Kerala High Court
Union Of India vs P.D Mathaikutty on 17 October, 2025
OP (CAT) No 114 of 2025
: 1 :-
2025:KER:76904
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 25TH ASWINA, 1947
OP (CAT) NO. 114 OF 2025
(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.02.2025 IN RA NO.1 OF
2024 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH ARISING
OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 25.01.2023 IN OA NO.569 OF 2018
OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH)
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN THE OA:
1 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,
SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING -IN - CHIEF
SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682004
3 ADMIRAL SUPERINTENDENT,
NSRY, SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND,KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682004
BY ADV SAJITH KUMAR V., SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT IN THE OA:
P.D MATHAIKUTTY,
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O P.M DANIEL, FOREMAN (WELDER), NAVAL SHIP REPAIR
YARD, SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682004
OP (CAT) No 114 of 2025
: 2 :-
2025:KER:76904
BY ADVS.
SHRI.C.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR
SHRI.AKSHAY V NAIR
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.10.2025, THE COURT ON 17.10.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP (CAT) No 114 of 2025
: 3 :-
2025:KER:76904
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
&
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,JJ.
-------------------------------------
O.P.(CAT).No.114 of 2025
---------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of October 2025
JUDGMENT
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J
This Original Petition is filed by the respondents in
O.A.No.180/00569/2018, challenging the order dated 25.01.2023
passed by the the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench,
allowing the O.A. whereby, pay and other benefits to the applicant
with effect from the date when his immediate junior started drawing
more salary than him was granted.
2. The facts in brief, as are necessary for the disposal of this O.A,
are as follows:
The applicant joined the service of the 2 nd and 3rd respondents as
Welder(SK) on 28.10.1986. He was promoted and placed in the grade
of Highly Skilled-I with effect 01.01.2006 and continued till
22.06.2006. Subsequently, he passed the Departmental Qualifying
Test (DQT) and was promoted as Chargeman-II with effect from
23.06.2006. He was thus promoted by overlooking his seniors who did
not qualify the DQT. In the year 2007, another opportunity was
OP (CAT) No 114 of 2025
: 4 :-
2025:KER:76904
granted to those who have failed the DQT and those who passed the
test were posted as Chargemen. While so, there was restructuring of
the cadre of Artisans on 14.06.2010 and those who were stagnating in
Highly Skilled Grade due to their non qualification in DQT, were placed
in Master Craftsmen(MCM) in PB-2, with a grade pay of Rs.4,200/-. At
that time, the grade pay of Chargeman was also Rs.4,200/-. When
these overlooked persons got fixation benefits as MCM and thereafter,
got promotion as Chargemen from the Highly Skilled Grade, they got
one fixation benefit as MCM and another fixation benefit as
Chargemen. The applicant, who was directly promoted as Chargeman
from the cadre of Highly Skilled, did not get the benefit of one fixation.
Annexure A1 is the seniority list dated 31.08.2006, Annexure A3 is the
draft seniority list published in the year 2011 relating to Chargemen
and Annexure A5 is the seniority list published on 24.09.2012.
Annexure A7 is the clarification issued by the first respondent about
the pay fixation benefits equal to one increment at the time of
upgradation under the MACP Scheme/Promotion of MCM to the grade
of Chargeman. In Annexure A7, one P.Y.Reji, who is junior to the
applicant, was shown as drawing more pay than the applicant due to
afore additional benefits granted. On finding that the applicant was
getting less pay than his juniors, he submitted representations
OP (CAT) No 114 of 2025
: 5 :-
2025:KER:76904
requesting for stepping up of his pay. But none of them were
favourably responded and hence, the applicant approached the Central
Administrative Tribunal, by filing the afore O.A.
3. The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions and the
materials on record, allowed the O.A. and directed the respondents to
take necessary steps to step up the pay of the applicant with all
consequential benefits with effect from the date when the immediate
junior of the applicant started drawing more salary than the applicant.
4. Heard Adv.Sajith Kumar, the learned Senior Panel Counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Adv.C.S.Gopalakrishnan Nair, the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
claim for parity with the juniors of the applicant is not sustainable
since, the applicant was promoted through a different channel, than
his junior who was promoted as Chargeman after getting MCM. He
contended that the applicant has enjoyed the Higher Grade Pay from
an earlier date in view of his promotion as Chargeman and, he also
has enjoyed further promotions in the cadre, even marching above his
seniors. The learned counsel also submitted that the applicant is not
entitled to parity in the light of clause 3(e) of Annexure RA 2, DoP&T
OM No.4/3/2017-Estt(Pay-I) dated 26.10.2018 and the said fact, even
OP (CAT) No 114 of 2025
: 6 :-
2025:KER:76904
though was brought to the notice of the Tribunal by filing RA
NO.1/2024, was not considered.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent supported
the impugned order and contended that there are no grounds to
interfere with the same. He submitted that admittedly, the junior to
the applicant is drawing more pay than the applicant and, therefore,
invariably his pay needs to be stepped up at par with that of the
junior. He also submitted that merely because of the fact that, the
applicant had passed the DQT and was given promotion, it cannot be a
ground to differentiate him from his juniors, who have, even though
failed in the DQT, had got promoted in the very same cadre in which
the applicant was promoted, that too with a higher pay.
