Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
P C Babu vs M/O Railways on 26 September, 2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A.No.180/00165/2016
Friday, this the 26th day of September, 2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mrs. V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
P.C. Babu, aged 32 years, S/o Chozhi P.R., Technician-I/Carriage &
Wagon/Coaching Depot/Southern Railway/Ernakulam Marshalling Yard
Kadavanthra P.O., Cochin-682 020 Permanent Address:
Puthinamkunnath House, Mulloorkara, Trichur District, PIN:680 583
- Applicant
[By Advocates: Mr. T.C.Govindaswamy, Mrs.Kala T. Gopi]
Versus
1. Union of India represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway
Headquarters Office, Park Town P.O., Chennai-600 003.
2. The Divisional Personnel Officer,, Southern Railway, Trivandrum Division
Trivandrum-695 014
- Respondents
[By Advocate: Mr. Sreejith N., ACGSC]
The application having been heard on 08.08.2025, the Tribunal on
26.09.2025 delivered the following order:
DEEPA S 2025.09.26 13:50:11+05'30'
O.A.No.165/2016 2
ORDER
Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member The applicant is a Technician-I in Carriage and Wagon. He was appointed as Skilled Artisan (Grade-C), to be more specific, as Apprentice Technician-III in Carriage and Waggon in the Mechanical Department, under compassionate appointment scheme, under Annexure-A3 order dated 19.05.2003. He was sent for training for three years and started regular service on completion of training on 19.05.2006. According to the applicant, he possessed qualification of ITC (Refrigeration and AC Mechanic) and was entitled to be appointed in the Electrical Department. However, he was appointed as Technician-III (C&W) in Mechanical Department. Referring to Annexures-A1 and A2 he has submitted that the period of training for candidates possessing ITI is only six months, in contrast, he was sent for training for three years, despite he possesses an ITC certificate. He was absorbed against working post only after completion of three years on 19.05.2006. Since the period of training stipulated under Annexures-A1 and A2 is only six months, according to the applicant, he should be deemed to have been regularly appointed on completion of training for six months. In this connection, he has placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in DEEPA S 2025.09.26 13:50:11+05'30' O.A.No.165/2016 3 O.A.329/2010, Annexure-A9, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in Annexure-A10 judgment in OP(CAT) 986/2011. Similar view was taken by the High Court in Annexure-A11 also.
2. According to the applicant, on personal enquiries, the office of the 2nd respondent informed him that he will not be granted benefit of regular appointment on completion of training for six months on 19.11.2003, since he was not a party to the earlier litigations. According to him, in Annexure-A6 seniority list published on 13.01.2011 he is shown as sl.No.101, whereas C.Prajaj, the applicant in O.A.1107/2010, was showed below him as sl.No.102. However, in Annexure-A5 seniority list published on 21.07.2015 the applicant is sl.No.130, whereas the said Prajaj is shown as sl.No.95. All along Prajaj was his junior though both of them were appointed simultaneously. Immediately he gave Annexure-A7 representation, which was not responded. After the filing of the O.A., Annexure-A12 has been issued rejecting the representation. Thus the applicant seeks to quash Annexure-A12, to declare that he is entitled to have been appointed against a working post of Technician (C&W) on and with effect from 19.11.2003 with all consequential benefits arising therefrom and to direct the respondents to grant him the benefit of the declaration within a time frame.
DEEPA S 2025.09.26 13:50:11+05'30' O.A.No.165/2016 4
3. In sum, the claim of the applicant is that since he is a holder of ITC, in terms of Annexures-A1 and A2 his period of training should have been six months, whereas he has been illegally deployed for training for three years. He should deem to have been regularly appointed on 19.11.2003 on completion of training for a period of six months and therefore, his seniority should have been reckoned accordingly.
4. The respondents have disputed the contentions of the applicant. According to them, the applicant was appointed on compassionate ground on the demise of his father Chozhi and was appointed as Apprentice Technician- III (C&W) and was posted in Coaching Depot, Ernakulam, in Mechanical department. He was sent for training for three years since he was not having relevant technical qualification in the Mechanical Engineering stream. Though he claimed that he is having qualification of ITC (Refrigeration and AC Mechanic), he has not annexed a copy of the same. Relevant trade for Carriage and Wagon Technician is Fitter trade and as such three years training was necessary to acquire knowledge in Mechanical stream and he is not entitled for curtailment of training period as prayed for.
