A.V. Arunkumar & Ors Union Of India & Ors

V.Rama Mathew, Member A

These O.As have been filed challenging Integrated Headquarters Ministry of Defence (Navy) Group 'C', Store House Staff (Naval Stores Organisations) Posts Recruitment Rules, 2013 dated 27.02.2014. We have taken O.A.No.180/342/2020 as lead case and the annexures referred to are from this O.A. The applicants who were working as Store Keepers in Indian Navy under Southern Naval Command, Kochi are aggrieved by the malfeasance and nonfeasance on the part of the naval authorities by increasing the regular period of service from 5 years to 8 years for promotion of Store Keepers to the post of Store Superintendent (Stores) which is against the DoP&T guidelines for framing/amendment/relaxation of Recruitment Rules. The applicants were joined as Assistant Store Keeper (now re-designated as Store Keeper) in the Indian Navy and the Naval Stores Storehouse Staff Association is their association representing for the welfare of the employees. They are direct recruits appointed during April, 2013 to the post of Assistant Store Keeper, a copy of which is produced as Annexure A-1, Annexure A-2 and Annexure A-3. It is submitted that all of them joined the service during April, 2013 and have completed 5 years of regular service in the feeder category for promotion to Store Keeper (now re-designated as Superintendent Store). In 2017 the Assistant Store Keeper and Store Keeper posts were re-designated as Store Keepers and Superintendent Store respectively.

At the time of joining they were governed by the Recruitment Rules notified by S.R.O 66 dated 17.02.1984, produced as Annexure A-4. While so, the 2nd respondent had notified the Recruitment Rules, 2013 in the gazette vide S.R.O 18 dated 27.02.2014, produced as Annexure A-5. By the amendment, the regular service required for promotion from the feeder category of Assistant Store Keepers (now Store Keeper) to the Store Keeper (now Superintendent Stores) post was increased from 5 years to 8 years. This amendment increased the qualifying service for promotion from Store Keeper to Superintendent Stores from 5 years to 8 years, thus, adversely affecting their prospects of promotion and was in violation of DoP&T guidelines. The respondents did not hear the applicants prior to effecting the amendment. As per DoP&T guidelines a saving note is to be included in the new Recruitment Rules to continue the existing rules for the present feeder category, a copy of the O.M dated 31.12.2010 is produced as Annexure A-6.

Being aggrieved the applicants represented individually and through their association. The 5th respondent has recommended the representation and forwarded it to the 2nd respondent. A copy of the letter dated 10.05.2019 is produced as Annexure A-7. Since there was no reply, another reminder was forwarded to the 5th respondent which was also recommended by the 7th respondent and it was stated therein that 107 posts were lying vacant before the new Recruitment Rules were introduced and it increased to 265 vacancies in 2017. Non filling of these vacancies is adversely affecting the day to day functioning of the organization, this is produced as Annexure A-8. Annexure A-8 was rejected by the 4th respondent stating that as per DoP&T guidelines O.M.No.AB.14017/61/2008-Estt.(RR) dated 24.03.2009, promotion from Grade Pay of Rs.1900/- to Rs.2400/- requires minimum 8 years of regular service and further O.A.No.1173/2016 filed before the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal is pending and the matter is sub judice. This letter is produced as Annexure A-9. However, it is stated that the DoP&T O.M mentioned in Annexure A-9 stipulates that requirement is only for deputation and not for promotion. The O.M was issued due to the merger and upgradation of pay scales, but there was no upgradation or merger in the post of Store Keepers and Superintendent Stores. The hierarchy of the promotion of applicants is to Superintendent (Store), then Senior Superintendent (Store) and to Assistant Naval Store Officer Grade – II. The previous posts were restructured and renamed in 2016 without any change in pay scales, a copy of the Government of India letter No.CP(P&P)/4519/SHS/ 1276/US(MP)/D(N-II)/16 dated 04.07.2016 is produced as Annexure A-11. The next promotion of Senior Store Superintendent is to the post of Assistant Naval Store Officer Grade – II in Grade Pay Rs.4600/-. As per the DoP&T guidelines it should be minimum 5 years regular service in the feeder grade. But the respondents have reduced the same from 5 years to 3 years for existing feeder category and amended the Recruitment Rules, a copy of the Navy Group 'A' and 'B' (Naval Store Officer Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2016 notified vide Gazette S.R.O 28 dated 08.06.2016 is produced as Annexure A-12. There, the respondents had meticulously followed the paragraph 3.1.3 of Annexure A-6 O.M and incorporated the Note 1 to reduce the eligibility criteria for the existing Foreman – Store posts wherein it was denied to the applicants in the same cadre.

