Shri Shripad Dwarkanath Gupte & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

11. Mr. Nagrani then pointed out that even out of the 4 major units of the Western Command Mumbai i.e. Respondent No. 2 (Naval Dockyard, Mumbai), Naval Armament Depot Mumbai, Naval Material Organization Mumbai, Naval Ship Repair Yard- Karwar, 3 of them at all times maintained a trade-wise seniority list for promotions of the Artisan Staff except LGC 11 of 31 Respondent No. 2. He submitted that promotion to the post of Master Craftsman was more justified trade-wise and not gradewise since the work involved was physical work in the respective vocational trades unlike the work done by the Technical Staff (Chargeman/Foreman), which was in the nature of only supervisory and detailing work.

12. Mr. Nagrani submitted that on account of the restructuring undertaken by Respondent No. 2 there was nonavailability or insufficient number of posts of ‘Master Craftsman’ in certain trades which resulted in the promotion in certain trades from HSK-I to Chargeman by bypassing the post of Master Craftsman. He submitted that this had resulted in some of the Petitioners being deprived of the benefit of one promotion and an additional increment of 3% which the Petitioners would have earned through their pay fixation had they been promoted trade-wise and not grade-wise. He pointed out that grade-wise seniority roaster maintained for Artisan Staff had resulted in LGC 12 of 31 discrimination between employees working as Artisan Staff in same trade.

13. Mr. Nagrani then pointed out that the order of the MoD dated 21st September 1982 provided that the number of post of Master Craftsman would be upto 10% in each trade. He submitted that the same was subsequently vide a letter dated 20th May 2003 increased to 25% in each trade and that the same ratio was maintained even in the said OM dated 14th June 2010. He submitted that the number of posts of Master Craftsman, in each trade should not be maintained uniformly i.e. by way of a fixed percentage in each trade but should be maintained on the basis of a separate trade wise seniority list.

14. Mr. Nagrani submitted that once the Integrated Headquarters of Indian Navy had vide letter dated 25th 2012 and 20th November 2015 issued Operative Instructions based on the said OM dated 14th June 2010, Respondent No.2 had no right to interpret the OM in the manner that had been so LGC 13 of 31 done, i.e. promoting the Artisan Staff vide grade-wise seniority roster instead of trade wise seniority roster.

15. Mr. Nagrani then pointed out that an application which was filed by the Material Organisation under Western Naval command seeking to fix seniority for promotion of all trades grade-wise i.e. by combining all trades was rejected by the Tribunal. He submitted that absent such special power/delegation Respondent No.2 could not have done so for only following grade wise seniority to promote Artisan Staff. He pointed out that the Material Organization Mumbai was following departmental promotion trade-wise from last five years on the basis of the same Operative Instructions of 25th June 2012, but similar action was not taken by Respondent No.2. He thus submitted that it was incumbent upon the Respondents to show that the Competent Authority had granted a special power to them to follow different principles for promotion in the different units. LGC 14 of 31

16. He then invited our attention to the said Operative Instructions dated 25th June, 2012 and pointed out the following, viz. i. that paragraph 3(aa) of the same made clear that commands should work out a trade-wise integrated ratio. ii. That in case of non-viable trades having meagre number of workers (less than 5) those trades were to be grouped together and a viable ratio was to be achieved and made clear that in cases where there were more than 5 workers in a particular trade the said trades were to be grouped together to maintain their seniority and intergrade ratio. iii. That paragraph 3(aa) had to be read harmoniously with paragraph 3(ee) of the Operative Instructions dated 25th June 2012 which clearly stated that a LGC 15 of 31 separate trade-wise seniority list shall be prepared for HSK-I and HSK-II. iv. That paragraph 7 clearly provided that all Commands were to implement Operative Instructions uniformly.

17. Mr. Nagrani thus submitted that the Tribunal had therefore plainly erred in holding that the said Operative Instructions were merely for Industrial staff and not for Artisan Staff. He submitted that it was clear that Industrial and Artisan Staff were one and the same. He submitted that the Respondents’ contention that the term ‘Industrial Staff’ in Para 41 of the Impugned Order was ‘Technical Supervisor’ and the same was typographical error was plainly misconceived.

18. Mr. Nagrani then pointed out that different trades necessarily have and/or require different expertise and thus seniority of different trades cannot be combined together and LGC 16 of 31 the promotion cannot be granted on such grade-wise basis, as it would effectively result into treating unequals equally.

19. He thus submitted that the finding of the Tribunal that the Operative Instructions only mentioned restructuring of Artisan Staff and it did not provide for creating trade-wise seniority was plainly incorrect since no trade-wise restructuring was possible without forming a trade-wise seniority list.