5. Further, it is submitted that the O.A. is filed without availing official remedies available under Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals DEEPA S 2025.09.26 13:50:11+05'30' O.A.No.165/2016 5 Act. He was appointed in the Mechanical Department, a stream different from ITC (Refrigeration and AC Mechanic). He accepted the offer without any demur as he was not having required qualification in the relevant trade of Welder, Fitter, Electrician, he was subjected to three years training.
6. Further, it is submitted that as an appointee under the compassionate appointment scheme, he cannot choose a particular post. He had completed three years training in 2006 without any demur. If his prayer is accepted, it will unsettle the settled position of seniority and will invite further litigations. He was given a posting on 19.05.2003, which was accepted by him without any protest and on completion of three years training he was absorbed as Technician-III (C&W) in 2006. Therefore, he is precluded from making prayer for curtailment of training period, belatedly.
7. Further, it is submitted that he has not impleaded the person, who is going to be disturbed due to revision of seniority due to curtailment of training period and the application is bad for non-joinder of parties.
8. Referring to the earlier litigations mentioned in the O.A., they said that the applicant is trying to compare uncomparable persons like Unnikrishnan, who was working as Technician (Mechanic) C&W and was having the qualification of ITI Welder. Similarly, Prajaj was having SSLC plus ITI DEEPA S 2025.09.26 13:50:11+05'30' O.A.No.165/2016 6 Electrician, who had fullfilled the condition as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the order in O.A.1107/2010, whereas the applicant is having ITC (Refrigeration and AC Mechanic). Such an order was in personem, the benefit of which cannot be extended to the applicant. So, they prayed for dismissing the O.A.
9. The applicant did not file any rejoinder nor taken steps to meet the contention that the O.A. is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
10. We heard Sri.Kailesh T Gopi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.Sreejith, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents.
11. Sri.Kailesh has submitted, with reference to clause 159(1) of IREM Volume-I and submitted that being an ITC holder the applicant should not have been sent for training for three years and his services were entitled to be regularised after six months from 19.05.2003. Referring to the decision reported in Association of Industrial Training Centres of Kerala v. Director of Training [MANU/KE/1103/2000] he submitted that ITCs run in the private sector and ITIs in the Government sector are similar institutions. Being a certificate holder from ITC in Refrigeration and AC Mechanic the applicant should have been posted in the Electrical Department. According to him, he is entitled to get the benefits of Annexures-A9 to A11 decisions. Referring to the DEEPA S 2025.09.26 13:50:11+05'30' O.A.No.165/2016 7 decisions in R.Vendataswami Naidu and others v. Narasram Naraindas [MANU/SC/0324/1965 and R.M.D.Chamarbaugwalla v. The Union of India [MANU/SC/0020/1957] he said that the intention of law makers should be ascertained. He also placed before us a copy of order of this Tribunal in O.A.735/2022.
12. On the other hand, according to the learned Standing Counsel, what is important is qualification in the relevant trade. The applicant is an ITC holder in Refrigeration and AC Mechanic, but was appointed in the Mechanical Department, which is a different trade and therefore, he cannot get the benefit of training for six months. The learned counsel also took to us the communication dated 24.11.2010, whereunder the Ministry of Railways has issued following clarifications:
"Compassionate Ground Appointees (CGA) holding degree/ diploma/ITI qualification in the relevant railway related trade, if he/she gets appointed as Skilled Artisan in the trade in which he/she has acquired his/her degree/diploma/ITI they will undergo training for 6 months. In case of CGA degree/diploma/ITI appointed as Skilled Artisan in a trade different than that acquired by them, will have to undergo 3 years training. Practical training should be undertaken in shop floor and not in classrooms."
We may hasten to add that these clarifications, which have since been DEEPA S 2025.09.26 13:50:11+05'30' O.A.No.165/2016 8 incorporated in the IREM cannot have an application, since that was issued on 24.11.2010, wheres the applicant was appointed on 19.05.2003. It is not disputed that the applicant was appointed as Technician-III in Mechanical Department. It is also not seriously disputed that he holds certificate from ITC in Refrigeration and AC Mechanic. Annexures-A1 and A2 Recruitment Rules, as stood then, no doubt, did not mandate an ITC holder to undergo training for three years. In fact, clauses 159 (1) and (3) of IREM do not speak about any category of direct recruits, who should undergo training for three years.
