Writ Petition challenging a judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding promotions within the Indian Navy's Artisan Staff. The petitioners, employees of various grades within the Artisan Staff, contest the promotion process, which they claim was carried out based on combined seniority rather than trade-wise seniority, resulting in unfair promotions and financial loss. The respondents argue that the promotion process followed established policy and was not discriminatory. After considering arguments from both sides, the Writ Petition is dismissed by the court due to various reasons, including acquiescence to previous promotions, delay in raising the issue, lack of specific provisions mandating trade-wise promotions, and failure to demonstrate actual prejudice or financial loss.

1. Background and Challenge to Tribunal Order:

   • Brief overview of the petition challenging a tribunal's decision on promotion within the Indian Navy's Artisan Staff.

2. Petitioners' Employment Status:

   • Description of the petitioners' roles as Artisan Staff within various grades of the Indian Navy.

3. Historical Context and Policy Changes:

   • Explanation of policy changes by the Ministry of Defence, restructuring the Artisan Staff cadre and introducing new promotion criteria.

4. Contention of Petitioners:

   • Petitioners argue that promotions were unfairly based on combined seniority, causing financial loss and bypassing trade-wise seniority.

5. Representation and Tribunal Proceedings:

   • Petitioners' representations to address the issue were rejected by the authorities, leading to the filing of original applications before the Tribunal.

6. Dismissal by Tribunal and Subsequent Writ Petition:

   • Tribunal's dismissal of the original applications prompted the filing of the Writ Petition.

7. Petitioners' Submissions:

   • Arguments presented by Mr. Nagrani on behalf of the petitioners, emphasizing the importance of trade-wise seniority and alleging discrimination.

8. Respondents' Counterarguments:

   • Mr. Shetty's responses on behalf of the respondents, challenging the petitioners' contentions and defending the promotion process.

9. Additional Submissions by Respondent No. 3:

   • Mr. Saxena supports the respondents' arguments and highlights the lack of merit in the petitioners' claims.

10. Court's Decision and Reasoning:

    • The court dismisses the Writ Petition, citing reasons such as acquiescence to previous promotions, delay in raising grievances, lack of specific provisions mandating trade-wise promotions, and failure to demonstrate actual prejudice or financial loss.

11. Conclusion:

    • The Writ Petition is dismissed, and no costs are awarded.