Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Abhilash C Nair vs M/O Railways on 28 October, 2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No. 180/00172/2023
Tuesday, this the 28th day of October, 2025.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mrs. V. RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Abhilash C. Nair, Senior Assistant Loco Pilot, Trivandrum Division,
Southern Railway, Trivandrum - 695 001.
Now residing at 'Kailas' Kochottukonam,
Mariyapuram P.O, Parasala,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 122 - Applicant
[By Advocate: Mr. R. Sreeraj]
Versus
1. Union of India represented by its Secretary
Ministry of Railways, "Rail Bhavan", New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The General Manager, Southern Railway,
Headquarters Office, Park Town P.O, Chennai - 660 003.
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway, Trivandrum Division, Trivandrum - 695 584.
4. Raju Ram Meena, Crew Controller Office, Ernakulam,
Southern Railway (Trivandrum Division), Ernakulam - 682 016.
5. R. Rajesh, Crew Controller Office, Ernakulam,
Southern Railway (Trivandrum Division), Ernakulam - 682 016.
6. K. Jubish, Crew Controller Office, Ernakulam,
Southern Railway (Trivandrum Division), Ernakulam - 682 016.
A X 2025.10.31
17:14:48
SHERIN+05'30'
2
O.A No. 180/00172/2023
7. T. Binu, Crew Controller Office, Ernakulam,
Southern Railway (Trivandrum Division), Ernakulam - 682 016.
8. P.B Rajesh Kumar, Chief Crew Controller Office,
Trivandrum Dept., Trivandrum Railway Station,
Trivandrum Division - 695 001.
9. S. Harish, Crew Controller Office, Ernakulam,
Southern Railway (Trivandrum Division), Ernakulam - 682 016.
10. C.S. Brijlal, Chief Crew Controller Office,
Trivandrum Dept., Trivandrum Railway Station,
Trivandrum Division - 695 001. - Respondents
[By Advocate : Mr. Sreejith N for R-1 to 3]
The Original Application having been heard on 23.10.2025, the
Tribunal on 28.10.2025 delivered the following:
O R D E R :-
Justice K. Haripal, Judicial Member The applicant is a Senior Assistant Loco Pilot in Trivandrum Division. He commenced service as Diesel Assistant in Guntur Division of South Central Railway and then was transferred to Madurai Division of Southern Railway. In Madurai, he became a Senior Assistant Loco Pilot. Then, under inter divisional transfer, himself and one Sri. S. Suresh Kumar were mutually transferred under Annexure A-1 order dated 28.12.2012, whereunder he A X 2025.10.31 17:14:48 SHERIN+05'30' 3 O.A No. 180/00172/2023 was transferred to Trivandrum Division, whereas, Sri S. Suresh Kumar was transferred to his place in Madurai Division. Before granting such a transfer on his request, he was reverted as Assistant Loco Pilot. Alleging that such transfers were done in violation of Annexure A-2 circular of the Railway Board touching inter divisional transfer, 13 officials of the Railway in the category of Assistant Loco Pilot moved this Tribunal with OA 12/2013. That OA was allowed on 13.08.2013. In OP(CAT) 5/2014, that order was confirmed, however, the Hon'ble High Court slightly modified the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP. Thereafter, Annexures A-6 and A-7 seniority lists were published by the respondents on the lines of Annexures A-3 to A-5, however, placing the applicant below certain non- applicants in OA 12/2013, the benefits of the same are not applicable to the non-applicants.
2. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that his position shown in Annexures A-6 and A-7 are not in terms of the directions issued by this Tribunal. In the provisional seniority list, earlier he was placed at sl. No. 54 and now he has been placed at sl. No.82 in Annexure A-6 and 59 in Annexure A-7. In the light of Annexure A-3 order, he is entitled to be placed A X 2025.10.31 17:14:48 SHERIN+05'30' 4 O.A No. 180/00172/2023 at sl. No. 77 in Annexure A-6 and 55 in Annexure A-7. Thus, according to the applicant, Annexures A-6 and A-7 have been prepared illegally, contrary to the directions issued by this Tribunal. Though he gave Annexures A-8 and A-9 representations, that have not been considered properly. At last, Annexure A-10 order has been issued. It is claimed that his seniority has been fixed correctly.