13. As it stood then, there is no category of direct recruits who should have undergone training for three years on appointment as Skilled Artisan leave alone a candidate possessing ITI/ITC.
14. In this connection, it is apposite to quote the following observations of Hon'ble High Court in Annexure-A10:
"................We have examined the relevant provisions of the Manual relied on by both sides. Matriculates could have also become Skilled Artisans Grade III, until they were taken out from the zone of choice by an amendment of 2000. But, one thing we find is that though the 2000 amendment says about ITI pass candidates in relevant trades from open market which is a modification to the amendment that stood until then, there is no clear expression in the Manual as to which trade is relevant for a DEEPA S 2025.09.26 13:50:11+05'30' O.A.No.165/2016 9 particular post. Therefore, it is well within the decision making process of the selecting and appointing authority to consider as to whether a person who is being appointed is an ITI trade certificate holder in the relevant trade. The fact of the matter remains that the employee before us who had an ITI certificate in A/c (Refrigeration) is stated to have been appointed as a Skilled Artisan Grade III (C & W). We would prefer to go by treating that the appointing authority had duly applied its mind and had made the appointment at the relevant point of time. The question is whether such an appointee could have been further saddled with the liability to undergo training for three years. The argument of the establishment is that as per Annexure A2 placed before the Tribunal along with the reply statement of the establishment, in cases of compassionate appointments, the period of training will be three years and not six months. We have seen the decision of the Railway Board issued as per R.B.E. No. 113 of 2000. It noted the earlier decision contained in R.B.E. No. 17 of 2000 laying down the minimum educational qualification for direct recruitment to the post of Skilled Artisan Grade III as "Course Completed Act Apprentice, ITI holder in relevant trade". Thereafter, the Railway Board was essentially accepting the request on behalf of the employees. Therefore, the Railway Board ordered that the requirement qualification for open market recruitment still continues to be as laid down in RBE No. 17 of 2000, and the minimum qualification for appointment on compassionate ground as Skilled Artisan Grade III, should be prescribed as 10 th pass, however that, the training period for "such compassionate DEEPA S 2025.09.26 13:50:11+05'30' O.A.No.165/2016 10 appointments" will be three years as against the training period of six months for open market recruitment.
3. We are clear in our mind that Railway Board, while issuing R.B.E.No. 113 of 2000 was of the view that a Matriculate could be taken as a Skilled Artisan Grade III, in cases of compassionate appointments. The prescription of three years training has therefore to be understood to apply only to "such compassionate appointments", meaning thereby "compassionate appointments of the Matriculates with no ITI trade certificate." In this view of the matter, we do not find that the Railway Board ever intended to compel an ITI certificate holder who got appointed as a Skilled Artisan Grade III to undergo training for three years instead of six months.
4. More importantly, if an ITI certificate holder who comes in by direct recruitment as a Skilled Artisan Grade III is liable to undergo training only for six months, we do not see any rationality in saying that merely because the person comes on a compassionate ground, he should be compelled to undergo training for three years. It is settled law that what is being given as compassionate appointment is to the most needy. When the appointing authority has appointed an ITI certificate holder, it was not becoming of that authority to make further prescription that such a recruit should undergo training for three years."
15. Admittedly, the applicant was appointed from open market in the direct recruitment quota, though under the compassionate appointment scheme. A candidate possessing ITC needed to undergo training for a period DEEPA S 2025.09.26 13:50:11+05'30' O.A.No.165/2016 11 of six months only. Therefore, the respondents went wrong in subjecting him to undergo training for three years as done through Annexure-A3 order.
16. Despite the same, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the applicant at this distance of time. Firstly, the applicant was appointed on 19.05.2003 and was regularised on 19.05.2006, after undergoing training for three years. He chose to approach this Tribunal long after, on 25.02.2016, the delay of which has not been explained. Though not specifically pleaded that the O.A. is barred by limitation, the respondents have a case that he has approached the Tribunal belatedly.
17. Secondly, before approaching the Tribunal he has never aired a grievance that, he being a certificate holder in Refrigeration and AC Mechanic, he should have been selected and posted in the Electrical department, instead of Mechanical department.
18. Moreover, we could perceive a hidden agenda in accepting the pleadings of the applicant and seeking to quash Annexure-A12/R1 reply given by the respondents. Annexure-A12/R1 reads thus:
"Your representation for revision of seniority has been examined in detail.
