The Supreme Court of India ruled that seniority for specific trades is determined by the date of promotion to the skilled grade, not the initial appointment date, upholding the importance of government orders in effect at the time.

The Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal by V. Vincent Velankanni, upholding the Madras High Court's decision. The key issue was determining seniority for promotion – whether it should be based on the initial appointment date or the promotion date to the skilled grade. The Court found that, based on existing regulations and government orders at the time, seniority for the skilled grade was determined from the promotion date to that grade, not the initial appointment date.

Background:
Velankanni and the private respondents were appointed as semi-skilled employees in the Engine Factory, Avadi, Chennai, in 1996. While their initial selection placed Velankanni higher in merit than the respondents, his probationary period was extended due to his failure to clear the trade test within the stipulated time hhis resulted in the private respondents being promoted to the skilled grade earlier than Velankanni.

Years later, a draft seniority list, published in 2006, Velankanni challenged this placement through an Original Application to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in 2007, arguing that his seniority should be calculated from the date of his initial appointment. The Court carefully considered the SRO No. 185 of 1994, which makes clearing a trade test a prerequisite for promotion from semi-skilled to skilled positions. More crucially, the Court relied on the GO dated December 24, 2002, which clarifies that: Positions in the semi-skilled grade function as training for skilled roles. For the trades covered under SRO No. 185 of 1994, seniority is calculated from the date of promotion to the skilled grade, not from the date of initial entry into the semi-skilled grade.

The CAT ruled in Velankanni's favor, prompting the private respondents to file a Writ Petition in the Madras High Court and the High Court overturned the CAT's decision, affirming that seniority should be calculated from the date of promotion to the skilled grade, not tIn a significant ruling delivered on September 30, 2024, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal of V. Vincent Velankanni, affirming the Madras High Court's decision regarding the calculation of seniority for employees promoted from semi-skilled to skilled grades. The Court determined that seniority should be based on the date of promotion to the skilled grade rather than the initial appointment date.

The case involved Velankanni and several private respondents, all of whom were appointed to semi-skilled positions at the Engine Factory in Avadi, Chennai, in 1996. Although Velankanni initially ranked higher in the selection merit list, he was unable to pass the mandatory trade test within the required probationary period, resulting in an extension of his probation. Consequently, the private respondents, who cleared the test on time, were promoted to skilled positions ahead of Velankanni. This situation led to the publication of a draft seniority list in 2006, which placed Velankanni lower than his counterparts, prompting his legal challenge.

The central legal question was whether seniority for an employee promoted from a semi-skilled to a skilled grade should be calculated from the date of initial appointment or from the date of promotion/confirmation in the skilled grade, in accordance with applicable rules and regulations. The Apex Court while refering to the Sonia v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, held thaat: “11. ….In any view of the matter, law is well settled that an Office Memorandum cannot have a retrospective effect unless and until intention of the authorities to make it as such is revealed expressly or by necessary implication in the Office Memorandum.”

The Court acknowledged that, as a general principle, seniority is calculated from the initial appointment date unless specified otherwise by existing rules. However, it stressed the necessity of considering relevant rules, circulars, and government orders pertinent to the case. Notably, the Court referenced Statutory Regulatory Order (SRO) No. 185 of 1994, which requires passing a trade test for promotion from semi-skilled to skilled grades.

The Court highlighted Government Order (GO) dated December 24, 2002, which clarifies that:

The semi-skilled grade serves primarily as a training ground for skilled positions, and for trades governed by SRO No. 185 of 1994, seniority is determined from the promotion date to the skilled grade, not from the initial appointment in the semi-skilled grade.
While Velankanni cited a subsequent GO dated August 4, 2015, which appeared to revert to using the initial appointment date for seniority calculations, the Court ruled that this order was prospective, not retrospective. Thus, it could not be applied to reassess seniority for promotions that occurred prior to its issuance.

The Court expressed concerns about the implications of retrospectively altering seniority lists, emphasizing that such actions could unfairly impact employees whose seniority had been established under the previous rules.

The Supreme Court upheld the Madras High Court's ruling, concluding that the seniority for skilled positions is tied to the date of promotion, as specified in relevant government orders. This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to established rules and regulations when determining seniority and highlights the Court's reluctance to disrupt settled expectations, which could adversely affect individuals relying on existing rules for their professional advancement.

Coram: Justice Sandeep Mehta, Justice R. Mahadevan
Between: Date of Judgment: 30-09-2024