Allahabad High Court
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND 2 OTHERSversusFARHAD AHMED
- Decided
Holding
The respondent is entitled to the same promotion benefits as similarly placed employees, but the impact of his voluntary transfer and consequent bottom‑seniority placement must be factored in, leading to a modified implementation of the Tribunal’s order.
Summary
The petition challenged a Central Administrative Tribunal order directing the Union of India to grant the respondent promotion benefits similar to those awarded to other employees in 2013. The respondent, originally a daily wager, had been reinstated after earlier litigation but was not promoted on the post of MPA. He later transferred voluntarily to a different location and was placed at the bottom of seniority. The High Court examined whether the respondent could claim the same promotion dates as similarly placed employees despite his transfer and seniority position. It held that while he is entitled to the same promotions, the effect of his voluntary transfer must be accounted for, resulting in a modified implementation of the Tribunal’s order. Consequently, the petition was disposed of and the impugned order was modified accordingly.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondent is entitled to the same promotion dates as similarly placed employees despite his voluntary transfer and placement at the bottom of seniority.
- Whether the Tribunal’s direction should be modified to incorporate the effect of the respondent’s transfer on his seniority.
Subjects
- promotion
- seniority
- transfer
- equal treatment
- administrative law
- Central Administrative Tribunal
- public service regularisation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 953 of 2026
Union of India through Secretary, Ministry Of
Defence and 2 others .....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Farhad Ahmed
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : S.P. Singh, A.S.G.I., Vivek Kumar
Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashish Kumar Srivastava, Sunil
Chief Justice's Court
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. This petition is directed against order dated 18.11.2024 passed by
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad whereby
the Original Application ('OA') filed by the respondent has been allowed
and petitioners have been directed to grant similar benefits to the
respondent, which were granted to the applicants in OA No. 440 of 2013,
441 of 2013 and 442 of 2013 decided by Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal.
2. The OA was filed by the respondent seeking direction to the petitioners
for re-determination of his date of promotion as HS-II, HS-I and MCM
with effect from 22.03.1995, 30.01.2000 and 20.05.2003 respectively i.e.
from the date his juniors were promoted.
3. The respondent was initially appointed as daily wager on Master Roll
under Garrison Engineer (Army), Suratgarh (Rajasthan). His services
were terminated, OA No. 93 of 1987 was filed, which was allowed with a
direction to the petitioners to reinstate the respondent in service. Civil
Appeal filed against the said judgement by Union of India was decided on
08.10.1989 by Hon'ble Supreme Court directing denial of back wages and
further directing that the applicants of the OAs be regularized on the post
on which they are reinstated.
4. The petitioners though reinstated the respondents but not on the post of
MPA, which led to filing of another OA by some employees before
Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal, the OA was allowed directing the
WRIA No. 953 of 2026
2
petitioners to consider regularization on the post of MPA.
5. In the meanwhile, respondent was transferred at his own request and
posted at Garrison Engineer (GE), Allahabad. Similarly placed employees
again approached Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal by filing OA Nos. 440
of 2013, 441 of 2013 and 442 of 2013 seeking promotion from the date
their juniors were accorded promotion as HS-II, HS-I and MCM, which
were allowed.
6. Respondent filed the present OA seeking similar direction as given by
Jodhpur Bench.
7. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the respondent was similarly
placed to the applicants in OA No. 440 of 2013 etc. and while observing
that similar employee cannot be treated in dissimilar manner, allowed the
OA as noticed hereinbefore.
8. Counsel for the petitioners made vehement submissions that the
Tribunal has directed to accord promotion to the respondent similar to the
applicants in OA No. 440 of 2013 etc, who continue to serve under GE,
Suratgarh whereas the respondent was transferred on his own request to
GE, Allahabad in the year 1997 and in terms of the Rules, he was placed
at bottom seniority and therefore, he cannot claim seniority from the date
the same was accorded to the applicants in OA No. 440 of 2013 etc.,
which aspect has been ignored by the Tribunal.
9. Counsel for the respondent made submissions that till such time the
petitioners are prepared to accord similar treatment to the respondent after
taking into consideration the fact of his transfer and placing him at bottom
seniority, the respondent has no objection.
10. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties
and perused the material available on record.
11. The applicants in OA No. 440 of 2013 etc. were accorded promotion
as HS-II with effect from 20.03.1995, HS-I with effect from 30.01.2000
and MCM with effect from 20.05.2003. If the special circumstance as
available in the case of respondent regarding his transfer to GE,
Allahabad from GE, Suratgarh on his own request and as a consequence
WRIA No. 953 of 2026
3
being placed at the bottom seniority is to be applied along with the
directions as given in cases of similarly placed applicants, the net position
would be that in the year 1995 when the respondent was at GE, Suratgarh
he would be entitled to promotion on the post of HS-II and in the year
1997 when he came on transfer to GE, Allahabad, he may be placed at the
bottom seniority of HS-II at that stage and thereafter, in relation to those
immediately junior to him, can be accorded promotion at GE, Allahabad
on the post of HS-I and MCM, respectively.
12. The implementation of the order in the above manner, would take care
of all the apprehensions expressed by the petitioners, which counsel for
the petitioners readily agreed and counsel for the respondent has no
objection.
13. In view of the above, the OA filed by the petitioners is disposed of.
The order dated 18.11.2024 passed in OA No. 622 of 2021, shall be
implemented in the manner, as indicated here-in-before and to that extent,
the order impugned would stand modified.
(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
February 25, 2026
nd
Digitally signed by :-
NISITH DEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…