Authorities cannot adversely revise settled MCM placement without affording the employee a hearing.

The applicant, an MES employee, was placed in the Master Craftsman (MCM) grade with effect from 1 January 1996 by an order dated 26 February 2007, issued following litigation concerning cadre restructuring.

In November 2016, the respondents revised his placement date to 20 May 2003, stating that a review DPC had been held after correcting the seniority of another employee, Shri Krishan Lal.

The applicant challenged the revision, contending that it was made without a hearing, reasons, or authority to disturb the earlier placement.

The respondents’ explanation was issued on 24 December 2016, after the impugned order.

Whether the respondents could revise the applicant’s MCM placement date without giving him an opportunity to be heard.

Whether the order revising the placement date from 1 January 1996 to 20 May 2003 was sustainable in the circumstances.

The Tribunal applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement to provide a hearing before taking an adverse decision affecting an employee’s interests.

It also held that the respondents could not unsettle a placement that had remained in force for more than nine years and had been made pursuant to a judicial direction, absent a justified and legally sustainable basis.

No statute or judicial precedent was cited.

The Tribunal found that the 2016 revision adversely affected the applicant but was made without a hearing, and that the impugned order itself gave no reasons for changing his placement date.

The respondents’ explanation came only after the revision had been ordered, which the Tribunal considered a mere formality.

It also found the explanation inadequate: the respondents had treated MCM placement as a promotion and had not sufficiently justified treating the applicant as junior to Krishan Lal.

The Tribunal further noted that the applicant’s pay scale had not been revised, reinforcing its conclusion that the stated basis did not justify changing the placement date.

It restored the order dated 26 February 2007 and directed the respondents to treat the applicant as placed in the MCM grade with effect from 1 January 1996, without disturbing Krishan Lal’s placement, and to grant consequential benefits, if any.

No order as to costs was made.