Cancellation of long-standing promotion without notice or hearing violates principles of natural justice and entails civil consequences.

The applicants were initially appointed as Mazdoors (Unskilled).

After passing a trade test, they were promoted to "Mate Electrician/Semi-Skilled" and "Mate Fitter/Semi-Skilled" effective 14.08.2013.

Following the 6th CPC recommendations, the Ministry of Defence merged the pay scales of Mazdoors and Tradesmen into a single designation, "Tradesman Mate," effective 01.01.2006.

On 01.03.2018, the respondents issued an order cancelling the applicants' 2013 promotions, claiming the promotions were made within merged grades after the cut-off date of 30.08.2008 and were thus "not in order".

During its pendency, the O.A. was briefly dismissed for non-prosecution on 03.02.2024 but restored on 23.02.2024.

However, the respondents issued a subsequent order on 05.03.2024 re-designating the applicants as "Tradesman Mate" (effectively demoting them) on the mistaken premise that the interim protection had ceased due to the earlier dismissal.

1. Whether the respondents could legally cancel the applicants’ promotions via the order dated 01.03.2018 without issuing a show-cause notice or affording a hearing.

2. Whether the re-designation order dated 05.03.2024 was valid given that the primary litigation (O.A. 863/2020) had already been restored to the file.

Principles of Natural Justice, specifically the doctrine of Audi Alteram Partem (hear the other side).

Any administrative action entailing "civil consequences"—defined as an action affecting an employee's status, seniority, or promotional prospects—requires prior notice and an opportunity to respond.

While the government has the power to correct "erroneous promotions" based on policy (e.g., 6th CPC merger clarifications), such power must be exercised through a fair procedure rather than summary administrative adjustment.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had enjoyed their promoted status for several years and had qualified through a formal trade test.

There was no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation by the applicants.

Consequently, the cancellation of promotion was not a mere "internal adjustment" but a withdrawal of a settled service benefit.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' argument that a "post-decisional speaking order" cured the lack of notice, stating that fairness requires a pre-decisional hearing when service status is at stake.

Regarding the second order (2024), the Tribunal noted "non-application of mind," as the respondents acted on the vacancy of an interim order despite knowing the O.A. had been restored by the Tribunal on 23.02.2024.

The respondents were directed to restore the applicants to their promoted status of Mate Electrician/Fitter; however, the Tribunal granted the respondents liberty to revisit the issue by following due process: issuing a formal show-cause notice, providing the applicants with relevant policy materials, and passing a reasoned order after a personal hearing if required.