It is submitted that the respondents are selectively amending the Recruitment Rules and the applicants had incurred pecuniary loss as well as stagnation in their career after the amendment of the Recruitment Rules. On the other hand, the promotion to the post of Foreman of Store (Senior Store Superintendent) with Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- is from the feeder grade of Superintendent Store with Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- is only 3 years. Till date the promotion is effected as per the Recruitment Rules of 2002. If the Annexure A-10 was to be followed then the regular period of service in the feeder grade ought to have been 10 years. The amendment to these rules were deliberately delayed to protect the interest of some sect of employees. A copy of the Navy Group 'B' (Non Gazetted Non Ministerial Foreman of Stores) Posts Recruitment Rules, 2002 notified vide Gazette S.R.O 195 dated 05.09.2002 is produced as Annexure A-13. Similarly, the respondents amended the Recruitment Rules for Navy Group 'C', Ministerial Staff for promotion of LDC to UDC post by increasing the regular service from 5 years to 8 years in the Grade Pay of Rs.1900/- to Rs.2400/-, a copy of the Ministry of Defence (Navy) Group 'C' (Ministerial Staff) Posts Recruitment Rules, 2011 notified vide Gazette S.R.O 80 dated 13.12.2011 is produced as Annexure A-14. However, this was amended and the requirement of 8 years is reduced to 5 years by the Ministry of Defence (Navy) Group 'C', (Ministerial Staff) Posts (Amendment) Rules, 2013 notified vide Gazette S.R.O 82 dated 10.12.2013, produced as Annexure A-15. It has been argued that the requirement of 8 years of service for promotion is not mandated by the DoP&T guidelines and hence the applicants with 5 years regular service were also eligible like the Ministerial Staff.

Similarly, in the Department of Defence Production the regular service required for promotion of Store Keepers (Grade Pay Rs.1900/-) to Senior Store Keeper (Grade Pay Rs.2400/-) is 5 years only. This has not been increased to 8 years. A copy of the Ministry of Defence, Department of Defence Production, Directorate General of Quality Assurance, Group 'C' (Store Keeping) Posts Recruitment Rules, 2010 notified vide Gazette S.R.O 48 dated 01.10.2010 is produced as Annexure A-16. The same holds good for promotion from Store Clerk (Grade Pay Rs.1900/- to Assistant Store Keeper (Technical) (Grade Pay Rs.2400/-) in the Ministry of Mines, a copy of the Ministry of Mines, Induan Bureau of Mines, Store Keeper (Technical) Grade – II, Assistant Store Keeper (Technical) and Store Clerk, Group 'C' Posts Recruitment Rules, 2010 notified vide Gazette G.S.R 91 dated 13.04.2010 is produced as Annexure A-17.