20. He then, without prejudice to the above, submitted that the Tribunal had wrongly dismissed the OAs on the additional ground of delay and latches. He pointed out that the Petitioners’ representation was disposed of on 16th September 2016 and that OA No. 93/2017 and OA No. 497/2017 were filed on 23rd January 2017 and 10th August 2017, respectively. He thus submitted that there was no delay since as per Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 the limitation prescribed for challenging the final order was of one year. LGC 17 of 31

21. Basis the above, he submitted that the Tribunal had failed to properly construe the above facts and thus, resultantly the Impugned Order was required to be set aside and the Original Applications filed by the Petitioner were required to be allowed. Submissions of Mr. Shetty on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

22. At the outset, Mr. Shetty submitted that it was crucial for this Court to take into consideration the following, viz.

(i) that the Naval Dockyard was established in 1735 and that grade-wise seniority had been maintained in the post of Tradesman right upto the post of Master Craftsman ever since then;

(ii) that out of a total of 6037 Tradesmen, only 25 had challenged the grant of promotions on grade-wise basis as against trade-wise basis; LGC 18 of 31

(iii) that there were 36 trades having different authorized strengths which varied between 800 for the trade of electrical fitter to one for the trade of Lagger;

(iv) that as against the 6037 Industrial Employees

(Artisans/Industrial Cadre), there were only 1235 Technical Supervisors to supervise the Artisan Staff. Promotions to the post of Technical Supervisors were always granted on trade-wise basis whereas promotions to the Industrial Employees (Artisan Staff) were always granted on grade-wise basis.

(v) that out of 25 Petitioners, 13 had already moved from the Post of Tradesman to the post of Technical Supervisors and had since been granted promotion on trade-wise basis to the post of Chargeman and Foreman;

(vi) that an overwhelming majority of the rest had already

(vii) that the issue in question relates to one policy which is lying undisturbed since 1735 and is sought to be challenged for the first time in the year 2017;

23. Mr. Shetty, then submitted that the Petitioners’ contention that trade-wise seniority had to be maintained in the post of Skilled, Tradesman, HSK-II, HSK-I and Master Craftsman was based principally on the said OM dated 14th June, 2010 and Operative Instructions dated 25th June, 2012 issued by the Ministry of Defence read with the Recruitment Rules notified under Article 309 of the Constitution of India namely SRO dated 18th May, 2012.

24. Mr. Shetty then pointed out the following, viz. LGC 20 of 31 i. That the entire premise of the Petitioners’ challenge was flawed and misconceived since the Circular dated 14th June, 2010 nowhere lays down a proposition that persons from the Skilled Grade who are entitled to the promotion to the post of HSK-II, from HSK-II to HSK-I and HSK-I to Master Craftsman have to be promoted based on trade-wise requirements and not grade-wise requirements. He pointed out that the Circular nowhere laid down the proposition that placement of individuals in the higher grades above Skilled upto Master Craftsman are to be done on trade-wise basis and not grade-wise. ii. That Column 11 of the Recruitment Rules nowhere lays down that promotions have to be granted on trade-wise basis and not grade-wise basis, but infact a careful perusal of Column 11 of Recruitment Rules makes it clear that HSK-II with 5 years regular service in the grade i.e. pay scale and in the LGC 21 of 31 respective trade i.e. stream, who had passed the departmental qualifying exam would be eligible for consideration for promotion subject to their securing 50% marks in aggregate. Thus, the Recruitment Rules do not provide that promotions were to be granted on trade-wise basis as against grade-wise. iii. Similarly, the Operative Instructions dated 25th 2012 also did not lay down any proposition to the effect that promotions have to be granted trade-wise and not grade-wise. Basis the above, Mr. Shetty reiterated that the entire premise of the Petitioners’ challenge was misconceived and without any merit.

25. Mr. Shetty then pointed out that wherever there was a reference to maintenance of seniority in the respective trade, the same only refers to maintaining the seniority in the LGC 22 of 31 respective trade to ensure that a person who is junior in that trade does not get promoted before a senior in the same trade. The promotion however was to be granted grade-wise based on the seniority in the grade and not trade-wise subject of course to a person in a particular trade not being superseded by his junior in the same trade.

26. Mr. Shetty then submitted that what the Petitioners were really impugning was a policy decision of Respondent No.2. He pointed out that if the said policy of grade-wise promotions was unsettled at this stage that too from inception or even from 2006, the vertical and horizontal relativities in the organization of persons in one trade as compared to any other would be severely disturbed.

