Holding

The GO dated 4 August 2015 is prospective and cannot be applied retrospectively; seniority must be counted as per the rule in force at the relevant time, i.e., from the date of promotion to the skilled grade.

Summary

The appellant, a fitter appointed in the semi‑skilled grade in 1996, was promoted to the skilled grade in 1999 and later to the highly skilled grade in 2008. He challenged a seniority list that placed him below private respondents who were promoted earlier, arguing that seniority should be based on his initial appointment date. The respondents relied on a Government Order (GO) dated 24 December 2002, which counted seniority from the date of promotion to the skilled grade, while the appellant relied on a later GO dated 4 August 2015 that restored the earlier Office Memorandum (OM) of 1992, counting seniority from the initial appointment. The Supreme Court examined whether the 2015 GO could be applied retrospectively and held that it was a substantive amendment, not a clarification, and therefore prospective. Consequently, the seniority rule in force at the relevant time (counting from promotion) remained applicable, and the appellant's claim was rejected. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the seniority of the appellant should be reckoned from the date of initial appointment or from the date of promotion/confirmation to the skilled grade.
Whether the GO dated 4 August 2015 can be given retrospective effect to alter seniority fixed under the earlier GO dated 24 December 2002.

Subjects

Service LawPromotionDate of inductionDate of promotionSeniorityGO dated 04.08.2015GO dated 24.12.2002Industrial establishmentSkilled gradeSemi-skilled gradeRetrospective effectProspective operation

Judgment

[2024] 10 S.C.R. 126 : 2024 INSC 748

V. Vincent Velankanni
v.
The Union of India and Others
(Civil Appeal No(s). 8617 of 2013)
30 September 2024
[Sandeep Mehta* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the seniority of the appellant is to be reckoned from the
date of induction/initial appointment or as per the date of promotion/
confirmation in the skilled grade.

Headnotes†
Service Law – Promotion – Seniority – Date of induction –
Date of promotion – The GO dated 24.12.2002 issued by the
Ordinance Factory Board placed on record clarifies the position
regarding counting of seniority by laying down that seniority
will be counted from the date of promotion to skilled grade
and not from the date of induction/entry/promotion in semi-
skilled grade – However, the appellant has placed reliance
on GO dated 04.08.2015, the rule position qua the fixation
of seniority has been restored to be governed by OM dated
04.11.1992, according to which the relevant date for fixation
of seniority would be the date of initial appointment and not
the date of upgradation/promotion to the skilled grade:
Held: The clarification issued vide GO dated 04.08.2015 does
not operate retrospectively as it is specifically provided in the
said GO that “henceforth”, the seniority in respect of Industrial
Establishments will be governed by the relevant clause of OM
dated 04.11.1992 – It is trite law that an Office Memorandum/
Government Order cannot have a retrospective effect unless and
until there is an express provision to make its effect retrospective
or that the operation thereof is retrospective by necessary
implication – If a Government Order is treated to be in the nature
of a clarification of an earlier Government Order, it may be
made applicable retrospectively – Conversely, if a subsequent
Government Order is held to be a modification/amendment of the
earlier Government Order, its application would be prospective
as retrospective application thereof would result in withdrawal of
* Author
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 127

V. Vincent Velankanni v. The Union of India and Others

vested rights which is impermissible in law and the same may also
entail recoveries to be made – In the instant case, the subsequent
GO dated 04.08.2015 cannot be read simply as a clarification and
therefore cannot be made applicable retrospectively – The said
GO has substantively modified the position governing seniority
in the Industrial Establishments by reviving the earlier OM dated
04.11.1992, and supersedes the orders/circulars dated 24.12.2002
and 13.01.2003, which were holding the field over more than a
decade – Therefore, giving retrospective effect to the GO dated
04.08.2015 would have catastrophic effect on the seniority of the
entire cadre – As much water has flown under the bridge and
retrospective application of the GO issued in 2015 would open
floodgates of litigation and would disturb the seniority of many
employees causing them grave prejudice and heartburn as it would
disturb the crystallized rights regarding seniority, rank and promotion
which would have accrued to them during the intervening period –
This Court is of the view that applicability of the Government Order
dated 04.08.2015 cannot enure to the benefit of the appellant as
its operation is clearly prospective. [Paras 41, 42, 43, 50, 51]

Case Law Cited
Pawan Pratap Singh and Others v. Reevan Singh and Others [2011]
2 SCR 831 : (2011) 3 SCC 267; Sonia v. Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. and Others [2007] 8 SCR 883 : (2007) 10 SCC 627; Sree
Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and Others v. Dr. Manu and
Another [2023] 7 SCR 366 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 640; Malcom
Lawrence Cecil D’Souza v. Union of India and Others (1976) 1 SCC
599; R.S. Makashi and Others v. I.M. Menon and Others [1982]
2 SCR 69 : (1982) 1 SCC 379; K.R. Mudgal and Others v. R.P.
Singh and Others [1986] 3 SCR 993 : (1986) 4 SCC 531; B.S.
Bajwa and Another v. State of Punjab and Others [1997] Supp.
6 SCR 451 : (1998) 2 SCC 523 – relied on.
BSNL v. R. Santhakumari Velusamy [2011] 14 SCR 502 : (2011)
9 SCC 510; Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’ Assn. v. State
of Maharashtra [1990] 2 SCR 900 : (1990) 2 SCC 715; Suresh
Chandra Jha v. State of Bihar and Others [2006] Supp. 8 SCR
831 : (2007) 1 SCC 405; L. Chandrakishore Singh v. State of
Manipur and Others [1999] Supp. 3 SCR 323 : (1999) 8 SCC
287; Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and Others [1999] Supp.
4 SCR 302 : (1999) 9 SCC 596; L. Chandrakishore Singh v. State
of Haryana, AIR 1975 SC 613 – referred to.
128 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

