Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Parsuram Panda vs South Western Railway on 16 April, 2026
O.A. No. 283 OF 2024
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH
OA No. 283 OF 2024
Reserved on :15.04.2026 Pronounced on :16.04.2026
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Pramod Kumar Das, Member (A)
1. Parsuram Panda, aged about 50 years, son of
Bhaskar Chandra Panda, at present working as
Chief Law Assistant under Sr. DPO/KUR/E.Co
Rly, resident of C/o Arakhita Das, At Barapada,
Post Godiputamatiapada, Jatni, Dist Puri 752050,
Odisha.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through the General
Manager, South Western Railway, Rail Sodha,
Gadag Road, Hubli 580020, Karnataka.
2. Principal Chief Personnel Officer, South
Western Railway, Rail Soudha, Gadag Road,
Hubli 580020, Karnataka.
3. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South
Western Railway, Maysore Division,
AT/PO/Town/Dist Maysore- 570021, Karnataka.
4. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Coast
Railway, Khurda Road Division, At/Post Jatni
752050, Dist Khurda.
5. Principal Chief Personnel Officer, East Coast
Railway, Rail Sadan, Chandrasekharpur,
Bhubaneswar - 751017, Dist Khurda.
6. Pankaj Kumar Sahoo, at present working as
Movement Inspector (Meramundali), under
Senior Divisional Operation Manager/E Co Rly/
Khurda Road Division, At/PO Jatni, Dist Khurda -
752050.
......Respondents
Signed By:C SADISH
KUMAR
Signing Date:16.04.2026
16:26
O.A. No. 283 OF 2024
2
For the applicant : Mr. N R Routray, counsel
For the respondents: Mr. A C Deo, counsel
O R D E R
Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, J.M. The applicant challenging the decision of the respondents not to antedate the date of appointment at par with recruits of subsequent notification has filed this OA praying for following reliefs:
(a) To quash the order of rejection dtd. 06.09.2019 under Ann-A/11.
(b) And to direct the respondents to antedate the date of appointment to 09.09.2007 i.e. the day before the date of joining of respondent no. 6;
(c) And to direct the respondents to grant all consequential and financial benefits;
(d) And pass any other order as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.
2. The facts of the case as inter alia averred by the applicant in the OA is in pursuance to Employment Notice No. 1/20025 the applicant had applied for the post, appeared in the written test and qualified and his name was found in the replacement papers. It is submitted that he was called to appear in the medical test and submit his attestation form vide letter dated 08.04.2007. It is submitted that after submission of Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:16.04.2026 16:26 O.A. No. 283 OF 2024 3 attestation form, instead of sending him in-service training the Divisional Authorities of Mysore Division sought for police verification and antecedents which were proved by the Additional District Magistrate, Cuttack vide letter dated 15.03.2008 and received on 15.04.2008. It is submitted that even though the antecedent were received on 15.04.2008, he was sent for in-service training on 20.04.2009 and that became his date of entry into Railway Service. It is submitted that South Western Railway had issued employment notice No. 2/2006 and the candidates were empanelled vide merit order dated 31.06.2007 and two candidates namely Pankaj Kumar Sahoo, Prashant Kumar Nayak were sent for in-service training and their character and antecedent were done later on. It is submitted that Pankaj Kumar Sahoo was called for document verification and medical on 03.09.2007 to 05.09.2007 and finally on 07.09.2007 he was sent for training. It is submitted that applicant had appeared for medical test and submitted attestation form on 16.07.2007 much before than Pankaj Kumar Sahoo but he became a Railway Employee w.e.f. Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:16.04.2026 16:26 O.A. No. 283 OF 2024 4 10.09.2007 whereas the applicant became a Railway Employee w.e.f. 20.04.2009. It is submitted that since name of Pankaj Kumar Sahoo appeared above him in the seniority list, he had filed several representations dated 06.02.2019 and 15.07.2019. Since the same were not considered he approached CAT, Bangalore Bench filing OA No. 1375/2019. It is submitted that during pendency of the OA before CAT, Bangalore Bench, the applicants own request transfer was allowed and he joined Khurda Division on 18.01.2021. It is submitted that during the pandemic covid, the respondents in OA No. 1375/2019 had filed their reply enclosing letter dated 06.09.2019 issued by Sr. DPO/Mys which is a communication between Sr. DPO/Mys and PCPO/SWR/UBL for disposal of his representation. It is submitted that even though there is mention of copy being marked to him but he had not received any such letter during his continuance at SWR. It is submitted that on the basis of such reply, CAT, Bangalore Bench dismissed the OA vide order dated 06.07.2022 on the ground that his representation was already decided vide order dated 06.09.2019 and that Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:16.04.2026 16:26 O.A. No. 283 OF 2024 5 applicant had concealed the aforesaid material. It is submitted that applicant filed a representation dated 31.01.2024 before Respondent No. 1 with a prayer to antedate his date of appointment. Hence the OA.
