Union of India v. P Ramesh

Madras HC9 Apr 2026WP/23987/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition (certiorari under Article 226) by Union of India / Ordnance Factory Board / General Manager, Engine Factory Avadi against Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench order in O.A.No.1289 of 2019; ‘own merit concept’; DoPT Office Memoranda dated 10.08.2010, 30.09.2016 and 15.06.2018; revision of promotions and reversion to lower posts of General Category industrial employees; Highly Skilled Grade-I and Grade-II; Master Craftsman; S.L.P.(C) No.30621 of 2011 status quo; Supreme Court interim orders dated 17.05.2018 and 05.06.2018; promotions on existing seniority/select lists; restoration of original dates of promotion set aside; writ petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Order of the Tribunal dated 22.01.2025 in O.A.No.1289 of 2019 set aside; Writ Petition allowed; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Union of India Vs P Ramesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Order of the Tribunal dated 22.01.2025 in O.A.No.1289 of 2019 set aside; Writ Petition allowed; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶110

Issue for consideration

Whether the Department was justified in revising the promotions already granted to the respondents by applying the ‘own merit concept’. +1 more

¶72

Ratio / Principle

In view of the Supreme Court's orders dated 17.05.2018 and 05.06.2018, promotions were permitted to continue, subject to the final outcome of the proceedings.

¶80

Key takeaways

This Court is unable to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal, particularly insofar as it directed restoration of the original dates of promotion on the basis of its interpretation of the Office Memorandum dated 15.06.2018.ratio¶80
On a reading of the Office Memorandum dated 15.06.2018, promotions are to be effected in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court and on the basis of the existing seniority/select lists.ratio¶100

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

The High Court of Judicature at Madras (order by P. Velmurugan J.; bench of P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi JJ.) allowed a writ petition under Article 226 filed by the Union of India (Ministry of Defence), the Ordnance Factory Board and the General Manager, Engine Factory, Avadi, challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench order dated 22.01.2025 in O.A.No.1289 of 2019. The Tribunal had allowed the application of General Category industrial employees (promoted to Highly Skilled Grade-I, Highly Skilled Grade-II and Master Craftsman) whose promotions had been revised — with reduction of pay scale and reversion to lower posts — after DoPT OM dated 15.06.2018 was acted upon, following OMs dated 10.08.2010 (‘own merit concept’, retrospective from 02.07.1997, set aside by the Punjab & Haryana High Court and pending in S.L.P.(C) No.30621 of 2011 under a status quo order) and 30.09.2016, and had restored the original dates of promotion. Holding that OM dated 15.06.2018 merely implements the Supreme Court's interim directions (orders dated 17.05.2018 and 05.06.2018) permitting promotions, including on merits, subject to the final outcome of the pending SLPs, and that promotions are to be effected on the basis of existing seniority/select lists, the Court found the Tribunal's interpretation — that any seniority/select list prepared after 15.06.2018 could be implemented — to go beyond the plain terms of the OM, which does not justify blanket restoration of original promotion dates. The Tribunal's order was set aside and the writ petition allowed, with no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

¶1

WP No. 23987 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P. VELMURUGAN AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI

¶6

WP No. 23987 of 2025 and WMP Nos. 26968 & 26969 of 2025

¶7

Union Of India, Secretary To Government, Ministry Of Defence, South Block, New Delhi – 110001.

¶8

Ordnance Factory Board, 10-A, S K Bose Road, Kolkata.

¶9

The General Manager, Engine Factory, Avadi, Chennai

¶10

..Petitioner(s)

¶11

¶12

P.Ramesh

¶13

D.Thanigaiarasu

¶14

S.Ravi

¶15

G.Jaikumar

¶16

M.Ramesh

¶17

Kannan

¶18

Mohanraj

¶19

Gnanaganapathy

¶20

9. Devaraj

¶21

__________ Page1 of 10

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 23987 of 2025

10.Devasagayam

11.Jacob V John

12.Loganathan

13.Dhanesh

14.Prabu

15.Padmanadan

16.A.E.Sudhakar Babu

17.E.Venkatesan

18.P.Umapathy

19.M.Purushothaman

20.S.Tamizharasan

21.S.Rajni Kumar

22.S.Sivanesan

23.C.Amarsingh

24.V.Mohanakrishnan

25.M.Doss

26.P.Seshan

27.D.Pugazendhi

28.V.Thanigaivel

29.S.Ramesh Babu

30.Punya Murthy.C

__________ Page2 of 10

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 23987 of 2025

31.G.Tamilarasu

32.G.Govindan

..Respondent(s)

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of order issued by the Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, High Court Campus, Chennai 600104 in O.A. No. 1289 of 2019 dated 22.01.2025 in allowing the O.A filed by the respondents 1 to 15 with directions and quash the same.

¶52

For Petitioner(s): Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, ASGI for Ms. Sunita Kumari For Respondent(s): Mr. Karthik for R1 to R16

¶53

Order

¶54

(Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN,J.)

