ANAND KUMAR vs DEFENCE
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
1
OA No. 3553/2022
Item No. 41 (C-3)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No. 3553/2022
ND
This the 22 Day of October, 2026
Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
1. Mr. Anand Kumar, Aged- 48 Years,
S/o Late Sh. Sohan Lal,
Working as Chargeman (Welder) in the
Office of HSF// Ordnance Factory Muradnagar
R/o 84/4, Near Ambedkar Dwar,
New Defence Colony, Muradnagar
Ghaziabad (U.P.) - 201206
2. Mr. Anil Kumar, Aged-52 Years,
S/o Sh. Rajender Singh,
Working as Chargeman (Melter) in the
Office of HSF// Ordnance Factory Muradnagar,
R/o IID/17/135, Ordnance Factory Estate,
Muradnagar, Ghaziabad (U.P.) - 201206
3. Mr. Narendra Singh, Aged- 47 Years,
S/o Sh. Net Ram Singh,
Working as Chargeman (Fitter General) in the
Office of GMS// Ordnance Factory Muradnagar,
R/o 27Q/134, Ordnance Factory Estate,
Muradnagar, Ghaziabad - 201206
4. Mr. Anil Kumar Garg, Aged- 51 Years,
S/o Late Sh. R.C. Garg,
Working as Chargeman (Welder) in the
Office of SMS/Ordnance Factory Muradnagar
R/o H.No.896, Brahampuri, Meerut City.- 250001
.…Applicants
(By Advocate : Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through the Secretary,
NISHA KUMARI 2026.10.30 17:50:49+05'30'
2
OA No. 3553/2022
Item No. 41 (C-3)
Ministry of Defence,
Department of Defence Production & Supplies,
Govt. of. India, South Block,
New Delhi. - 110011
2. The Director General Ordnance,
Directorate of Ordnance (Coordination and Services),
Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India,
10A, S.K. Boss Road, Kolkata. - 700029
3. The General Manager,
Ordnance Factory Muradnagar,
District Ghaziabad (U.P.) - 201206
.... RESPONDENTS
[By Advocate : Mr. Dilbag Singh]
NISHA KUMARI 2026.10.30 17:50:49+05'30'
3
OA No. 3553/2022
Item No. 41 (C-3)
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants submits
that there is a typographical error in the prayer clause of the
OA, wherein, in paragraph 8(i), the post of MCM has been
mentioned instead of the post of Chargeman. He submits that
the entire case of the applicants pertains to their promotion to
the post of Chargeman from the dates on which they became
due for such promotion.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to
the said correction.
3. Accordingly, on the oral request of learned counsel for
the applicants, the prayer in paragraph 8(i) shall be read as
seeking promotion to the post of Chargeman instead of MCM.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that this is
the second round of litigation. The four applicants had earlier
approached this Tribunal seeking promotion to the post of
Chargeman with effect from 01.04.2014. They were aggrieved
by the order dated 01.08.2014, whereby certain private
respondents, who were working as MCM, had been promoted
to the post of Chargeman. The applicants challenged the
NISHA KUMARI 2026.10.30 17:50:49+05'30'
4
OA No. 3553/2022
Item No. 41 (C-3)
inclusion of MCM as a feeder cadre for promotion to the post
of Chargeman on the basis of internal circulars issued by the
respondents, which were contrary to the applicable
Recruitment Rules.
5. It is submitted that vide order dated 22.07.2014, this
Tribunal had directed that any promotion orders issued
pursuant to the aforesaid circulars would remain subject to
the outcome of the pending litigation. Nevertheless, on
01.08.2014, the respondents issued the promotion order by
treating MCM as a feeder cadre for promotion to the post of
Chargeman. The said order also stipulated that the
promotions were subject to challenge/amendment in view of
the pending litigation.