3. The applicant has moved this Tribunal for calling for the records leading to Annexures A-6, A-7 and A-10 and to quash the same, for a declaration that the applicant is entitled to be placed immediately after Aby Peter George in the seniority list of Senior ALPs and above respondents 4 to 10 in compliance with Annexure A-3, for a declaration that his seniority is to be fixed on the basis of his date of joining the Trivandrum Division on inter divisional mutual transfer on bottom seniority.
4. Inter alia, it is submitted that in Annexure A-3, official address of the applicant alone was furnished and he did not get notice and he could not defend the case. Respondent Nos. 4 to 10 were not parties to the earlier proceedings. They were always juniors to the applicant. They had entered Railway Service as Assistant Loco Pilots in different divisions, much A X 2025.10.31 17:14:48 SHERIN+05'30' 5 O.A No. 180/00172/2023 later than the applicant. Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 were transferred to Trivandrum Division on inter-divisional mutual transfer much later than the applicant. Respondents 4 to 8 though juniors to the applicant are also erroneously placed above the applicant in the seniority list. Those anomalies are sought to be corrected by placing the applicant in the appropriate place in the seniority list.
5. Official respondents have disputed the contentions of the applicant. According to them, in Annexure A-3, this Tribunal had considered paragraphs 3 and 3.1 of Annnexure A-2 and the orders of mutual transfer were set aside. It was violative of Annexure A-2. From the penultimate paragraph of Annexure A-3 order, it is clear that the Tribunal had specifically directed to place all the applicants therein above the party respondents in that OA. The applicant was also one of the respondents in the OA. The applicant had applied for inter divisional transfer on bottom seniority on 25.09.2008 and joined Trivandrum Division on mutual transfer on 03.01.2013. He belongs to general category. The said P.B. Rajesh Kumar had registered for inter divisional transfer on 07.06.2008 and joined Trivandrum Division on 19.06.2014, following which Annexure R-1 A X 2025.10.31 17:14:48 SHERIN+05'30' 6 O.A No. 180/00172/2023 communication was issued to the applicant and the seniority list was issued based on that communication.
6. Respondents 4 to 10 had registered for inter divisional transfer prior to the applicant and their seniority was fixed above the applicant based on Annexure A-3 direction. The private respondents 5 and 6 had entered service as Assistant Loco Pilots on 13.11.2000 and 27.07.2004 respectively, earlier than the applicant. The seniority of the applicant cannot be assigned immediately after Sri Aby Peter George for the reason that seniority in the case of mutual transfer has been done on the basis of date of registration, as directed in Annexure A-3. Seniority of the applicant was assigned next below Sri Rajesh Kumar, 8 th respondent based on the date of his registration on 07.06.2008. According to the respondents, the applicant has not made out any material circumstance to prove that he is entitled to be placed immediately after Sri Aby Peter George. The OA is filed on experimental basis.
7. According to the respondents, Annexure A-3 direction cannot be confined to the applicants in that OA. The Tribunal had specifically directed that in mutual transfer applications in respect of same category of A X 2025.10.31 17:14:48 SHERIN+05'30' 7 O.A No. 180/00172/2023 persons possibility of request of the persons already have registered should be considered. Therefore, seniority of the applicant has to be fixed not only on the basis of the finding in Annexure-A3, but also according to the position of other employees, who had applied for inter divisional transfer prior to the applicant. The seniority has to be fixed on the basis of the date of application for inter railway/inter divisional transfer and not on the basis of date of reporting in Trivandrum Division. Thus the Original Application is sought to be dismissed.
8. We heard the learned Counsel on both sides. According to Sri Sreeraj, learned Counsel for the applicant, Annexure A-3 is not an order in rem nor the OA was filed in representative capacity on behalf of similarly situated employees. No declaratory relief was sought, it was not intended to apply to all employees in a particular category. In the circumstances, that order should be restricted to parties to the OA. The Tribunal also did not direct to extend the benefit to non-applicants. The learned Counsel has relied on the decision quoted in BSNL v. Ghanshyam Dass and Others [2011 4 SCC 374].
9. Referring to paragraph 15 of Annexure A-3 order, the learned A X 2025.10.31 17:14:48 SHERIN+05'30' 8 O.A No. 180/00172/2023 Counsel pointed out that the Tribunal only observed that the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. But, that was not set aside and a certain equitable order was passed taking into account the fact that the private respondents might have already moved to the transferred places. Such an order was passed to protect the interests of the applicants and others. The general observation made in paragraph 17 is not applicable to the non-applicants. Such an observation is not applicable to the party respondents who are non-applicants in Annexure A-3. Similarly, the modification made by the Hon'ble High Court also is not applicable to the party respondents. The learned Counsel pointed out that the applicant does not have any complaint against the applicants in Annexure A-3, but is aggrieved in placing the private respondents 4 to 10 above him in the seniority list.