List of Keywords
Service Law; Promotion; Date of induction; Date of promotion;
Seniority; GO dated 04.08.2015; GO dated 24.12.2002 issued by
Ordinance Factory Board; Industrial establishment; Skilled grade;
Semi-skilled grade; Retrospective effect; Prospective operation.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8617 of 2013
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.2011 of the High Court of
Madras in WP No. 583 of 2011
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 10944 - 10946 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
R Nedumaran, Vijay Kumar, Prashant Bhushan, Anurag Tiwary,
Advs. for the Appellant.
Vikramjeet Banerjee, ASG, Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv., Abid Ali Beeran
P, Saswat Adhyapak, Sarath S Janardanan, Joydip Bhattacharya,
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Nachiketa Joshi, Ms. Priya Mishra, Rajesh Kumar
Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Mehta, J.
Civil Appeal No(s). 8617 of 2013
1. The instant appeal by special leave takes exception to the judgment
dated 10th October, 2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature
at Madras in Writ Petition,1 whereby the Division Bench of the High
Court accepted the writ petition2 preferred by the private respondents
herein3 and reversed the judgment dated 24th December, 2010 passed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench4 in Original

1 Writ Petition No. 583 of 2011
2 Ibid
3 Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5
4 ‘CAT’, hereafter
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 129

V. Vincent Velankanni v. The Union of India and Others

Application5 preferred by the private respondents herein. The CAT
had rejected the Original Application,6 challenging the proposed
action of revision and fixation of their seniority in the Engine Factory,
Avadi, Chennai.7
2. The brief facts in a nutshell, relevant and essential for the disposal
of the instant appeal are noted hereinbelow.
3. The appellant and the private respondents were engaged on
semi-skilled posts such as Fitters and Machinists in respondent
No.2-Factory. A common select list of candidates based on merit
was issued by the General Manager of respondent No.2-Factory in
the year 1995 wherein the appellant herein was placed at a higher
position than the private respondents. An appointment order dated
17th January, 1996 was issued in the favour of the appellant for the
post of ‘Fitter General(semi-skilled)’ in respondent No.2-Factory.
He was initially placed on probation for a period of two years which
was further extended for a period of six months w.e.f. 17th January,
1998. The appellant satisfactorily completed the probation period on
16th July, 1998. Thereafter, he was promoted to the ‘Skilled’ grade
on 6th January, 1999.
4. A draft seniority list dated 28th July, 2006 was issued by respondent
No.2-Factory, whereby the seniority of ‘Fitters’ was fixed as per their
respective dates of promotion to the skilled grade and the appellant
was placed at a lower position than the private respondents.
5. Aggrieved of the draft seniority list,8 the appellant submitted a
representation dated 13th November, 2006 to the General Manager
of respondent No.2-Factory seeking necessary amendments in
the draft seniority list and to fix his position appropriately and
thereafter, to publish a final seniority list. The General Manager
rejected the aforesaid representation submitted by the appellant vide
communication dated 9th July, 2007, observing that his seniority had
been fixed from the date of holding the skilled grade, and thus the
position of the appellant in the seniority list was not liable to be altered.

5 Original Application No. 318 of 2009
6 Ibid
7 ‘respondent No. 2-Factory’, hereafter
8 Dated 28th July, 2006
130 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

6. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred Original Application No.
821 of 2007 before the CAT challenging the draft seniority list dated
28th July, 2006.
7. Another employee, namely, Mr. P. Kumaresan who was appointed
as a Mechanist in respondent No.2-Factory in January 1996, also
filed Original Application No. 831 of 2007, before the CAT, wherein
Mr. P. Kumaresan also claimed that he had to be placed at the 6th
position instead of the 27th position as set out in the draft seniority
list. Original Application9 preferred by Mr. P. Kumaresan came to
be allowed by the CAT holding that the seniority fixed in the draft
list was incorrect. The CAT noted that respondent No.2-Factory had
allowed the promotion to the juniors of Mr. P. Kumaresan on the
ground that he was still undergoing the extended period of probation.
The CAT held that it is settled law that once the extended period
of probation is completed, the employee should be confirmed in
service from the date of initial selection and should be assigned the
original rank in the seniority list. Thus, once the extended period of
probation came to an end and the employee was found suitable,
he had to be confirmed in service, promoted with seniority and all
consequential benefits to the next grade with reference to the date
of initial appointment.
8. The CAT allowed Original Application No. 821 of 2007 preferred by
the appellant herein vide order dated 23rd January, 2009, basing its
decision on the order passed in Original Application No. 831 of 2007
considering the fact that both the workers were identically employed
in respondent No.2-Factory and directed that the appellant was
entitled to be considered for his claim of seniority and directed the
respondents10 to revise the seniority list accordingly.
9. The private respondents herein filed Original Application No. 318 of
2009 before CAT against the proposed action of revision of seniority
list and promotions in accordance with the order dated 23rd January,
2009 passed in the Original Application No. 821 of 2007 filed by the
appellant. The said Original Application11 was dismissed by CAT
vide order dated 24th December, 2010 while granting the liberty to

