Employees Once Accepting Promotion On Particular Basis Without Protest, Are Estopped From Challenging The Same: Bombay High Court

Background Facts

The Petitioners were Artisan Staff employees in the Indian Navy. Their work involved repairing and maintaining Navy ships and submarines. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) created a grade called Master Craftsman in the Artisan Staff in 1982.

The MoD in the year 2010 vide an Office Memorandum (OM) dated 14th June, 2010 suggested the Trade wise promotion for the posts like Master Craftsman (Artisan Staff) which included physical work. Whereas promotion for the posts like Technical Staff which had supervisory and detailing work, had to be done Grade wise.

However the promotion of Technical supervisor happened as per trade wise seniority, whereas promotion of Artisan Staff happened as per the grade wise combined seniority. This resulted in insufficient Master Craftsman posts for promotion. So some of the employees were promoted directly from the post of Artisan Staff to Technical supervisor. This promotion resulted in skipping the post of Master Craftsman in between for promotion, which deprived employees of an extra pay increment. Employees' requests for trade-wise seniority in promotions of Artisan Staff were rejected by the Admiral Superintendent, Naval Dockyard (Respondent).

The employees filed Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), seeking trade-wise seniority for promotions but the Tribunal dismissed these applications. Aggrieved by the same, the employees filed the writ petition.

The Employees argued that the promotions for Artisan Staff should be based on trade-wise seniority, due to the different nature of work in each trade. They argued that it was not followed leading to unfair promotions and financial loss by depriving them of an extra pay increment. The Employees highlighted that while promotions for Technical Supervisors were conducted based on trade-wise seniority, the same approach was not followed for the Artisan Staff. The Employees further challenged the CAT's decision before the Bombay High Court, arguing that the Tribunal failed to apply the government orders.

On the other hand, it was contended by the Employers that the Naval Dockyard had historically followed a system of promotions based on grade-wise seniority. The employers asserted that the promotion policies in place, including the OM, did not mandated promotions based on trade-wise seniority. The employers further contended that the employees took an unreasonably long time to challenge the promotion practices. There was a delay of six years between the issuance of relevant directives and filing the petition. They argued that this delay prejudiced the employers and disrupted the seniority list already established.

Findings of the Court

The court observed that a significant number of Employees had already been promoted based on grade-wise seniority without objection which suggested their acceptance of the promotion practices. The court acknowledged the delay of six years in filing of the petition and deemed this delay unreasonable and found that it prejudiced the employers and disrupted established seniority lists.

The court interpreted the Office Memorandum dated 14th June, 2010, as not mandating promotions based on trade-wise seniority. The court found no evidence of prejudice or discrimination resulting from promotions based on grade-wise seniority. The court uphold the promotion policies as consistent with historical practices.

The court observed that most of the employees had already been promoted and accepted the current system. The court found that out of 25 Employees, 13 had already moved from the Post of Artisan Staff to the post of Technical Supervisors on the basis of trade-wise promotion. And an overwhelming majority of the rest had already been granted promotion on grade-wise basis.

The court held that the Employees have accepted the promotions without protest and are thus estopped from now challenging the same. The court upheld the CAT's dismissal order, as the court agreed with tribunal's reasoning that the Petitioners failed to demonstrate any policy violation or injustice.

With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition was dismissed.

Case No. : Writ Petition No. 2763 of 2023

Case Name : Shri Shripad Dwarkanath Gupte And Ors vs Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 309

Counsel for the Petitioner : Vicky Nagrani

Counsel for the Respondents : R. R. Shetty a/w Rui Rodrigues & Anurag R. Saxena