The primary argument of the applicants is that as per Annexure A-4 Recruitment Rules the regular service required for promotion to the post of Store Keeper from Assistant Store Keeper was 5 years, which was increased to 8 years on the basis of the said DoP&T guidelines. It has been argued that the DoP&T guidelines never mandated for any such increase and these were issued in the context of merger and upgradation of pay scales to ensure minimum eligibility criteria. It was not intended for replacement of pay scales in the Pay Commission. As per the guidelines – 'in cases where deputation is also one of the methods of recruitment, the field of selection for deputation, which might include various grades, should also reflect the corresponding Grade Pay along with the Pay Band/Pay Scale, and the minimum eligibility service as per the revised guidelines, as enclosed in Annexure'. The annexure in the guidelines mandated for appointment through deputation/absorption only where there is a selection from various grades and not for promotion from the feeder category. In the case of the applicants there was no upgradation and merger of various scales and it was only a replacement scale as per Pay Commission recommendations. It has been argued that the respondents have misinterpreted the guidelines and erroneously revised the Recruitment Rules.

The existing pay scale of Assistant Store Keeper was replaced in 4th CPC to Rs.950-20-1150-EB-25-1500, then by 5th CPC to Rs.3050-75-3950-80-4590 and 6th CPC to Rs.5200-20200 with Grade Pay Rs.1900/-. Similarly the Store Keeper pay scale was replaced in 4th CPC to Rs.1200-30-1560-EB-40-2040, then by 5th CPC to Rs.4000-100-6000 and 6th CPC to Rs.5200-20200 with Grade Pay Rs.2400/-. There was no upgradation of pay scale and it was only a replacement pay scale as per Pay Commission recommendations. Therefore, it has been argued that the increase in the qualifying service to 8 years by amendment is unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory. It is also pointed out that the Annexure A-6 O.M of the DoP&T at paragraph 3.1.3 states as follow -

Where the eligibility service for promotion prescribed in the existing rules is being enhanced (to be in conformity with the guidelines issues by this Department) and the change is likely to affect adversely some persons holding the feeder grade posts on regular basis, a note to the effect that the eligibility service shall continue to be the same for persons holding the feeder posts on regular basis on the date of notification of the revised rules, could be included in the revised rules.

It has been argued that both these points were overlooked and omitted by the respondents and without protecting the rights of the existing feeder grade the new Recruitment Rules was notified. Even after repeated representations the respondents are not amending the Recruitment Rules. But the same has been incorporated as Note -1 in the Annexure A-12 for Group A and B posts wherein the saving clause clearly indicate that the respondents are aware about the relaxation to mitigate existing feeder grade as per the DoP&T guidelines. As per Annexure A-6 O.M guidelines it has been cited by the respondents that paragraph 3.8 prescribes the relaxation for age and educational qualifications for promotions, which is not to be insisted at par with direct recruits. The applicants are required to have 8 years of service and direct recruits with 10+2 require only 5 years experience in any reputed workshop and those with degree in science require only 1 year experience. It will create an anomalous situation that the applicants can apply as direct recruits on 5 years experience and at the same time they are ineligible for promotion. This is discriminatory and illegal. The Recruitment Rules for Ministerial Staff have been amended to incorporate the saving clause by the same respondents, however, the same have not been done in the case of the applicants which is discriminatory.

During the course of arguments the following case-laws have been cited in defence of their claim for protection -

The Kerala State Government Ayurveda Medical Officers' Association represented by its General Secretary Dr.V J.Sebby vs. the State of Kerala, 2024 Supreme (Ker)1141.

Dr.A.S.Senthi Vadivel vs. Union of India & Ors., O.A.No.611/2012 before the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal.

Rajesh Kumar Giri & Ors., vs. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No.4959/2014 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.

All India Naval Clerks Association represented by the General Secretary, K.S.Sanjay Babu & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., O.A.No.180/308/2020 before the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal.

All of which upheld the protection clause as indicated by the DoP&T guidelines.