3. The respondent no. 1 to 3 filed counter focussing on t he very maintainability of this OA on the ground of limitation so also doctrine of res judicata, inter alia stating that the OA is barred by limitation since the applicant was appointed on 20.04.2009 and the applicant submitted his representation on 12.12.2018 i.e. after lapse of about 9 years from his date of appointment. It is submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in plethora of cases that seniority settled matter cannot be unsettled at distant date. It is submitted that applicant had earlier filed OA No. 1375/2019 before CAT, Bangalore bench seeking to revise the seniority of Station Master issued on 15.12.2015 suppressing the fact that his representation dated 12.12.2018 was disposed of by the respondents by order dated 06.09.2019. It is submitted that CAT, Bangalore Bench dismissed the OA Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:16.04.2026 16:26 O.A. No. 283 OF 2024 6 by order dated 06.07.2022 on the ground that his representation has been disposed of and since the matter has attained finality the present OA is hit by principle of res judicata. It is submitted that applicant should have challenged the order of CAT Bangalore Bench before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore Bench. It is submitted that it is a matter of procedure to send attestation form for police verification and antecedents. It is submitted that applicant was a standby candidate and due to ineffective papers of one candidate at Sl. No. 13 Sri Santhil Kumar D the applicant case was considered from standby list. It is submitted that applicant slept over the matter since the date of appointment on 20.04.2009 and continued in the post of Traffic Apprentice for Station Master till his transfer on request to Khurda Road Division on 12.11.2021 i.e. after period of about 15 years has filed this present OA. It is submitted that applicant joined the Khurda Division on recruitment grade from pay level 7 to level 6 therefore the issue of seniority against Station Master cadre losses the significance and even if there is direction by the Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:16.04.2026 16:26 O.A. No. 283 OF 2024 7 Tribunal to refer the seniority list in Mysore Division of SWR the applicant stands to gain nothing. Therefore they prayed for dismissal of the OA.
4. The applicant has filed rejoinder inter alia averring that after completion of in service training he had approached the authorities to ante date his appointment and seniority after joining as Station Master but even though assurances were given to modify the seniority but when the seniority list was prepared and was not correct he submitted representation dated 12.12.2018. It is submitted that representation of the applicant dated 15.07.2019 was addressed to Respondent No. 1 but replied by Sr. DPO, Mysore vide letter dated 06.09.2019 which was an internal communicated between Sr. DPO and PCPO/SWR/UBL which was not communicated to the applicant by Respondent No. 3 or by Respondent No. 1 therefore there is no question of concealing material facts. It is submitted that the OA has been filed by the applicant who is now working at KUR Division which Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:16.04.2026 16:26 O.A. No. 283 OF 2024 8 comes under jurisdiction of this Tribunal, therefore the OA is maintainable.
5. After giving due consideration to the various submission of the parties, we have perused the records. We find that the applicant has filed this OA on 01.05.2024. The prayer of the applicant in this OA is to quash order dated 06.09.2019 rejecting his representation and to direct the respondents to antedate his date of appointment to 09.09.2007 [i.e. the date before joining of respondent No.6] with all consequential service and financial benefits. Since, his prayer to unsettle a settled position by quashing the order dated 06.09.2019, which was prior to four and half years of filing of this OA, he has filed MA No. 312/2024 seeking to condone the delay on the ground that he approached before the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 1375/2019, since he was then working at Mysuru Division in S.W.Railway, in which the respondents disclosed before the Bangalore Bench that the representation had been rejected but without producing any evidence that Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:16.04.2026 16:26 O.A. No. 283 OF 2024 9 the same had ever been communicated to him. But, during the pendency of the said OA, he was transferred and joined in E.Co.Rly., KUR Division on 20.01.2021. The said OA was dismissed by the Bangalore Bench on 06.07.2022 but his counsel failed to inform him for a period of one year. Thereafter, it took four months to collect the order of the Bench and the brief. Thereafter, he submitted appeal on 31.01.2024 followed by reminder dated 18.03.2024. Therefore, the delay was not being intentional or deliberate, the same may kindly be condoned. Respondents opposed the said stand of the applicant on various grounds.
6. From the record, it is established that the applicant agitated his grievance as raised in the present OA before the CAT, Bangalore Bench in OA No. 1375/2019. The Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 06.07.2022 dismissed the OA by holding as under:
"The respondents No. 1 to 3 by way of filing a joint reply statement have produced on record a copy f the order dated 06.09.2019 (Annexure-R-
8) vide which the applicant's Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:16.04.2026 16:26 O.A. No. 283 OF 2024 10 aforesaid representation already stands decided.