10. On the other hand, according to the learned Standing Counsel, after having chosen not to contest OA 12/2013, these contentions are not available to the applicant. According to him, those who were not parties in Annexure-A3 also can gain benefit of Annexure A-3 since they satisfy the general conditions of transfer.
A X 2025.10.31 17:14:48 SHERIN+05'30' 9 O.A No. 180/00172/2023
11. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. Evidently, the applicant, while working as Senior Assistant Loco Pilot in Madurai Division was transferred to Trivandrum Division as Assistant Loco Pilot on a mutual arrangement with one Sri S. Suresh Kumar, who at that time was working as Assistant Loco Pilot in Nagercoil Junction in Trivandrum Division. The applicant is a general candidate, whereas Sri Suresh Kumar is a Scheduled Caste candidate. Such a transfer and two other similar transfers on mutual basis were the subject matter of challenge in OA 12/2013. It is the common case that, at the time of effecting the transfers, Annexure A-2 circular was in force. Prior to the issue of Annexure A-2, mutual exchange transfers were being made without taking into account the category of the transferees. In other words, an ALP in general category could be mutually transferred with an ALP in the Scheduled Caste and vice versa. Basing on paragraphs 102A, 310 and 312 of the IREM Vol.I, such a circular was issued having regard to the fact that such transfers had created anomalies, consequently benefits were derived by certain category of employees. In order to prevent the same and based on paragraphs 102A, 310 and 312 of the IREM Vol. I, 1989 read with administrative instructions, Annexure A-2 A X 2025.10.31 17:14:48 SHERIN+05'30' 10 O.A No. 180/00172/2023 was issued.
12. Earlier, the Railway had directed to grant transfers from one seniority to another in the following manner:
"i) On bottom seniority in grades having direct recruitment against vacant direct recruitment quota posts subject to the condition that the employee requesting transfer fulfils the qualification prescribed for direct recruitment to the post; and
ii) on mutual exchange basis in any grade on own seniority or seniority of the employee with whom the exchange takes place, whichever of the two is lower."
13. On the basis of the compliant that operation of post based rosters had resulted shortfall of certain categories, challenges were made before this Tribunal, which went upto the Hon'ble High Court. On the basis of the direction of the Hon'ble High Court and this Tribunal, the following instructions were issued in Annexure A-2:
"3.In the light of the above, the matter has been considered carefully by the Ministry of Railways. It has been decided that in order to maintain the balance in the post-based rosters with reference to reservations prescribed for SC and ST staff and to avoid hardship to staff in the feeder grade in the matter of their promotion, transfers on mutual exchange basis should be allowed between employees belonging to the same category (i.e, General with General, SC with SC and ST with ST).
3.1. However, transfers on bottom seniority in recruitment grades need not be restricted with reference to points in the post-based rosters. The procedure being followed generally in A X 2025.10.31 17:14:48 SHERIN+05'30' 11 O.A No. 180/00172/2023 this regard to adjust shortfall/excess in future may continue. But such transfers should be allowed only repeat only against vacant direct recruitment quota posts and not against promotion quota posts."
14. It is obvious that the three transfer orders challenged in Annexure A-3 did not conform to Annexure A-2 circular. After referring to various aspects, this Tribunal found that those mutual transfers are not in terms of Annexure A-2 and found that they are liable to be quashed and set aside. However, the Court added in paragraph 17:-
"17. In view of the above, the O.A deserves to be allowed. At the same time, since the private respondents would have already moved to the transferred place, where they would have even admitted their children in schools, it may not be appropriate to dislodge the private respondents from their present place of posting. However, with a view to ensuring seniority to the applicants, as and when they join their seniority would be notionally antedated at a date anterior to the date of seniority of the private respondents. Mutual transfer applications shall be considered against the same category of persons. In that event also, the possibility of requests of persons already having registered should be considered. Respondents are directed to pass suitable orders. O.A is disposed of on the above terms. This orders be complied with, within a period of two months."