¶55

The Writ Petition has been filed to quash the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’), dated 22.01.2025 made in O.A.No.1289 of 2019.

¶56

2.The respondents herein, who are industrial employees, belong to

¶57

General Category and they were promoted on various dates to Highly Skilled Grade-I, Highly Skilled Grade-II and Master Craftsman. Through an Office Memorandum (OM) dated 10.08.2010, the Department has made the ‘own merit

¶58

concept’ applicable to employees for consideration of promotion, with effect

¶59

Page3 of 10

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶61

WP No. 23987 of 2025

¶62

from 02.07.1997. However, vide another OM dated 30.09.2016, instructions were given by the DoPT to not rely on the OM dated 10.08.2010, in view of the order of status quo granted by the Hon’ble Supreme in S.L.P.(C) No.30621 of 2011. Subsequently, DoPT had issued another OM dated 15.06.2018 directing all the Ministries and Departments to apply ‘own merit principle’ in matters relating to promotions, which was misinterpreted by the petitioners and orders were passed revising the promotions of the respondents. In view of revision of promotions, the pay scale of the employees were reduced and they were reverted back to lower posts. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents have filed O.A.No.1289 of 2019 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order dated 22.01.2025, had allowed the application by setting aside the order of the petitioners and had restored the original dates of promotion. Challenging the said application, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶63

3.The learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the petitioners would submit that OM dated 15.06.2018 was issued to implement or review promotions based on ‘own merit concept’, however, subject to the outcome of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He also submitted that the promotions between the years 2016 and 2019 were issued with a stipulation that they would be subject to the outcome of the pending cases before the High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submitted that when the respondents have not challenged the OM dated 15.06.2018, the Tribunal ought not to have

¶64

Page4 of 10

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶66

WP No. 23987 of 2025

¶67

directed for restoration of original dates of promotion without considering the

¶68

fact that the issue is still pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶69

4.The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 16 would submit that revision of promotions subsequent to the OM dated 30.09.2016 is unsustainable.

¶70

The learned counsel submitted that OM dated 15.06.2018 does not mandate the application of ‘own merit concept’ as envisaged in the OM dated 10.08.2010 and it also doest not direct the Department to review the promotion committees conducted prior to the issuance of the said OM. He further submitted that when the OM dated 15.06.2018 clearly stipulate that the pendency of the SLP before the Supreme Court shall not prevent the Department from taking steps for promotion, the promotions made on merit between 2016 and 2018 need not be revised and thus, the Tribunal was right in setting aside the order of the Department, thereby granting restoration of original dates of promotion.

¶71

5.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶72

6.The main issue in this case is whether the Department was justified in revising the promotions already granted to the respondents by applying the ‘own merit concept’, and whether the Tribunal was correct in restoring the original dates of promotion.

¶73

Page5 of 10

¶74

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶75

WP No. 23987 of 2025

¶76

7.It is not in dispute that the Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2010,

¶77

which introduced the ‘own merit concept’ with retrospective effect from

¶78

02.07.1997, was set aside by the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the matter

¶79

is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No.30621 of 2011, wherein an order of status quo has been granted.

¶80

8.The Hon’ble Supreme Court, by order dated 17.05.2018, has made it clear that the pendency of the said proceedings shall not stand in the way of the Union of India proceeding with promotions, including promotions on merits. Similar directions were also issued in connected matters on 05.06.2018. Thus, promotions were permitted to continue, subject to the final outcome of the proceedings. However, this Court is unable to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal, particularly insofar as it directed restoration of the original dates of

¶81

promotion on the basis of its interpretation of the Office Memorandum dated 15.06.2018. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to the said Office Memorandum:

¶82

" North Block. New Delhi

¶83

Dated June 15, 2018

¶84

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

¶85

Subject: Implementation of interim Orders/ directions in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.30621/2011 arising out of final judgment and order dated 15.07.2011 in CWP No. 13218/2009 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana and Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 31288/2017 arising out of Hon’ble Delhi High Court judgment

¶86

__________ Page6 of 10

¶87

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶88

WP No. 23987 of 2025

¶89

dated 23.08.2017 and other related court cases - regarding

¶90

¶91

The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 15.11.2017 in SLP(C) No.28306/2017 has decided to refer to a Constitution Bench to examine whether its earlier decision in M. Nagraj and others vs. Union of India and others requires reconsideration or not, inter alia, on the issue as to whether test of backwardness would, at all, apply in case of SC and ST.

¶92

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.30621/2011 has passed the following Order on 17.05.2018:

¶93

“It is directed that the pendency of this Special Leave Petition shall not stand in the way of Union of India taking steps for the purpose of promotion from 'reserved to reserved' and ‘unreserved to unreserved’ and also in the matter of promotion on merits..............."