9 Original Application No. 831 of 2007
10 Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
11 Original Application No.318 of 2009
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 131

V. Vincent Velankanni v. The Union of India and Others

the applicants therein(private respondents herein) to file a review
application for assailing the orders passed in Original Application No.
831 of 2007 and Original Application No. 821 of 2007.
10. However, private respondents herein rather than filing a review
application, chose to assail the orders passed by the CAT by preferring
a Writ Petition12 before the Madras High Court which came to be
allowed vide order dated 10th October, 2011. The Union of India13 and
respondent No. 2-Factory were directed by the High Court to restore
the seniority of the writ petitioners(private respondents herein), holding
that the writ petitioners are senior to the appellant herein, both as
per the date of initial appointment and also in the promotional post
of skilled grade. The High Court held that an employee selected in
the semi-skilled grade is required to complete the probation period
satisfactorily and has to pass the requisite trade test prescribed for the
post before he can be confirmed and promoted to the skilled grade.
Due to the extension of the probation period of the respondents in
the Writ Petition No.583 of 2011(including the appellant herein), they
were required to be placed below the persons who were promoted
to the skilled grade earlier to them. The High Court held that in the
skilled grade, the writ petitioners(private respondents herein) were
senior to the third respondent(appellant herein). It was also held that
the promotions to the skilled grade and the highly skilled grade were
carried out in the years 1998 and 2003, respectively but the third
respondent (appellant herein) chose to file the Original Application14
in the year 2007 and no reason was forthcoming for the gross delay.
The relevant extract from the High Court’s judgment dated 10th
October, 2011 is reproduced hereinbelow: -
“7. A mere reading of the counter affidavit would show that
the probation of the third respondent in W.P. No. 583 of 2011
was extended by six months and for the third respondent
in W.P. No. 584 of 2011, it was extended by three months
by virtue of their failure to complete probation of two years
and to pass the required trade test prescribed for the
posts. Accordingly, the third respondent in W.P. No. 583 of

12 Writ Petition No. 583 of 2011
13 Respondent No. 1
14 Original Application No. 821 of 2007
132 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

2011 was placed in the skilled grade only with effect from
6.1.1999 and third respondent in W.P. No. 584 of 2011
was promoted only with effect from 5.10.1998 whereas
the petitioners in both the petitions were promoted to the
skilled grade on 3.7.1998.
8. It is not in dispute that the Semi-Skilled grade is only
has to complete the probation period satisfactorily and
pass the requisite trade tests prescribed for the posts.
In the present case, it is clear that due to extension of
the probation period, the respondents were placed below
the persons who were promoted to Skilled grade earlier
than them. Even if the date of appointment is taken into
consideration, the petitioners are seniors to the third
respondent in these petitions.
9. That apart, the petitioners were promoted to the skilled
grade in the year 1998 and to the highly skilled grade in
the year 2003. But the third respondent in these petitions
have chosen to file the original applications only in the
year 2007 and no reason is forthcoming for the delay.
10. In view of the counter affidavit filed by the Department
which is in favour of the petitioners and the fact that the
petitioners are seniors to the third respondent in these
petitions both as per the date of initial appointment and
also the date of promotion to the skilled grade, we are of
the view that revising the seniority list at the instance of
the third respondent in the Writ Petitions in the guise of
implementing the order of the Tribunal, is illegal. Therefore,
in our considered opinion, the order of the Tribunal is to
be interfered with.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions are allowed
and the order of the Tribunal is set aside. The respondents 1
and 2 are directed to restore the seniority of the petitioners
confirming their original date of promotion to the Highly
Skilled Grade. After revising the seniority, the respondents
are further directed to consider the case of the petitioners
for subsequent promotion on par with their juniors.”
(quoted verbatim from the paper book)
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 133

V. Vincent Velankanni v. The Union of India and Others

The judgment dated 10th October, 2011 passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court is the subject matter of challenge in the
instant appeal.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant:
11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the High
Court premised its findings on a totally erroneous reasoning that the
challenge laid by the appellant to the draft seniority list was delayed
and that the private respondents herein(writ petitioners) were senior
to the appellant as on the date of initial appointment.
12. Learned counsel contended that the draft seniority list in the
appellant’s cadre was published in the year 2006 for the first
time after the appointment of the appellant as well as the private
respondents. Immediately on receiving the draft seniority list, the
appellant herein made a representation against the same and when
a favourable decision was not forthcoming, he approached the CAT
for challenging the validity thereof. He submitted that the finding of
the High Court that the private respondents herein(writ petitioners)
were senior to the appellant as on the date of initial appointment is
totally against the record.
13. He further urged that the extant rules do not provide that the promotion
from Fitter(semi-skilled) to Fitter(skilled) would be dependent on
passing the trade test. Thus, as soon as the appellant completed
the probation period, his services would have to be confirmed and
reckoned from the date of initial appointment, and by virtue thereof,
the appellant would be entitled to be placed above the private
respondents in the order of seniority.
14. Learned counsel submitted that the period spent during training/
probation has to be reckoned for computation of length of service and
the same cannot be excluded while assigning seniority to an employee.
In support of his arguments, learned counsel placed reliance on the
judgment of this Court in the case of L. Chandrakishore Singh v.
State of Haryana.15
15. He further submitted that the movement of the employee from semi-
skilled to skilled grade tantamounts to confirmation/ upgradation and

