01Facts
The applicants, Chargemen at Ordnance Factory Muradnagar, sought promotion to that post from 1 April 2014.
¶ 4–5 · pp. 3–4In 2014, certain MCM employees were promoted to Chargeman on the basis of internal circulars treating MCM as a feeder cadre; those promotions were expressly made subject to pending litigation.
¶ 4–5 · pp. 3–4The Tribunal later quashed the circulars, holding that including MCM as a feeder cadre required amendment of the Recruitment Rules; the Delhi High Court upheld that decision.
¶ 6 · p. 4In 2020, the respondents promoted the applicants with effect from 1 April 2015 and 1 April 2016, but did not specifically reconsider the effect of the 2014 promotions on the applicants’ claim to promotion from 1 April 2014.
¶ 7–9 · pp. 5–7This was the applicants’ second round of litigation.
¶ 4 · p. 302Issues
i.Whether the respondents were required to reconsider the applicants’ claim to promotion from 1 April 2014 in light of the quashing of the circulars and the conditional nature of the 2014 promotions.
¶ 8, 10–11 · pp. 5–8ii.Whether that reconsideration had to account for the vacancies used for the 2014 MCM promotions, the applicants’ eligibility and seniority, and the applicable Recruitment Rules.
¶ 10–11 · pp. 7–803Law Applied
The Tribunal applied the principle that a promotion order expressly made subject to the outcome of pending litigation must be reconsidered in light of the final adjudication.
¶ 8 · p. 6It also relied on the prior decision in the applicants’ earlier proceedings, upheld by the Delhi High Court, that MCM could not be treated as a feeder cadre for Chargeman under the internal circulars and that such inclusion required an appropriate amendment to the Recruitment Rules.
¶ 6, 10 · p. 4, 7Promotion entitlement must be assessed under the applicable Recruitment Rules and with regard to vacancies, eligibility and inter se seniority.
¶ 10–11 · pp. 7–804Reasoning
The 2014 promotions were based on circulars subsequently quashed and were expressly subject to the outcome of litigation.
¶ 10 · p. 7Although the respondents later implemented the judicial decisions by promoting the applicants, they did not address whether the vacancies occupied by the MCM promotees affected the applicants’ entitlement to earlier promotion.
¶ 10 · p. 7The Tribunal therefore held that the respondents had to examine the matter afresh under the applicable Recruitment Rules, taking account of the relevant vacancies, eligibility and seniority.
¶ 10 · p. 705Holding
The Tribunal disposed of the OA and directed the respondents to reconsider the applicants’ claim for promotion as Chargeman from 1 April 2014, including the vacancies used for the MCM promotions made under the order dated 1 August 2014.
¶ 11–12 · p. 8A reasoned and speaking order was to be passed within three months of receipt of the certified order.
¶ 11–12 · p. 8If found entitled, the applicants were to receive consequential notional benefits under the applicable rules.
¶ 11–12 · p. 8No order as to costs was made.
¶ 11–12 · p. 8Original Court PDF
ANAND KUMARvsDEFENCE
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
![CAT Orders Fresh Review Of Four Ordnance Factory Workers’ 2014 Chargeman Promotion Claims After MCM Feeder-Cadre Circulars Were Quashed. ANAND KUMAR vs DEFENCE. CAT - ['Delhi']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/cat-orders-fresh-review-of-four-ordnance-factory-workers-2014-chargeman-promotion-claims-a-8176dfe93816479b8d08f370d4233a7a.webp)