¶94

3 Further in the matter related to SLP(C) No. 31288/2017. connected to Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 28306/2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under on 05.06.2018:

¶95

“Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned ASG has referred to order dated 17.05.2018 in SLP (C) No.30621/2011. It is made clear that the Union of India is not debarred from making promotions in accordance with law, subject to further orders, pending further consideration of the matter. Tag to SLP(C) No.30621 of 2011.”

¶96

The cadre controlling authorities of Central Government Ministries, Departments and Union Territories are to carry out promotions in accordance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3 above based on existing seniority/select lists.

¶97

Every promotion order must clearly mention the stipulation that the promotion shall be subject to further orders which may be passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶98

6.All Ministries/ Departments are requested to bring this to the notice of all concerned for information/ compliance.

¶99

7.State Governments are also advised to take necessary action in accordance with the abovementioned orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court."

¶100

A reading of the same makes it clear that promotions are to be effected in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court and on the basis of the existing seniority/select lists. However, the Tribunal, while interpreting the said Office Memorandum, went to the extent of observing that any seniority/select

¶101

__________ Page7 of 10

¶102

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶103

WP No. 23987 of 2025

¶104

list prepared after 15.06.2018 could be implemented. For better appreciation,

¶105

the relevant portion of the Tribunal’s order is extracted hereunder:-

¶106

"18. It is also important to note that during this period, the 'own merit

¶107

concept' was not applicable. The OM dated 15.06.2018 clearly states that "the cadre controlling authorities of Central Government Ministries, Departments, and Union Territories are to carry out promotions in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, based on existing seniority/select lists." This means that any seniority list created after 15.06.2018 can be implemented. It is also clear that OMs are generally prospective in nature and cannot be applied retrospectively."

¶108

This Court is of the view that such an interpretation placed by the Tribunal goes beyond the plain terms of the Office Memorandum. The Office Memorandum only regulates the manner in which promotions are to be effected in conformity with the interim directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and does not justify the blanket restoration of the original dates of promotion. Therefore, the direction issued by the Tribunal cannot be sustained.

¶109

In the result, the order of the Tribunal dated 22.01.2025 made in

¶110

O.A.No.1289 of 2019 is set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be

¶111

no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶112

(P.V.,J.) (K.G.T.,J.) 09-04-2026

¶113

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No hvk

¶114

__________ Page8 of 10

¶115

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶116

WP No. 23987 of 2025

¶117

¶118

The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.

¶119

__________ Page9 of 10

¶120

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶121

WP No. 23987 of 2025

¶122

P.VELMURUGAN J. AND K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI J.

¶123

hvk

¶124

WP No. 23987 of 2025 and WMP No. 26968 of 2025 & WMP No. 26969 of 2025

¶125

09-04-2026

¶126

__________ Page10 of 10

¶127

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 22.01.2025 in O.A. No. 1289 of 2019 allowing the O.A. filed by respondents 1 to 15 with directions (setting aside the Department's revised promotions and restoring the original dates of promotion), under challenge in this writ petition.¶51
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench (Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, High Court Campus, Chennai 600104) · 22.01.2025
Prior proceeding
The respondents, belonging to the General Category, were promoted on various dates to Highly Skilled Grade-I, Highly Skilled Grade-II and Master Craftsman.¶57
Prior proceeding
The Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2010 introduced the ‘own merit concept’ with retrospective effect from 02.07.1997.¶77
Prior proceeding
Vide another OM dated 30.09.2016, the DoPT instructed not to rely on the OM dated 10.08.2010, in view of the order of status quo granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No.30621 of 2011.¶62
Prior proceeding
Subsequently, the DoPT issued another OM dated 15.06.2018 directing all the Ministries and Departments to apply the ‘own merit principle’ in matters relating to promotions.¶62
Prior proceeding
Orders were passed revising the promotions of the respondents; in view of the revision, their pay scale was reduced and they were reverted back to lower posts.¶62
Prior proceeding
Aggrieved by the revision, the respondents filed O.A.No.1289 of 2019 before the Tribunal.¶62
Prior proceeding
The Tribunal, by its order dated 22.01.2025, allowed the application by setting aside the order of the petitioners and restored the original dates of promotion.¶62
Prior proceeding
The OM dated 10.08.2010 was set aside by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, and the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No.30621 of 2011, wherein an order of status quo has been granted.¶79
Prior proceeding
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, by order dated 17.05.2018, made it clear that the pendency of the said proceedings shall not stand in the way of the Union of India proceeding with promotions, including promotions on merits; similar directions were issued in connected matters on 05.06.2018.¶80

Union of India v. P Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. P Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Babu Srinivasan Vs P.Mahendra Babu

The Dgm (T) And Project Director Vs The District Collector And Sole Arbitrator (La)

Prakash Vs the Competent Authority

Union of India, Vs S.Muthukumaraswamy

Union Of India, Vs Thenmozhi

Union of India Vs The Registrar