Disposed¶41

Sivaganesh v. Union of India and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Jul 2025CWP/6866/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Seniority — date of commencement of seniority — date of joining post versus date of completion of training — re-mustered Store Keeper Technical (SKT) — Armed Forces Tribunal order dated 17.03.2023 upheld — implementation directed within one month, contempt open — Union of India writ dismissed — Sivaganesh v. Union of India — CWP-6866-2025 (O&M) and CWP-17610-2025 (O&M) — Punjab and Haryana High Court — decided 14.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

CWP-6866-2025 (Sivaganesh) stands disposed of with a direction to implement the AFT order dated 17.03.2023 within one month, no further time to be granted and contempt proceedings open on failure; CWP-17610-2025 (UOI) is dismissed in the aforesaid terms; all pending applications disposed of accordingly. ¶41

Sivaganesh Vs Union of India and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner-Sivaganesh, re-mustered as Store Keeper Technical (SKT) w.e.f. 20.01.2009 but having completed training only on 21.07.2009, is entitled to seniority from the date of his appointment/re-mustering (below the direct recruits who underwent training with him) rather than from the date of completion of training. +2 more

¶25

Court's answer

The contention of learned counsel for the UOI (that seniority could not be granted from 20.01.2009 as training concluded on 21.07.2009) is unjustified and not sustainable in law; seniority is to be granted from the date of joining.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

Seniority is assigned from the date a person joins the post of SKT; it runs from the date the concerned person was directly recruited or placed on the muster roll in the trade of SKT, even though training may be imparted much later.

¶32

Key takeaways

Petitioner-Sivaganesh, though he completed training in July 2009, is entitled to claim seniority from the date the post stood enrolled, recorded in the judgment as i.e. 01.01.2009 (the judgment elsewhere refers to re-mustering as SKT w.e.f. 20.01.2009).ratio¶33
The impugned AFT order (printed in this paragraph as dated 17.03.2025, apparently a slip for 17.03.2023) does not warrant any interference.ratio¶39
Implementation of the impugned AFT order dated 17.03.2023 is directed to be done within one month; no further time shall be granted, failing which contempt proceedings may be initiated by the writ petitioner in CWP-6866-2025.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Meenakshi I. Mehta, JJ.), decision dated 14.07.2025, in connected CWP-6866-2025 (O&M) and CWP-17610-2025 (O&M). Held, upholding the Armed Forces Tribunal order dated 17.03.2023: seniority of Hav. (SKT)/JC-357120W Sivaganesh, initially enrolled as Cook w.e.f. 25.12.2003 and re-mustered as Store Keeper Technical (SKT) w.e.f. 20.01.2009, is to be reckoned from the date he joined the post/was placed on the muster roll in the SKT trade, and not from the date of completion of training (21.07.2009); direct recruits trained alongside him were granted seniority from the date they joined service, not from completion of training. The UOI contention that grant of seniority w.e.f. 20.01.2009 would unjustifiably enure to the petitioner was found unsustainable in law and the impugned AFT order was held not to warrant interference. Implementation of the AFT order was directed within one month, with liberty to initiate contempt proceedings on failure. CWP-6866-2025 disposed of; CWP-17610-2025 (UOI) dismissed; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP-6866-2025 (O&M) Reserved on : 11^th of July, 2025 Date of Decision:14^th of July, 2025

¶3

SIVAGANES H , SERVICE No.15574851W H A V. (SKT) NOW JC-35 7 120W NB/SKT

¶4

..…...Petitioner(s)

¶5

V /s.

¶6

UNION OF I N DIA AND OTHERS .....Respondent(s)

¶7

CWP-17610-2025 (O&M) ..…...Petitioner(s) V /s.

¶8

UNION OF I N DIA AND OTHERS ..…...Petitioner(s)

¶9

SERVICE No . 15574851W HAV. (SKT) SIVA G ANESH AND ANOTHER .....Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

¶11

Present: M r.Rajesh Sehgal, Advocate f or the petitioner in CWP-6866- 2 025 and f or respondent No.1 in CWP-17 6 10-2025.

¶12

M s. Geeta Singhwal, Senior Pan e l Counsel, UOI, f or the petitioners in CWP-1761 0 -2025.

¶13

M r. Parvesh K. Saini, Senior Pa n el Counsel, UOI f or respondents No. 1 to 5 in C W P-6866-2025.

¶14

¶15

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.

¶16

1. T hese are the two Writ Petitio n s which were heard together. While CWP- 6 866-2025 was preferred by a g grieved petitioner-Sivaganesh on account o f non-implementation and exec u tion of order dated 17.03.2023 passed by t h e AFT, whereas, CWP-17610 - 2025 was filed by the UOI assailing the s ame order dated 17.03.2023.