3. While filing the present Original Application on 04.12.2019 before this Tribunal, the applicant has concealed the aforestated material fact and, therefore, the present application is liable to be dismissed on this ground only.
4. In view of the above, the Original Application is hereby dismissed."
7. The order of the CAT, Bangalore Bench has attained its finality being not challenged before the appropriate forum [Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka], by taking the stand what has been taken in this OA. This Bench is not competent to state anything on the decision rendered by another coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, in the present case by the Bangalore bench. "A litigant cannot be permitted choice of the forum," and that every attempt at forum shopping "must be crushed with a heavy hand is the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Chetak Construction Ltd. vs. Om Prakash, AIR 1998 SC 1855, The approach of the applicant by stating that after the order of rejection, he submitted appeal cannot be a ground to sit over the Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:16.04.2026 16:26 O.A. No. 283 OF 2024 11 orders passed by the co-ordinate Bangalroe Bench. It is not in dispute that the subject matter of the OA before the Bangalore Bench is the subject matter of this OA. Law is well settled that res judicata can operate if a subsequent case is filed on the same issued after dismissal of the earlier one. The principle's goal is to give finality to court decisions and prevent endless litigation, so even if a case was dismissed for being infructuous, it can still bar a new suit on the same matter. Further, "Henderson Principle" was approvingly referred to and applied by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of U.P. Vs Nawab Hussain, (1997) 2 SCC 806, as the underlying principle for res-judicata and constructive res-judicata for assuring finality to litigation. The 'Henderson Principle' is a foundational doctrine in common law that addresses the issue of multiplicity in litigation. It embodies the broader concept of procedural fairness, abuse of process and judicial efficiency by mandating that all claims and issues that could and ought to have been raised in a previous litigation should not be relitigated in subsequent proceedings. it is now a well Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:16.04.2026 16:26 O.A. No. 283 OF 2024 12 settled legal principle that one cannot do indirectly what one cannot do directly ["Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum"] vide Supertech Ltd. Vs. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and Ors, (2024) 1 SCC (L&S) 819. It is established that the Applicant has made an indirect effort to overcome the order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal. In view of the above, this case is conclusively established to have suffered from the law of res judicata.
8. It is settled law that an application for condonation of delay must explicitly state the exact number of days to be condoned, as courts cannot condone delay mechanically without specific details and "sufficient cause". MA is evidence of the casual, lethargic and negligent approach of the Applicant. In fact it discloses abject absence of any promptness, diligence or sincerity on their part even to prefer the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation or within a reasonable period of its expiry. Courts must not condone gross negligence, deliberate inaction, or casual indifference, for to do so would undermine the maxim interest Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:16.04.2026 16:26 O.A. No. 283 OF 2024 13 reipublicae ut sit finis litium and destabilize the certainty that limitation law seeks to secure. If such reasons were to be accepted as a matter of course, the very discipline sought to be introduced by the law of limitation would be diluted, resulting in endless uncertainty in litigation. The above view is gained support by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow rendered in the case of State Of U.P. Thru. Joint Secretary Animal Husbandry And Ors. Vs Ajay Kumar, 2025:AHC-LKO:83982-DB. Further we find that the applicant has thrown the blame on his counsel who was appearing before the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal and, as to whether for the fault of the counsel, litigant is entitled to seek condonation of delay came up for consideration before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior, in the case of Kailash Narayan Joshi Vs Arun Kumar Joshi, Neutral Citation No. 2025: MPHC-GWL:16259, wherein it was held as under:
Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:16.04.2026 16:26 O.A. No. 283 OF 2024 14 "5.2 No doubt, for the fault of counsel, the litigant should not be made to suffer. But that cannot be a blanket rule. Each case has to be examined on its peculiar factual matrix. The protection of the said rule, which can in appropriate cases be extended to an illiterate lay person, cannot be extended to an educated litigant or a corporate entity or the government bodies. Merely by engaging a counsel, the litigant cannot claim to be not under a duty to keep track of the case. Most importantly, where the applicant attributing such delay to the professional misconduct of the counsel opts not to take any action against the counsel, his explanation cannot be believed. Condoning delay in such circumstances, believing the bald allegations of the applicant would be tantamount to condemning the erstwhile counsel without hearing him and that too on judicial record."