6. Learned counsel further submits that this Tribunal
ultimately allowed the earlier OA and quashed the internal
circulars whereby MCM had been treated as a feeder cadre for
promotion to the post of Chargeman. It was also observed that
the inclusion of MCM as a feeder cadre would require an
appropriate amendment to the Recruitment Rules. The said
order was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
by way of W.P. (C) No. 8642/2015. The Hon'ble High Court
NISHA KUMARI 2026.10.30 17:50:49+05'30'
5
OA No. 3553/2022
Item No. 41 (C-3)
vide judgment dated 25.04.2019, upheld the order passed by
this Tribunal.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that
pursuant to the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, the
respondents issued the impugned order dated 09.01.2020,
expressly stating that the same was being issued in
compliance with the orders of this Tribunal and the judgment
of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. However, while granting
promotion to the applicants to the post of Chargeman with
effect from 01.04.2015 and 01.04.2016, respectively, the
respondents failed to appropriately modify/amend the earlier
promotion order dated 01.08.2014. It is contended that once
the circulars forming the basis of the promotions granted to
MCM were quashed, the respondents ought to have
reconsidered the vacancies occupied by such promotees and
determined the applicants' entitlement to promotion with
effect from 01.04.2014, instead of 01.04.2015 and
01.04.2016.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents, while relying upon
the counter affidavit, submits that the OA is being contested
by the respondents. However, in the counter affidavit, the
respondents have reiterated their averments regarding the
NISHA KUMARI 2026.10.30 17:50:49+05'30'
6
OA No. 3553/2022
Item No. 41 (C-3)
issuance of the aforesaid circulars, without specifically
addressing the issue of amendment/modification of the order
dated 01.08.2014. It is a settled and logical consequence that
any order passed during the pendency of litigation, when
expressly made subject to its outcome, must be reconsidered
in the light of the final adjudication. In the present case, the
respondents had themselves stipulated that the order dated
01.08.2014 was subject to modification/amendment.
Although the respondents have implemented the directions of
this Tribunal and the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court,
they have remained silent on the consequential
amendment/modification of the said order. In matters of
promotion, where the right to promotion is also dependent
upon the availability of vacancies, such omission assumes
significance, as it has allegedly resulted in a delay of one to
two years in the applicants' promotion to the post of
Chargeman. The question whether the subsequent promotion
order dated 01.09.2020, by itself, could be construed as an
automatic amendment/modification of the earlier order dated
01.08.2014 also remains unaddressed.
9. Learned counsel for the applicants, in this regard, also
draws attention to paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit,
NISHA KUMARI 2026.10.30 17:50:49+05'30'
7
OA No. 3553/2022
Item No. 41 (C-3)
wherein the respondents have referred to the implementation
of the earlier judicial directions.
10. We have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings on record. It
is evident that the earlier promotion order dated 01.08.2014
was issued by treating MCM as a feeder cadre for promotion to
the post of Chargeman, on the basis of circulars which were
subsequently quashed by this Tribunal, and the said decision
was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Further, the
respondents had themselves stipulated that the promotions
under the order dated 01.08.2014 would be subject to the
outcome of the pending litigation and to consequential
challenge/amendment. In these circumstances, the
subsequent implementation of the judicial directions by
issuing the order dated 09.01.2020, without appropriately
examining the consequential effect of the earlier promotion
order dated 01.08.2014, does not adequately address the
grievance raised by the applicants. The respondents were
required to examine the matter afresh in the light of the
quashing of the aforesaid circulars and determine the
applicants' entitlement to promotion in accordance with the
NISHA KUMARI 2026.10.30 17:50:49+05'30'
8
OA No. 3553/2022
Item No. 41 (C-3)
applicable Recruitment Rules, the availability of vacancies and
their inter se seniority.
11. Accordingly, the OA is disposed of with a direction to the
respondents to reconsider the applicants' claim for promotion
to the post of Chargeman with effect from 01.04.2014, by
taking into account the vacancies utilised for promoting MCM
to the post of Chargeman vide order dated 01.08.2014, as well
as the applicants' eligibility, seniority and the applicable
Recruitment Rules. The respondents shall pass a reasoned
and speaking order in this regard within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order. In the event the applicants are found entitled to
promotion from the aforesaid date, they shall be granted all
consequential notional benefits in accordance with the
applicable rules.
12. Pending MA, if any, also stands disposed of. There shall
be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/nk/
NISHA KUMARI 2026.10.30 17:50:49+05'30'