15 AIR 1975 SC 613
134 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

not a promotion. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on
the judgment of this Court in the case of BSNL v. R. Santhakumari
Velusamy.16
16. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the Office Memorandum17
dated 4th November,1992, issued by the Government of India,
Department of Personnel and Training, which was in force at the
time when the appellant and the private respondents were appointed,
wherein, it is provided: -
“Seniority for Promotion
Order effective from 4th November, 1992
[Government of India, Department of Personnel and
Training, Office Memorandum No. 20011/5/90-Estt. (D),
dated the 4th November, 1992]
Seniority to be determined by the order of merit indicated
at the time of initial appointment.- The seniority of
Government servants is determined in accordance with
the general principles of seniority contained in M.Η.Α.,
Ο.Μ. No. 9/11155-RPS, dated the 22nd December, 1959
(See Section II). One of the basic principles enunciated
in the said OM is that, seniority follows confirmation and
consequently permanent officers in each grade shall rank
senior to those who are officiating in that grade.
2. This principle has been coming under judicial scrutiny in
a number of cases in the past; the last important judgment
being the one delivered by the Supreme Court on 2-5-1990,
in the case of Class II Direct Recruits Engineering Officers’
Association v. State of Maharashtra. In Para. 47 (A) of the
said judgment, the Supreme Court has held that once an
incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his
seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment
and not-according to the date of his confirmation.
3. The general principle of seniority mentioned above has
been examined in the light of the judicial pronouncement

16 [2011] 14 SCR 502 : (2011) 9 SCC 510
17 ‘OM’, hereafter
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 135

V. Vincent Velankanni v. The Union of India and Others

referred to above and it has been decided that seniority
may be delinked from confirmation as per the directive
of the Supreme Court in Para, 47 (A) of its judgment,
dated 2-5-1990. Accordingly, in modification of the
General Principle 3, proviso to General Principle 4
and proviso to General Principle 5 (i) contained in
O.M. No. 9/11155-RPS, dated the 22nd December,
1959 and Para. 2.3 of O.M., dated the 3rd July, 1986,
it has been decided that the seniority of a person
regularly appointed to a post according to rule would
be determined by the order of merit indicated at the
time of initial appointment and not according to the
date of confirmation.
4. These orders shall take effect from the date of issue
of this Office Memorandum. Seniority already determined
according to the existing principles on the date of issue of
these orders will not be reopened even if in some cases
seniority has already been challenged or is in dispute
and it will continue to be determined on the basis of the
principles already existing prior to the date of issue of
these orders.”
(emphasis supplied)
He thus urged that the seniority of a person regularly appointed would
have to be reckoned based on the merit indicated at the time of the
initial appointment and not as per the date of confirmation. To support
this submission, he also placed reliance on the Constitution Bench
decision of this Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’
Assn. v. State of Maharashtra.18
He thus implored the Court to accept the appeal, set aside the
impugned judgment rendered by the High Court, and restore the
judgment of the CAT.
Submissions on behalf of the respondents:
17. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2
submitted that the appellant was appointed as Fitter General(semi-

18 [1990] 2 SCR 900 : (1990) 2 SCC 715
136 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

skilled) on 17th January, 1996. The semi-skilled grade is only a
trainee grade and in order to be confirmed in service and for being
promoted to the skilled grade, the employee would have to complete
the probation period satisfactorily and pass the requisite trade test
prescribed for promotion to the skilled grade. Only on passing the
trade test, the employee would qualify for a permanent status and
promotion to the skilled grade.
18. He further submitted that it is a settled law that in cases where there
are no rules governing the field, it is the placement in the initial merit
list that will decide the seniority, however, if the rules are in vogue,
then the same will prevail. In this regard, he placed reliance on
Suresh Chandra Jha v. State of Bihar and Others.19
19. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on Statutory
Regulatory Order20 No. 185 of 1994 dated 1st November, 1994 to
urge that any appointment in the industrial establishment is done
against the skilled grade and hence, the period spent in the semi-
skilled grade till completion of probation period and qualifying the
prescribed trade test for promotion to the skilled grade is considered
only as a trainee grade. Resultantly, the seniority/merit position at
the time of induction in the trainee grade would have no bearing
on the inter se seniority of the employees which would have to be
reckoned from the date the employee is confirmed and promoted to
the skilled grade upon completing the probation period and clearing
the trade test.
20. He further placed reliance upon the Government Order21 dated 24th
December, 2002 issued by the Ordinance Factory Board, Ministry
of Defence, Government of India, which was issued to clarify the
counting of seniority in trades mentioned in SRO No. 185 of 1994
applicable to the Industrial Establishments and urged that the said
GO clarifies beyond the pale of doubt that the semi-skilled grade is
a trainee grade and the seniority will be counted from the date of
promotion to the skilled grade and not from the date of induction/
entry in the semi-skilled grade.