7. As stated earlier, the Tribunal has ordered the respondents to
take necessary steps to step up the pay of the applicant with that of
his immediate junior from the date when the latter started drawing
more salary. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the
applicant got promoted as Chargeman on qualifying the DQT,
overlooking many persons in his cadre, who did not qualify the test. It
is also an admitted fact that due to restructuring of the cadre of
Artisan, those who were stagnating in the cadre of Highly Skilled, due
to their non qualification in DQT and who were senior and junior to the
OP (CAT) No 114 of 2025
: 7 :-
2025:KER:76904
applicant, were placed in Master Craftsmen by granting one additional
grade pay and thereafter, were promoted as Chargemen with the
benefit of an Additional Grade Pay/increment. In other words, due to
cadre restructuring, the junior to the applicant, who was not directly
promoted as Chargemen, had an additional advantage of one more
Grade Pay on his promotion as Chargemen, leading to the junior of
the applicant getting more pay than the applicant. If so, it can be
stated without any doubt that, the applicant is entitled for stepping up
of pay at par with the next junior, who got higher salary, from the date
when the latter started drawing higher pay.
8. The contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner by relying on the O.M dated 26.10.2018 does not have any
legs to stand. Clause 3(e) of the O.M,reads as follows:
xxxxxxxx
"(e) If a senior is appointed later than the junior in the lower
post itself whereby he is in receipt of lesser pay than the junior,
in such cases also the senior cannot claim pay parity in the
higher post if he draws less pay than his junior though he may
have been promoted earlier to the higher post."
xxxxxxxxx
In the instant case admittedly the applicant is senior to Sri.P.Y.Reji,
since the applicant was appointed in the lower post on 28.10.1986,
while Reji was appointed only on 25.08.1987. The applicant was also
OP (CAT) No 114 of 2025
: 8 :-
2025:KER:76904
not in receipt of a lesser pay than Sri.P.Y.Reji, while thus appointed as
Welder(SK). If so, we are of the considered view that Clause 3(e) of
the OM dated 26.10.2018 is not at all applicable to the case of the
applicant.
The result of the forgoing discussions is that, there are no
grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal. Ergo, we find no merit in this original petition
and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
Judge
Sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN
Judge
dpk
OP (CAT) No 114 of 2025
: 9 :-
2025:KER:76904
APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 114/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF SENIORITY LIST OF CHARGEMAN II
AS ON 31.07.2006
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF PROMOTION/PLACEMENT
ISSUED IN CS-2764/1/94(V) DT:23.6.2011
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF
CHARGEMAN
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF CE LIST NO. 1/12 DT:5.1.5012
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE CE LIST 65/2012
DT:24.9.2012
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF CE LIST NO. 58/2014
DT:28.4.2014
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
CP(P)/7837/REPORT/TSM/ DT:19.7.2016
FORWARDING THE CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE CE LIST NO. 98/16
DT:20.12.2016
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE CE LIST NO. 101/17 DT
3.8.2017
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DT:28.2.2017
Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DT:28.6.2017
Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT SENIORITY LIST OF
FOREMAN (WELDER) AS ON 10.1.2018 PUBLISHED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A13 TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF
CHARGEMAN AS ON 10.1.2018 PUBLISHED ON
29.1.2018
Annexure A14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT:1.3.2018
Annexure R1 COPY OF GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
LETTER NO. 11(S) 2009 D(CIV) DATED 14 JUN
Annexure RA1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE
TRIBUNAL DATED 25.01.2023 IN OA /
180/00569/2018
Annexure RA2 TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DOP&T OM
NO. 4/3/2017 -ESTT (PAY-I) DATED 26.10.2018
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COPY OF THE OA NO. 569 /
OP (CAT) No 114 of 2025
: 10 :-
2025:KER:76904
2018 BEFORE THE HONORABLE CAT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY
THE RESPONDENTS IN THE OA 569/2018BEFORE
THE HONORABLE CAT
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.1(2)/80/D(CIV/I)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
DATED 21.09.1982
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE OF THE OM NO.II(1)/2002/D(CIV/I)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
DATED 20.05.2003
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED IN OA
NO.569/2018 DATED 25.01.2023 BY THE
HONORABLE CAT
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE R.A.NO. 1/2024 IN OA
569/2018 BEFORE THE HONORABLE CAT
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN R.A.
NO. 1/2024 IN OA 569/2018 BEFORE THE
HONORABLE CAT
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2025
IN R.A. NO. 1/2024 IN OA 569/2018 BY THE
HONORABLE CAT