¶17

2. W hen CWP-6866-2025 came u p before this Court, we had noticed that e xecution petitions are pending b efore the AFT and before this Court for im p lementation of the orders and w e further directed the Senior

¶18

SURESH KUMAR 2025.07.15 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CWP-6866-2025 (O&M) and CWP-17610-2025 (O&M)

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

Record Offic e r, Incharge-BEG, Kirkee (Pun e ) vide order dated 26.05.2025 to identify t h e concerned responsible Offic e r for granting the promotions and ensured c ompliance.

¶22

3. W ithout informing the Court of order dated 26.05.2025, when CWP-17610- 2 025 filed by UOI came up bef o re this Court, it was argued on merits and w e pass an order on 01.07.2025, r estraining the implementation of the order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the A FT.

¶23

4. L earned counsel for the appeari n g on behalf of the respondentSivaganesh i n CWP-17610-2025, who was t h e counsel for the Writ petition in CWP-686 6 -2025, has requested for listin g both the cases together. We, therefore, ha d directed to hear these cases tog e ther on 11.07.2025.

¶24

5. L earned counsel for the UOI a ssails order dated 17.03.2023 stating that t h e Sivaganesh could not have been granted seniority w.e.f. 20.01.2009 a s he completed the training on l y on 21.07.2009 and if he is granted senio r ity, he would march over the ot h er persons.

¶25

6. P er contra , learned counsel a ppearing for the petitionerSivaganesh i n CWP-6866-2025 submitted th a t the counsel for the UOI had consented an d took a specific plea that the U OI would have no objection if the seniority is given to the petitioner-Siva g anesh w.e.f. 2009 below the direct recruit e d candidates, who passed the t r aining course with petitionerSivaganesh. H e submits that the direct rec r uits, who passed the training course with t h e applicant, were granted the s eniority from the date of their initial appoi n tment i.e. 2008. Since, the p e titioner-Sivaganesh had been re-mustered a s a Store Keeper Technical (S K T) on 20.01.2009, though he

¶26

SURESH KUMAR 2025.07.15 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CWP-6866-2025 (O&M) and CWP-17610-2025 (O&M)

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

completed hi s training in July 2009, he was t o be granted seniority from the date of his i nitial appointment as SKT i. e . 20.01.2009. He, therefore, submits that t here was no occasion to interfe r e with the order passed by the AFT.

¶30

7. W e have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel and l ooked into the facts of the cas e and the impugned judgment dated 17.03.2023 passed by the AFT.

¶31

8. I t is noticed that petitioner-Siva g anesh was enrolled initially as a Cook w.e. f . 25.12.2003 and was re-muste r ed as SKT w.e.f. 20.01.2009. After having b een re-mustered, he was sent f o r training which he completed on 21.07.200 9 .

¶32

9. O n a pointed query to the learne d counsel for the UOI, we find that the seni o rity is being assigned from the date a person joins the post of SKT. The tra i ning may be imparted much lat e r, but, so far as the seniority is concerned, it would be from the date the concerned person was either directly recru i ted or placed on the muster roll in the trade of SKT.

¶33

10. I n the circumstances, while t h e petitioner-Sivaganesh had imparted trai n ing and he completed the traini n g on 20.07.2009, he would be entitled to cl a im his seniority from the date the post has been enrolled i.e. 01.01.2009.

¶34

11. I t is an admitted position, that a l l those persons, who had been imparted trai n ing along with petitioner-Siv a ganesh and had been directly recruited pri o r to petitioner-Sivaganesh havi n g been enrolled, were granted

¶35

SURESH KUMAR 2025.07.15 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

CWP-6866-2025 (O&M) and CWP-17610-2025 (O&M)

¶37

Page 4 of 4

¶38

seniority fro m the date they joined the servi c e and not from the date their training was c ompleted.

¶39

12. T he contention of learned counsel for the UOI, is, therefore, found to be u njustified and not sustainable in law. The seniority is to be granted from the date of joining. Accordin g ly, the impugned order dated 17.03.2025 p a ssed by the AFT does not warr a nt any interference.

¶40

13. I n view of the order aforesaid or d er passed by us, we direct the implementati o n of the impugned order dated 17.03.2023 to the done within a period of o n e month. No further time shal l be granted and if the order is not implem e nted, the contempt proceedi n gs can be initiated by the concerned W r it Petitioner in CWP-6866-202 5 .

¶41

14. A ccordingly, CWP-6866-2025 stands disposed of and CWP-17610-2025 is dismissed in the aforesa i d terms.

¶42

15. A ll pending applications in t hese cases are disposed of

¶43

accordingly.

¶44

[SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

¶45

[MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA] JUDGE

¶46

July 14, 2025