19 [2006] Supp. 8 SCR 831 : (2007) 1 SCC 405
20 ‘SRO’, hereafter
21 ‘GO’, hereafter
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 137

V. Vincent Velankanni v. The Union of India and Others

21. Learned counsel pointed out that the two years’ probation period
of the appellant was extended by six months w.e.f. 17th January,
1998, and the appellant could complete the probation period only on
16th July, 1998. Subsequently, upon passing the trade test, he was
promoted to the skilled grade w.e.f. 6th January, 1999. The appellant
lost the seniority on account of his failure to complete probation in
the period of two years and clearing the trade test whereas, the
private respondents herein had completed probation in time and were
found to be fit in the trade test and therefore, they were promoted
to the skilled grade much before the appellant. Consequently, these
employees i.e. private respondents herein were placed higher in
seniority, as per clarification issued by Ordinance Factory Board
vide GO dated 24th December, 2002.
On these grounds, learned counsel for the respondents implored
the Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the order passed by the
High Court.
22. Learned counsel for the private respondents herein22 adopted the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1
and 2.
23. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced at the bar by learned counsel for the parties and have
gone through the impugned judgment and the material placed on
record.
Discussion and Conclusion:
24. The fact that the appellant and private respondents were inducted
as semi-skilled grade employees in respondent No. 2-Factory in
the year 1996 is not in dispute. The common select list dated 22nd
November, 1995 is not placed on record by the parties. However,
appellant filed an RTI,23 and the reply thereto dated 29th December,
2011 clearly shows that at the time of initial induction, appellant was
placed at the 7th position, whereas the private respondents24 were
placed at the 30th, 31st and 32nd positions, respectively in the select
list based on merit.

22 Respondent Nos. 3, 4, and 5
23 Right to Information
24 Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5
138 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

25. The Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment
dated 10th October, 2011 has recorded a categoric finding that
even if the date of appointment is taken into consideration, the writ
petitioners(private respondents herein) are senior to respondent
No.3(appellant herein). This finding seems to be prima facie erroneous
because admittedly, the appellant herein was placed at 7th position
and the private respondents were placed at the 30th, 31st and 32nd
positions in the order of merit, as borne out from the record. Further,
in writ petition25 filed by the private respondents before the High Court
and the counter affidavit filed by the respondents herein before this
Court, there is no averment that these respondents were placed
above to the appellant at the time of initial appointment. Rather the
sole ground taken by the writ petitioners(private respondents herein)
to oppose the prayer of the appellant was that the appellant was
not able to complete his probation period and pass the trade test
on time and thus, he was placed below the private respondents in
the draft seniority list.
26. Before we adjudicate upon the issue of inter se seniority amongst the
litigating parties, we find it necessary to comment on the appellant’s
approach towards filing his claim concerning his promotion in the
highly skilled grade.
27. The appellant and the private respondents faced a common
selection process and were appointed in the semi-skilled grade
in the year 1996. The private respondents herein were promoted
to the skilled grade on 11th January, 1998 and further promoted to
the highly skilled grade on 20th May, 2003. On the other hand, the
appellant was promoted to the skilled grade on 17th July, 1998(after
completing his extended probation period of 6 months and clearing
the mandatory trade test). Considering that the private respondents
were promoted to highly skilled grade in May, 2003, the appellant in
the normal course should also have been promoted to highly skilled
grade by the end of the year 2003. However, as per the factual
matrix, he was promoted to the highly skilled grade after around 5
years i.e. on 26th March, 2008. A tabular chart depicting the date of
appointment and the date of promotion to skilled and highly skilled
grade is placed below: -

25 Writ Petition No. 583 of 2011
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 139

V. Vincent Velankanni v. The Union of India and Others

Name Date of Extension of Effective Date of Date of
appointment probation date of promotion promotion
in the Semi satisfactory to Skilled to the
Skilled grade completion of grade Highly
probation skilled
grade
V. Sivaraman 11.01.1996 NA 11.01.1998 03.07.1998 20.05.2003
(Respondent
No. 3)
G. Sudhakar 11.01.1996 NA 11.01.1998 03.07.1998 20.05.2003
(Respondent
No. 4)
P. Ramesh 11.01.1996 NA 11.01.1998 03.07.1998 20.05.2003
(Respondent
No. 5)
V. Vincent 17.01.1996 By 6 months 17.07.1988 06.01.1999 26.03.2008
Velankanni w.e.f.
(Appellant) 17.1.1998 by
order dated
5.2.1998

28. The draft seniority list was published on 28th July, 2006. The appellant
never questioned the denial of promotion to the highly skilled grade,
till much after the publication of the draft seniority list. Admittedly,
co-employees who were below the appellant in the select list of
the year 1996 were promoted in the intervening period without any
objection being raised by the appellant. After the publication of the
draft seniority list in the year 2006, he chose to challenge the same
and to consider his promotion to highly skilled grade with effect from
20th May, 2003 by filing an Original Application26 before CAT only in
the year 2007. Thus, it was the first time in 2007 that the appellant
claimed his promotion with retrospective effect. However, this benefit
of retrospective promotion was neither granted by the CAT nor by the
High Court and thus, there is no need to delve into this aspect further.
29. The primary issue which requires adjudication is as to whether the
seniority of the appellant is to be reckoned from the date of induction/
initial appointment or as per the date of promotion/confirmation in
the skilled grade.
30. It is a well-settled proposition that once an incumbent is appointed to
a post according to the rules, his seniority has to be reckoned from