The respondents had primarily argued that different Recruitment Rules cited by the applicants had no bearing on the issue at hand as these are different services and different work had different criteria. They have also submitted that the Recruitment Rules of Storehouse Staff have been revised as per the DoP&T O.M dated 24.03.2009, post implementation of the 6th CPC and is in consonance with model Recruitment Rules promulgated by DoP&T in 2015. This O.M is produced as Annexure R-1. Annexure R-2 O.M of DoP&T has prescribed the minimum qualifying service for promotion from one grade to another. The residency period from Grade Pay of Rs.1900/- to Rs.2400/- is 8 years and, therefore, the O.A is unsustainable and liable to be dismissed. The increase in qualifying service from 5 years to 8 years for promotion to the post of Store Superintendent from the post of Store Keeper is in consonance with the DoP&T guidelines on the subject. It has been submitted that the retention clause has not been included while finalizing the Recruitment Rules. Therefore, no relaxation is given while considering the personnel for promotion from Store Keeper to Store Superintendent in terms of qualifying service. They have also argued that prior to the finalization of the Recruitment Rules consultation with the concerned stake holders staff side representatives, ie., through recognized Unions/Associations and the draft Recruitment Rules were circulated on 30.08.2010. However, no suggestion/recommendation regarding retention of existing qualifying service for the people in the feeder grade were received and as such the said clause was not included in the revised Recruitment Rules. In absence of such clause, DPC are being conducted as per the provisions contained in the existing Recruitment Rules. It has also been stated that the Recruitment Rules which have been produced by the applicants are not analogous and the same cannot be attributed to the Store Keepers in Navy. It has also been argued that the post of Store Keeper has both direct recruit element and promotion element and the educational qualification and experience sought for direct recruitment cannot be equated with the qualitative requirements for promotion to the said post. It has been submitted that under the provisions of Annexure R-2 the proposal of providing the relaxation clause in the Recruitment Rules was not agreed to by the UPSC/DoP&T and, therefore, the same clause was not included in the Recruitment Rules for Office Superintendent and Stenographer Grade – I. The current Recruitment Rules for Store Cadre are also based on the model Recruitment Rules issued vide Annexure R-3 and by taking into consideration the qualifying service prescribed vide Annexure R-1. It has not been argued by the applicants at any point that there was any correspondence where they have made any recommendation/submission which have not been considered by the Department.

The issue being argued in this case is not the applicability of the Model Recruitment Rules and the DoP&T O.M as regards framing of the Recruitment Rules post 6th CPC recommendations. The issue which is being argued here is the non inclusion of the saving clause which is also part of the DoP&T O.M dated 31.12.2010 which are the guidelines for amendment of the Recruitment Rules wherein for existing persons already holding the feeder cadre post on regular basis at the time of notification of the Recruitment Rules would continue to be governed by the qualifying service which were in existence prior to the notification of the new Recruitment Rules. It has also been nobody's argument that the applicants were not in regular service at the time of notification of the revised Recruitment Rules. The legal position has been argued multiple time at different fora and the case-laws have been cited by the applicants. Therefore, we respectfully follow the settled legal position in the case of Rajesh Kumar Giri (supra) in W.P.(C) No.4959/2014 wherein it has been stated that “Since the decision taken by the Cadre Controlling Ministry is on a wrong appreciation of the legal position we dispose of the writ petition issuing a direction to the Ministry of Home Affairs to process the recommendations made by DG, BSF and take corrective action, in that, accept the proposal to amend the BSF Air Wing Officers (Group A Combatized Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2011 by inserting a note therein to give effect to para 3.1.3 of the DoP&T O.M dated December 31, 2010 and for which direction we note that the Ministry of Home Affairs is the Cadre Controlling Ministry (The Rules of the year 1999 and the ones promulgated in the year 2011 have been notified by the Ministry of Home Affairs). Thereafter, case of the petitioners qua promotion be considered as per the Rules of 2011 with the note inserted therein.”

Therefore, we direct the Cadre Controlling Ministry to take corrective action and in that they need to amend the Recruitment Rules by inserting a note therein to give effect to para 3.1.3 of the DoP&T O.M dated 31.12.2010. Thereafter, the case of the applicants for promotion shall be considered as per the Rules of 2014 with the note inserted therein. The respondents shall comply with these directions within a period of three months time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The O.As are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

(Dated this the 27th day of November, 2025)