As per records you have been selected for appointment as DEEPA S 2025.09.26 13:50:11+05'30' O.A.No.165/2016 12 Technician Grade-III(C&W) on compassionate grounds. Since you were not holding the trade of ITI in Fitter, which is the relevant trade for Technician Grade III(C&W), you have been directed for three years training. The ITI in Refrigeration & Air condition does not come under the relevant trade for the post of Technician Grade-III(C&W).
The seniority of Shri.C.Prajaj, was revised based on the order the Honourable Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in OA No. 1107/2010 and Judgment of the Honourable High Court of Kerala In OP (CAT) 2551/2012 filed by him on 'adpersonam basis' and the same will not be extended in your case."
This has been issued in response to Annexure-A7 representation given by the applicant on 02.12.2015. In Annexure-A7 there is only a passive mention about his training for three years. He has never complained against his deployment for training for three years. In other words, he accepted Annexure-A3, undergone training with an open mind and then was regularly appointed on 19.05.2006 without any protest. Later, when Annexure-A5 was published, he gave Annexure-A7 representation requesting to restore seniority above his junior Sri.Prajaj. What we endeavour to say is that Annexure-A7 was submitted challenging the seniority and not challenging the period of his training for three years. In other words, without taking up the DEEPA S 2025.09.26 13:50:11+05'30' O.A.No.165/2016 13 period of training before appropriate authorities at the appropriate time, Annexure-A7 was submitted challenging the seniority and now Annexure-A12 has been called in question in a totally different context.
19. It is here that the contention of the respondents that the O.A. is bad for non-joinder of parties assumes importance. There is force in the contention. As quoted supra, Annexure-A12 was issued in response to Annexure-A7 where his seniority is under challenge. But now, the applicant wants to annul Annexure-A12 without impleading the said Prajaj, who has been placed above him in Annexure-A5. It is the settled position that seniority issue cannot be resolved without giving opportunity to the person or persons who might be affected. Therefore, the O.A. is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
20. The applicant has tried to mix up matters. He has approached the Tribunal as though he is aggrieved by deploying him for training for three years instead of six months. We have already pointed out that there is substance in the contention. At the same time, what is under challenge in Annexure-A7 is the seniority and Annexure-A12 is the reply given to the representation. If the Annexure-A12 is quashed, that may have different ramifications and will pave way for unsettling the seniority, without hearing DEEPA S 2025.09.26 13:50:11+05'30' O.A.No.165/2016 14 the necessary parties. Under the cover of Annexure-A12, a stale claim cannot be allowed to be raked up.
In the result, we decline to intervene. The Original Application is dismissed. No costs.
(Dated, this the 26th September, 2025)
V.RAMA MATHEW JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
ds
DEEPA S 2025.09.26 13:50:11+05'30'
O.A.No.165/2016 15
List of Annexures
Annexure A1: A true extract of Rule 159 of the Indian Railway
Establishment Manual Vol.1
Annexure A2: A true copy of RBE No.17/2000 dated 28.1.2000
Annexure A3: A true copy of Office Order bearing No.57/2003/C&W/M
dated 19.5.03, issued by the 2nd respondent
Annexure A4: A true copy of order in OA No.1107/10 dated 23.02.2012,
rendered by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
Annexure A5: A true copy of the seniority list of Technician-I bearing
No.V/P.612/IV/C&W/Vol.8 dated 21.07.2015, issued by the 2nd respondent Annexure A6: A true copy of seniority list of Technician-II, published under No.V/P.612/IV/C&W/Vol.8 dated 5/13.01.2011 by the 2nd respondent Annexure A7: A true copy of representation dated 02.12.2015, addressed to the 2nd respondent Annexure A8: A true copy of order in O.A. No.154/2009 dated 14.01.2010, rendered by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
Annexure A9: A true copy of order in OA No.329/2010 order dated 04.11.2010, rendered by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
Annexure A10: A true copy of judgment dated 20.03.2013 in OP(CAT) No.986/2011, rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala Annexure A11: A true copy of judgment dated 09.01.2013 in OP(CAT) No.2551/2012, rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala DEEPA S 2025.09.26 13:50:11+05'30' O.A.No.165/2016 16 Annexure A12: A true copy of order bearing No.V/P.535/IV/C&W/C dated 25.01.2017, issued by the 2nd respondent Annexure-R1: True copy of letter No.V/P.535/IV/C&W/C dated 25.01.2017.
************
DEEPA S 2025.09.26 13:50:11+05'30'