26 Original Application No. 821 of 2007
140 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

the date of the initial appointment and not according to the date of
confirmation, unless the rules provide otherwise.
31. In the case of L. Chandrakishore Singh v. State of Manipur and
Others,27 this Court held that in cases of probationary or officiating
appointments which are followed by a confirmation, unless a contrary
rule is shown, the services rendered as the officiating appointment
or on probation cannot be ignored while reckoning the length of
service for determining the position in the seniority list. This view
has been reiterated in the case of Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of
Orissa and Others.28
32. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engg
Officers’ Assn.(supra) stated the legal position with regard to inter
se seniority of direct recruits and promotees and while doing so,
inter alia, it was held that once an incumbent is appointed to a post
according to rules, his seniority has to be counted from the date of
his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation.
33. This Court summarised the legal principles with regard to the
determination of seniority in Pawan Pratap Singh and Others v.
Reevan Singh and Others29 in the following terms:
45. From the above, the legal position with regard to
determination of seniority in service can be summarised
as follows:
(i) The effective date of selection has to be understood
in the context of the service rules under which the
appointment is made. It may mean the date on which
the process of selection starts with the issuance of
advertisement or the factum of preparation of the
select list, as the case may be.
(ii) Inter se seniority in a particular service has to be
determined as per the service rules. The date of
entry in a particular service or the date of substantive
appointment is the safest criterion for fixing seniority
inter se between one officer or the other or between

27 [1999] Supp. 3 SCR 323 : (1999) 8 SCC 287
28 [1999] Supp. 4 SCR 302 : (1999) 9 SCC 596
29 [2011] 2 SCR 831 : (2011) 3 SCC 267
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 141

V. Vincent Velankanni v. The Union of India and Others

one group of officers and the other recruited from
different sources. Any departure therefrom in the
statutory rules, executive instructions or otherwise
must be consistent with the requirements of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution.
(iii) Ordinarily, notional seniority may not be granted from
the backdate and if it is done, it must be based on
objective considerations and on a valid classification
and must be traceable to the statutory rules.
(iv) The seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of
occurrence of the vacancy and cannot be given
retrospectively unless it is so expressly provided by
the relevant service rules. It is so because seniority
cannot be given on retrospective basis when an
employee has not even been borne in the cadre and
by doing so it may adversely affect the employees
who have been appointed validly in the meantime.
34. Thus, it is trite that when an employee completes the probation period
and is confirmed in service albeit with some delay, the confirmation
in service shall relate back to the date of the initial appointment. Any
departure from this principle in the form of statutory rules, executive
instructions or otherwise must be consistent with the requirements
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
35. In the backdrop of the above legal and factual background, let us now
examine if whether the extant rules/regulations/circulars prevailing
in the establishment30 contained any stipulation that the completion
of the probation period and the passing of the trade test is sin qua
non for being promoted to the skilled grade and if so, whether the
seniority of the employees selected on the same date would have
to be reckoned from the date of confirmation/passing the trade test
or from the date of initial appointment.
36. A pertinent averment is made in the counter affidavit filed by the
respondents emphasizing their stand that the semi-skilled grade is
only a trainee grade and in order to place an employee in the skilled
grade, he would have to complete the probation period satisfactorily

30 Respondent No. 2-Factory
142 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

and also clear the trade test as laid down in the SRO No. 185 of
1994. The relevant extract from SRO No. 185 of 1994 dated 1st
November, 1994 is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready
reference. Note 6 of the said SRO reads as below: -
“Note 6. Wherever “Trade Test” is laid down in Column 12
of this Schedule such trade test shall be prescribed by the
General manager of the factory or the Ordnance Factory
Board. The term “Trade Test” will include written, oral and
practical examination and aptitude test and interview and
also statutory qualification test where applicable.”
37. The GO dated 24th December, 2002 issued by the Ordinance Factory
Board placed on record clarifies the position regarding counting of
seniority in the trades of SRO No. 185 of 1994 for the industrial
establishments. The language of this GO is considered germane to
the controversy and hence, the relevant portion thereof is extracted
hereinbelow: -
“With a view to overcome doubts in counting of seniority
in respect of industrial employees who are working in
trades listed at Annexure ‘A’ of SRO 185/1994 it has been
decided to interpret rules relating to seniority in consonance
with existing SRO provisions. Accordingly, the following
rules for determining seniority may be followed in all OFs
with immediate effect.
1) Semi-skilled posts are training post for skilled posts
of trades listed at Annexure ‘A’ of SRO 185/1994.
2) Educational Qualification/Technical Qualification will
not be deciding factor while counting seniority for trades
listed at Annexure ‘A’ of SRO 185/1994.
However, where passing of trade test/competency test
or any other statutory certificate is required, the same
must be adhered to and cannot be done away with.
3) Seniority will be counted from the date of promotion
to Skilled grade and not from the date of induction/
entry/promotion in semi-skilled grade.
4)……
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 143