9. It is a settled law that irrespective of whether the litigant is a Government entity or a private individual, the provisions of limitation would apply uniformly, and any leeway shown by the courts would also remain the same. Condonation of delay is to remain an exception, not the rule. Parties must demonstrate bonafide, sufficient, and cogent cause for delay. The grounds/reasons given by the applicant do not appeal to the judicial conscience to condone the delay so as to unsettle a settled matter relating to appointment/seniority after such lapse of period that too on the face of the decision of the Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:16.04.2026 16:26 O.A. No. 283 OF 2024 15 Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal dismissing the OA filed by the applicant.
10. Thus, viewed the matter from any angle, we are of the considered view that this OA is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed along with pending MAs, if any. No costs.
(PRAMOD KUMAR DAS) (SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA)
MEMBER (Admn.) MEMBER (Judl.)
(csk)
Signed By:C SADISH
KUMAR
Signing Date:16.04.2026
16:26
O.A. No. 283 OF 2024
16
5. Heard both sides and perused the records.
6. Rules regulating seniority of railway servants is extracted below:
303. The seniority of candidates recruited through the Railway Recruitment Board or by any other recruiting authority should be determined as under :--
(a) Candidates who are sent for initial training to Training Schools will rank in Seniority in the relevant Grade in the order of merit obtained in the examination held at the end of the training period before being posted against working post. Those who join the subsequent courses and those who pass the examination in subsequent chances will rank junior to those who had passed the examination. In case, however, persons belonging to the same RRB panel are sent for initial training in batches due to administrative reasons and not because of reasons attributable to the candidates, the inter-se seniority will be regulated batchwise provided persons higher up in the panel of RRB not sent for training in the appropriate batch (as per seniority) due to administrative reasons shall be clubbed along with the candidates who took the training in the appropriate batch for the purpose of regulating the inter-se seniority provided such persons pass the examination at the end of the training in the first attempt.
(Authority Board's letter NO. E(NG)I- 89/SR6/32(PNM) dated 19-3-93) Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:16.04.2026 16:26 O.A. No. 283 OF 2024 17
(b) In the case of candidate who do not have to undergo any training in training school, the seniority should be determined on the basis of the merit order assigned by the Railway Recruitment Board or other recruiting authority.
304. When two or more candidates are declared to be of equal merit at one and the same examination/ selection, their relative seniority is determined by the date of birth the older candidate being the senior.
305. When, however, a candidate whose seniority is to be determined under paragraphs 303 and 304 above cannot join duty within a responsible time after the receipt of orders of appointment, the appointing authority may determine his seniority by placing him below all the candidates selected at the same examination/selection, who have joined within the period allowed for reporting to duty or even below candidates selected at subsequent examination/ selection who have joined before him.
306. Candidates selected for appointment at an earlier selection shall be senior to those selected later irrespective of the dates of posting except in the case covered by paragraph 305 above.
307. When confirmation follows a specified probationary period if any, without break, the date of appointment to the grade is reckoned from the date of commencement of such probationary period.
308. When a probationary period is followed by an extended probationary period and confirmation follows such extension without break, the date of appointment to the grade or post, unless otherwise stated, should be reckoned from a date later than the commencement of the probationary period, to the extent of the extension of the probationary period. In cases where probationary period is not extended and staff are confirmed at the end of such period the date of appointment to the grade or post will be that on which the employee was sent to the training school for initial training or the date of joining the working post whichever is earlier.
Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:16.04.2026 16:26 O.A. No. 283 OF 2024 18
7. The respondents have filed a memo dated 25.11.2025 enclosing letter dated 06.11.2025 wherein it is stated that the appointment letter date of the applicant is 26.06.2007, panel date is 26.06.2007 and medical certificate date is 19.07.2007. Whereas in the case of respondent no. 6 the appointment letter date is 06.08.2007, panel date is 30.07.2007 and medical certificate date is 04/05.09.2007. The applicant was selected as per employment notice No. 1/2005 and the private respondent no. 6 as per employment notice no. 2/2006. As per Rule 306 quoted above, "Candidates selected for appointment at an earlier selection shall be senior to those selected later irrespective of the dates of posting except in the case covered by paragraph 305 above." The case of the applicant is not covered by Rule 305 since he wanted to join but the respondents had asked him to wait till his character antecedent arrive and again after arrival of the character antecedent on 15.04.2009 he was sent for in service training on 20.04.2009. Therefore Rule 306 squarely covers the case of the applicant and his appointment needs to be antedated before private respondent no. 6.
8. Accordingly the impugned order dated 06.09.2019 is quashed and the respondents are directed to antedate the date of appointment of the applicant to the day before the date of joining of Respondent No. 6. Consequential order to that effect shall be passed within a period of 60 days from date of receipt of copy of this order.
9. The OA stand allowed with above observation. No costs.
Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:16.04.2026 16:26