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court has consistently maintained the distinction between the right to be
considered for promotion and a vested right to promotion.
In the present case, the applicant admittedly fulfilled one of the
8.
conditions for promotion, namely, she had passed the Trade Test. However,
passing of the Trade Test does not confer upon her an automatic right to
promotion. The other material consideration was the availability of an
appropriate vacancy in the relevant category. The respondents have
specifically stated that as on 02.07.2012 there were only five vacancies,
comprising of four unreserved vacancies and one ST/backlog vacancy. The
four unreserved vacancies got filled by candidates placed at Serial Nos.45
to 48, who were senior to the applicant. The applicant was placed at Serial
No.49 and belongs to the unreserved category.
9. The applicant has sought to overcome this position by relying upon the
subsequent promotion of Smt. Phool Bai at Serial No.50. The respondents
Page 6 of 9
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:18:11
+05'30'
MISHRA

A 200/171/2015
O
7
have furnished a specific explanation that the promotion of Smt. Phool Bai
was against a vacancy which arose subsequent to promotion of Shri Kalloo
Prasad from HS-I to MCM. Thus, the subsequent promotion of Smt. Phool
Bai cannot retrospectively create an unreserved vacancy as on 19.07.2012.
The applicant has also relied upon the vacancy which allegedly arose on
account of the retirement of Shri Yashpal Singh w.e.f.02.07.2012. However,
the material placed before us does not establish the fact that the said
vacancy was in the unreserved category and was available for promotion. A
vacancy in a particular cadre cannot be interchanged with a vacancy
available in another cadre without examining the applicable reservation
roster and recruitment rules.
10. It is also significant that the applicant has not demonstrated that any
person junior to her in the same category has been promoted against an
unreserved vacancy with effect from 19.07.2012. The respondents have
explained that the four unreserved vacancies got exhausted by way of
promotion of employees at Serial Nos.45 to 48. The promotion of the
employee at Serial No.50 was against a subsequent vacancy. Therefore, the
assertion of the applicant that she was denied an available unreserved
vacancy on 19.07.2012 does not get established. Merely because the
Page 7 of 9
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:18:11
+05'30'
MISHRA

A 200/171/2015
O
8
applicant had passed the Trade Test and her name was included in the list of
successful candidates, no vested right to promotion accrues in her favour.
There is another important aspect in the matter. The applicant
11.
superannuated on 31.12.2012. The relief sought in the present Original
Application is, therefore, not a direction for actual promotion in service but
essentially a claim for retrospective/notional promotion with effect from
19.07.2012 along with consequential financial and pensionary benefits. The
legal position in this regard has recently been considered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra), wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, “ promotion becomes effective upon
its grant and assumption of duties of the promotional post and not merely
from the date on which the vacancy arose or the date of recommendation.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to grant even notional financial
benefits of a promotional post to an employee who had retired without his
promotion having been effectuated .” Hence the applicant, having retired
from service on 31.12.2012 is not entitled for the benefit of promotion
retrospectively in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra).
Page 8 of 9
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:18:11
+05'30'
MISHRA

A 200/171/2015
O
9
12. Accordingly, this Original Application is dismissed being devoid of

any merit. No costs.

(Mallika Arya) (Rajinder Singh Dogra)
Administrative Member Judicial Member

am/-





Page 9 of 9
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:18:11
+05'30'
MISHRA