V. Vincent Velankanni v. The Union of India and Others

5)……
6) The above orders are in consonance with the existing
SRO provisions and various court orders on the subject.”
(emphasis supplied)
38. The validity of this GO31 was never assailed by the appellant at any
stage either before the CAT or the High Court. A conjoint reading
of SRO No. 185 of 1994 and the GO dated 24th December, 2002,
which indisputably were applicable to the cadre of semi-skilled and
skilled fitters in the respondent establishment32 at the relevant point of
time would make it clear that the seniority in the skilled grade would
have to be reckoned from the date of promotion to the skilled grade
and not from the date of induction/entry in the semi-skilled grade
and the candidate joining service in the semi-skilled grade would be
mandatorily required to complete the probation period and also to
clear the trade test for being promoted to the skilled grade. In the
event of either of the two conditions not being met, the employee
concerned would not be entitled to be promoted to the skilled grade.
39. The appellant, in support of his plea, has placed reliance on a GO
dated 4th August, 2015, whereby the GO dated 24th December, 2002
has been superseded and it has been decided by the Competent
Authority that “henceforth”, the seniority in respect of Industrial
Establishments would be governed by the relevant clause of OM
dated 4th November, 1992(reproduced supra). The said GO dated
4th August, 2015 is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready
reference: -
“No. Per/I/Seniority/2015-16 Date: 04-08-2015
To
The Sr. General Managers/ General Managers
All Ordnance & Ordnance Equipment Factories
Sub: Determination of Seniority in connection with direct
Recruitment in the Industrial Establishment.
Ref: (i) OFB Circular No. 590/OFBOL/A/I dated 24.12.2002

31 Dated 24th December, 2002
32 Engine Factory, Avadi, Chennai
144 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(ii) OFB Circular No. 590/OFBOL/A/I dated 13.01.2003
In connection with counting of Seniority in Annexure-A
trades of SRO 185/1994 in the Industrial Establishment,
above referred OFB Circulars clarified and directed that
seniority in respect of Industrial Employees will be counted
from the date of up-gradation to Skilled Grade and not
from the date of induction/entry/promotion in the Semi-
skilled grade.
Several references in this regard have been received at
OFB and after due examination, it has been observed that
the OFB Circulars under reference are not in line with the
principles of seniority as laid down by DOPT from time
to time.
Therefore, the Competent Authority has decided that in
supersession of the above referred OFB Circulars dated
24.12.2002 and 13.01.2003, henceforth, seniority in
respect of IEs will be governed by the relevant clause of
DOPT OM No.20011/5/90-Estt(D) dated 4th November,
1992 and OM No.22011/7/86-Estt(D) dated 3rd July, 1986.
Accordingly, promotion from Skilled to Highly Skilled Grade-
II will be made as per the seniority fixed for Semi-skilled
grade (entry grade) which will be arrived at as per merit
of the select panel, without making any linkage to the date
of up-gradation to the Skilled Grade.
It may so happen that a person lower in the merit list of
recruitment (in Semi-skilled grade) joins earlier due to early
clearance of PVR. In such case, the person lower in the
merit list will complete his/her qualifying service and be
up-graded to Skilled Grade on earlier date as compared to
a person higher in the merit list. However, person higher in
the merit list will not lose his seniority and will be placed
above the person lower in the merit list after getting up-
gradation to Skilled Grade.
(S. K. Singh)
Director/IR
For Director General, Ordnance Factories”
(emphasis supplied)
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 145

V. Vincent Velankanni v. The Union of India and Others

40. By virtue of the above GO,33 the rule position qua the fixation
of seniority has been restored to be governed by OM dated 4th
November, 1992(reproduced supra), according to which the relevant
date for fixation of seniority would be the date of initial appointment
and not the date of upgradation/promotion to the skilled grade. The
OM dated 4th August, 2015 further clarifies that the person higher
in the merit list will not lose his seniority and will be placed above
the person lower in the merit list after getting upgradation to the
skilled grade.
41. However, the clarification issued vide GO dated 4th August, 2015
does not operate retrospectively as it is specifically provided in the
said GO that “henceforth”, the seniority in respect of Industrial
Establishments will be governed by the relevant clause of OM dated
4th November, 1992.
42. It is trite law that an Office Memorandum/Government Order cannot
have a retrospective effect unless and until there is an express
provision to make its effect retrospective or that the operation thereof
is retrospective by necessary implication. In this regard, we are
benefitted by the observations of this Court in Sonia v. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others,34 wherein it was held that:
“11. ….In any view of the matter, law is well settled that
an Office Memorandum cannot have a retrospective effect
unless and until intention of the authorities to make it as
such is revealed expressly or by necessary implication in
the Office Memorandum.”
43. If a Government Order is treated to be in the nature of a clarification
of an earlier Government Order, it may be made applicable
retrospectively. Conversely, if a subsequent Government Order is
held to be a modification/amendment of the earlier Government
Order, its application would be prospective as retrospective
application thereof would result in withdrawal of vested rights which
is impermissible in law and the same may also entail recoveries
to be made. The principles in this regard were culled out by this
Court in a recent judgment of Sree Sankaracharya University of