15. The Hon'ble High Court did not interfere with the decisions to set aside the transfers. However, since it was submitted before the Hon'ble High Court that the private respondents in OA 12/2013 had not moved to A X 2025.10.31 17:14:48 SHERIN+05'30' 12 O.A No. 180/00172/2023 the transferred places since there was interim order, considering the equitable orders passed by the Tribunal, as quoted supra, the respondents were allowed to "modulate and recast the transfer orders as between private respondents and the applicants before the Tribunal and thereby give effect to the directions contained in the Tribunal's order so that the seniority positions are maintained in terms of the laws." The OPs were dismissed, subject to the above observations.
16. Now, on implementation of Annexures A-3 and A-4, the seniority of the applicant was fixed. It is true that the private respondents were not parties to Annexure A-3. But for that reason, in our view, it is illogical to find that the respondents are bound to consider the seniority of the applicants in Annexure A-3 alone and that the seniority of the party respondents should be fixed after the applicant.
17. Firstly, as rightly contended by the respondents, what is important is that seniority has to be fixed based on date of registration for inter-divisional transfer. The applicant seems to be under the wrong impression that his seniority should be fixed based on the date of joining the transferred division. Such a contention is liable to be rejected.
A X 2025.10.31 17:14:48 SHERIN+05'30' 13 O.A No. 180/00172/2023 Secondly, though the applicant claimed that all the party respondents are juniors to him, respondents have denied the same. It has been specifically pleaded that party respondents 5 and 6 had entered Railway service on 13.11.2000 and 27.07.2004 respectively. In Annexure A-3 also it has been reiterated that seniority in the case of mutual transfer has to be done on the basis of the date of registration. It is specifically averred by the respondents that date of registration of the 8 th respondent is on 07.06.2008 whereas the applicant had registered his name on 25.09.2008.
18. It is also important to note that despite the rebuttal of the averments of the applicant in the reply statement and the positive averments made by the respondents, applicant has not taken care to file a rejoinder. To our specific query about Annexure R-1 communication dated 16.06.2021, the learned Counsel has submitted that the applicant did not get the same. In the light of all the above, non-filing of a rejoinder is a matter of adverse inference.
19. Let us assume for a moment that Annexure A-3 order was not there. Still, based on standing instructions, date of registration for inter railway/inter divisional transfer is the most vital consideration for fixing A X 2025.10.31 17:14:48 SHERIN+05'30' 14 O.A No. 180/00172/2023 seniority in the transferred station. True, Annexure A-3 is not an order in rem, nor filed in representative capacity. Still, seniority cannot be fixed dehors general conditions and standing instructions governing the subject.
20. Applicant must have longer service in the Railway, taking together entire length of service. But before reaching Trivandrum, he had undergone two inter-divisional transfers. Similarly, what is important is the date of registration for inter-divisional transfer. Annexure A-6 and A-7 were prepared based on extant instructions governing the field.
The OA is bereft of merits and is dismissed. No costs.
(Dated, 28th October, 2025.)
V. RAMA MATHEW JUSTICE K. HARIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
ax
A X 2025.10.31
17:14:48
SHERIN+05'30'
15
O.A No. 180/00172/2023
List of Annexures in OA/180/00172/2023
Annexure-A1:- True copy of O.O No. 53/2012/Mechl/Rng dated
28.12.2012 issued by Assistant Personnel Officer, Madurai Division. Annexure-A2:- True copy of RB/Estt. No. 107/2007 dated 14.08.2007 issued by Ministry of Railways.
Annexure-A3:- True copy of the order in OA No. 12/2013 dated 13.08.2013 of this Tribunal.
Annexure-A4:- True copy of the common judgment in OP(CAT) Nos. 5/2014 and 3559/2013 dated 06.03.2014 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.
Annexure-A5:- True copy of order dated 05.07.2019 in SLP(C) No. 33221 of 2014 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Annexure-A6:- True copy of provisional seniority list of Senior ALPs-2022 dated 11.01.2022.
Annexure-A7:- True copy of the provisional seniority list of Senior ALPs- 2023 dated 30.12.2022.
Annexure-A8:- True copy of the representation dated 18.04.2022. Annexure-A9:- True copy of the representation dated 30.05.2022. Annexure-A10:- True copy of order No. V/P612/VI/Seniority/RG dated 14.09.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent.
Annexure R1 :- True copy of the letter No. V/P.612/VI/Seniority/ RG/Vol.III dated 16.06.2021.
******** A X 2025.10.31 17:14:48 SHERIN+05'30' 16 O.A No. 180/00172/2023 A X 2025.10.31 17:14:48 SHERIN+05'30'