27. He then, in dealing with the submission that the Petitioners have been prejudiced by the grade-wise promotions, pointed out that the Petitioners have been unable to show, even a single instance of any junior in a particular trade having been superseded by any senior in the same trade. He thus submitted LGC 23 of 31 that the argument of prejudice and discrimination resulting in financial deprivation was plainly misconceived and was only in the Petitioners’ minds. He then reiterated that the said OM of 2010, upon which reliance was placed by the Petitioners was only a circular which had declared the percentage to be maintained in each trade in four grade structure at the time of restructuring and nothing more.

28. He submitted that the Petitioners’ emphasis on paragraph 41 of the Impugned Order, where the Tribunal had recorded that Operative Instructions do not pertain to Artisan Cadre/Staff but they pertain to Industrial Cadre and admittedly industrial cadre in Naval Dockyard followed trade-wise seniority, was plainly a typographical error and reference to Industrial Cadre therein could only mean Technical Supervisors since it was only for Technical Supervisors that promotions were granted on a trade-wise basis. He submitted that the recording in the said paragraph would not in any manner take the Petitioners’ case further, since the same, in no manner, went to the root of LGC 24 of 31 the matter and solely basis that could not be construed to mean that promotions were to be granted to Artisan Staff on a tradewise basis.

29. He then, in dealing with the Petitioners’ contention that prejudice had been caused to the Petitioners since some of them had not been able to get themselves promoted to the post of Master Craftsman, which resulted in some of the Petitioners losing out on one increment, he pointed out that the Petitioners had failed and neglected to infact substantiate this contention nor had given any computation of such perceived loss. He submitted that the Petitioners had simply raised this contention which was entirely without any basis and therefore, the Petitioners had absolutely no basis to conclude that direct promotion from the post of HSK – I to the post of Chargeman had in fact resulted in any loss to the Petitioners.

30. Mr. Shetty then invited our attention to the Impugned Order and pointed out that the same was a detailed and reasoned order by which the Tribunal had after giving LGC 25 of 31 cogent reasons, upheld the contentions of Respondent No. 1. He therefore submitted that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that none of the letters i.e. the letter dated 16th 2010, 20th November 2015, and Operative Instructions dated 25th June 2012 provided that promotions from the post of Skilled up to the post of Master Craftsman were to be granted, tradewise and therefore the entire basis of the Petitioners’ challenge was entirely misconceived Submissions of Mr. Saxena on behalf of Respondent No.3

31. Mr. Saxena Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.3 adopted the submissions made by Mr. Shetty and at the outset submitted that Tribunal had rightly observed that Operative Instructions dated 25th June 2012 only contained instruction on restructuring in Industrial Cadre and nowhere indicated that seniority was to be fixed grade-wise or tradewise.

32. He then submitted that Petitioners claiming parity LGC 26 of 31 with Artisan Staff of Material Organization was like comparing apples and oranges because there was significant difference between characteristic, object, nature of duties and number of staff of Naval Dockyard, Mumbai and Material Organization, Mumbai.

33. Mr. Saxena also submitted that the Tribunal had rightly observed that Petitioners had failed to show that (i) how promotion to the post of HSK-I to Chargeman has resulted into financial loss and (ii) a single instance of any junior being promoted ahead of his senior.

34. He submitted that there was significant delay of six years by Petitioners in agitating their grievances and allowing this Writ Petition would upset an already drawn up valid list and it shall adversely affect individuals granted promotion therein. He in addition submitted that few Petitioners have reaped the fruits of grade-wise promotion without any protest and now cannot challenge the same. He then submitted that Petitioners had filed this Petition only for increment and pay fixation despite LGC 27 of 31 them being promoted to higher posts in shorter period. He submitted that due to current policy of Respondent No.2, equal opportunity was made be available to all Artisan Staff and Supervisory Posts in proportional manner. Basis, this he submitted that this Writ Petition ought to be dismissed.

35. We have heard Learned Counsel for the Parties and after a careful consideration of the submissions advanced by them, find that the present Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed for the following reasons, viz.

2017. We must note that no steps whatsoever were taken by Petitioners between 2010 to 2017 for implementing the said OM as interpreted by Petitioners. It is well settled that mere making of representations will not extend limitation nor would give the Petitioners any cause of action. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding there was an inordinate and explained delay on the part of the Petitioners in approaching the Tribunal. LGC 29 of 31

Petitioners that prejudice and monetary loss has been caused to the Petitioners. The Petition is entirely bereft of any material in support of this contention. Petitioners had neither shown us a single instance in support of this contention Nor a single instance of any junior employee of Respondent No. 2 being promoted before any senior employee of Respondent No.2.

36. Hence for the aforesaid reasons, the Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE) LGC 31 of 31