33 Dated 4th August, 2015
34 [2007] 8 SCR 883 : (2007) 10 SCC 627
146 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Sanskrit and Others v. Dr. Manu and Another,35 in the following
terms: -
“52. From the aforesaid authorities, the following principles
could be culled out:
i) If a statute is curative or merely clarificatory of the
previous law, retrospective operation thereof may
be permitted.
ii) In order for a subsequent order/provision/amendment
to be considered as clarificatory of the previous law,
the pre-amended law ought to have been vague or
ambiguous. It is only when it would be impossible to
reasonably interpret a provision unless an amendment
is read into it, that the amendment is considered to
be a clarification or a declaration of the previous law
and therefore applied retrospectively.
iii) An explanation/clarification may not expand or alter
the scope of the original provision.
iv) Merely because a provision is described as a
clarification/explanation, the Court is not bound by
the said statement in the statute itself, but must
proceed to analyse the nature of the amendment and
then conclude whether it is in reality a clarificatory or
declaratory provision or whether it is a substantive
amendment which is intended to change the law and
which would apply prospectively.”
44. Applying these principles to the case at hand, we are of the view
that the subsequent GO dated 4th August, 2015 cannot be read
simply as a clarification and therefore cannot be made applicable
retrospectively. The said GO has substantively modified the position
governing seniority in the Industrial Establishments by reviving the
earlier OM dated 4th November, 1992, and supersedes the orders/
circulars dated 24th December, 2002 and 13th January, 2003, which
were holding the field over more than a decade. Therefore, giving
retrospective effect to the GO dated 4th August, 2015 would have
catastrophic effect on the seniority of the entire cadre.

35 [2023] 7 SCR 366 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 640
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 147

V. Vincent Velankanni v. The Union of India and Others

45. This Court has time and again dealt with the effect of altering the
seniority list at a belated stage and how it may adversely affect the
employees whose seniority and rank has been determined in the
meantime. In this connection, reference may be made to Malcom
Lawrence Cecil D’Souza v. Union of India and Others,36 wherein
this Court held that: -
“9. Although security of service cannot be used as a
shield against administrative action for lapses of a public
servant, by and large one of the essential requirements of
contentment and efficiency in public services is a feeling of
security. It is difficult no doubt to guarantee such security
in all its varied aspects, it should at least be possible to
ensure that matters like one’s position in the seniority list
after having been settled for once should not be liable to
be reopened after lapse of many years….. Raking up old
matters like seniority after a long time is likely to result
in administrative complications and difficulties. It would,
therefore, appear to be in the interest of smoothness and
efficiency of service that such matters should be given a
quietus after lapse of some time.”
46. In R.S. Makashi and Others v. I.M. Menon and Others,37 this Court
observed as follows: -
“33. …. We must administer justice in accordance with
law and principles of equity, justice and good conscience.
It would be unjust to deprive the respondents of the rights
which have accrued to them. Each person ought to be
entitled to sit back and consider that his appointment and
promotion effected a long time ago would not be set aside
after the lapse of a number of years. ….”
47. In K.R. Mudgal and Others v. R.P. Singh and Others,38 this Court
observed in the following terms: -
“2. … A government servant who is appointed to any post
ordinarily should at least after a period of 3 or 4 years

36 (1976) 1 SCC 599
37 [1982] 2 SCR 69 : (1982) 1 SCC 379
38 [1986] 3 SCR 993 : (1986) 4 SCC 531
148 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

of his appointment be allowed to attend to the duties
attached to his post peacefully and without any sense
of insecurity.”
48. In B.S. Bajwa and Another v. State of Punjab and Others,39 this
Court held that the seniority list should not be reopened after a lapse
of reasonable period as it would disturb the settled position which
is unjustifiable. The relevant extract is as follows: -
“7. … It is well settled that in service matters the question
of seniority should not be reopened in such situations after
the lapse of a reasonable period because that results in
disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable….”
49. It can easily be inferred that in the intervening period, before the GO
dated 4th August, 2015 came to be issued, seniority of multitudes
of employees must have been fixed according to the GO dated 24th
December, 2002, which is according to the date of promotion to
skilled grade and not from the date of induction/entry in semi-skilled
grade. As a matter of fact, respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 who were
below the appellant in the order of merit at the time of induction in
the semi-skilled grade, have been promoted to the skilled grade and
the highly skilled grade much before the appellant by application of
the GO dated 24th December, 2002. The appellant did not question
their promotions before any Court or Tribunal at any stage.
50. Thus, much water has flown under the bridge and retrospective
application of the GO issued in 2015 would open floodgates of litigation
and would disturb the seniority of many employees causing them
grave prejudice and heartburn as it would disturb the crystallized rights
regarding seniority, rank and promotion which would have accrued to
them during the intervening period. To alter a seniority list after such
a long period would be totally unjust to the multitudes of employees
who could get caught in the labyrinth of uncertainty for no fault of
theirs and may suffer loss of their seniority rights retrospectively.
51. Keeping in mind the afore-stated principles, we are of the view
that applicability of the Government Order dated 4th August, 2015
cannot enure to the benefit of the appellant as its operation is clearly
prospective.

39 [1997] Supp. 6 SCR 451 : (1998) 2 SCC 523
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 149

V. Vincent Velankanni v. The Union of India and Others

52. In wake of the above discussion, we find that the impugned judgment
of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity warranting
interference.
53. This appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit. No order as to
costs.
54. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(Civil) D. No. 3704-3706 of 2012)
55. Delay condoned.
56. Leave granted.
57. In terms of the judgment passed in Civil Appeal No(s). 8617 of 2013,
the present appeals are disposed of. No order as to costs.
58. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the Case: Appeals disposed of.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan