Surplus redeployment cannot arbitrarily downgrade an employee’s previously acquired UDC status.

The applicant was promoted from LDC to UDC in 2015 and was serving as a UDC when the Military Farms were ordered to close.

In the resulting surplus-staff adjustment, he was posted first to TA Group HQ, Western Command, and later to GE (South), Ambala, but was designated as an LDC.

He challenged the adjustment orders, asserting that his UDC status should have been preserved and that junior employees had been restored to UDC posts.

The respondents maintained that no suitable UDC vacancy was available at the relevant time and that his UDC pay scale remained protected.

The applicant also relied on a movement order that recorded him as a UDC and a later recommendation stating that a UDC vacancy was available at GE (South), Ambala.

1. Whether the respondents could designate the applicant as an LDC when adjusting him after closure of the Military Farms, despite his prior promotion and status as a UDC.

2. Whether the applicant was treated arbitrarily or discriminatorily when junior employees were restored or adjusted as UDCs, while his request was denied.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides the procedural basis for an aggrieved person to seek redress before the Tribunal.

Army Order No. 22/2001/MP, as amended by Army Order No. 12/2020/MP, governed the adjustment and redeployment of surplus staff following the closure of Military Farms; the respondents also relied on its provisions concerning reclassification and vacancy availability.

The Tribunal applied the principle that administrative action must be non-arbitrary and that similarly situated employees should not be treated differently without a reasoned justification.

The applicant cited Man Singh v. State of Haryana, 2008 (3) SCT 364, but the Tribunal did not identify it as an independent basis for its decision.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had acquired UDC status by promotion and that the respondents’ explanation for retaining his LDC designation did not account for their restoration of UDC status to similarly situated, including junior, employees.

The official movement order recording him as a UDC supported his claim that the designation change arose from the surplus adjustment rather than a loss of his established status.

The respondents’ vacancy explanation was also inadequate in light of the GE (South) recommendation recording a UDC vacancy on the date he joined, and the respondents failed to provide a non-discriminatory reason for treating him differently.

Because the applicant sought correction of his designation rather than additional pay—and his UDC pay scale was already protected—the Tribunal considered restoration appropriate without a further monetary benefit.

It quashed the orders dated 31 August 2020 and 24 March 2021 to the extent that they adjusted or showed him as an LDC, and directed the respondents to restore his UDC designation and correct his service record within three months of receipt of the order.

No additional monetary benefit was payable merely by reason of restoring the designation; the Original Application was allowed with no order as to costs.