Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
K Nandakumar vs M/O Railways on 4 February, 2026
1 OA 1862/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/01862/2016
Dated, the 4th day of February, Two Thousand Twenty Six
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR.M.SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER (J)
&
HON'BLE MR.M.L.SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (A)
1)K. Nandakumar,
S/o.J.Krishnamurthy,
Junior Engineer (IT),
Southern Railways Information Technology Centre,
8th Floor, Moore Market Complex,
Chennai 600003. ... Applicant in person
Vs.
1) Union of India,
Rep. by the General Manager,
Southern Railways, Chennai 600003.
2) The Chief Personnel Officer,
Southern Railways, Park Town
Chennai 600003.
3) The Finance Adviser & Chief Accounts Officer,
Southern Railways, Park Town
Chennai 600003.
4) The Deputy Finance Adviser &
Chief Accounts Officer,
Southern Railways,
Chennai 600003.
5) Mr.Janardhanam,
AEDPM,
Southern Railways,
Chennai ... Respondents
By Advocate .. Mr. Sai Srujan Tayi (R1-R4)
2 OA 1862/2016
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr.M.L.SRIVASTAVA, Member(A)) The applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"To call for the records relating to the impugned orders of the 4th respondent in No P720/W/GOC/ADMN/IT/RTI dated 19.07.2016 and No P720/W/GOC/ ADMN/ITC/RTI dated 14.08.2016 and quash the same and direct the respondents [1] to [4] to absorb the applicant in the post of Senior Engineer Grade-II on par with the 5th respondent with effect from the date of reorganization and grant him all attendant benefits and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus Render Justice."
2. The brief facts of this case as stated by the applicant are as follows:
The applicant is presently working as Junior Engineer (Information Technology) at the Southern Railway Information Technology Centre, Chennai. He was initially appointed on 08.07.1983 as Clerk in the Commercial Department, Chennai Division. Subsequently, after a written examination, he was appointed as Data Entry Operator (a cadre post) in the scale of pay of Rs.4500-7000 on 08.07.1987. He was later promoted as Senior Data Entry Operator in the scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000 during the year 1996. Thereafter in the year 2004, there was Cadre Reorganization following which the Data Processing Centre came to be known as the Information Technology Centre and the cadre of Junior Engineer [Information Technology] in the pay-band of Rs.9300-34800 with Grade pay Rs.4200/- became the entry grade 3 OA 1862/2016 in the said Information Technology Centre consequent to the VI Pay Commission. The applicant submits that since the date of his appointment as Data Entry Operator in the scale of pay of Rs.4500- 7000 on 08.07.1987, he had been working in the said cadre based stream of the Information Technology branch which was subsequently formed as Information Technology cadre. However, there were several others who belonged to various other parent cadres were working in the Information Technology sections in ex-cadre posts. The said persons had their lien in their respective parent cadres. The applicant submits that the hierarchy of posts earlier comprised of Data Entry Operator in the scale of Rs.4500-7000, the next higher promotion post of Senior Data Entry Operator in the scale of Rs.5000- 8000 and thereafter the posts of General Supervisor in the scale of Rs.5500-9000 and Data Processing Supervisor in the scale of Rs.6500- 10500. Similarly from the post of Senior Data Entry Operator onwards there was another branch comprising of Console Operator in the scale of Rs.5500-7000, Senior Console Operator in the scale of Rs.6500- 10500 and Console Supervisor in the scale of Rs.7450-11500. The applicant submits that the persons posted in the computer centres on ex-cadre basis ought to have been considered only in posts equivalent to their respective cadre in the parent department. The said 4 OA 1862/2016 persons appointed on ex-cadre basis ought not to have been considered for appointment in any higher posts which would in the normal course be considered as promotion posts in comparison with their respective cadre in the parent department. However, one Mr. Janardhanam, who was initially appointed on 27.02.1982 as Typist, and promoted to the post of Head Typist only on 21.07.1997 in the scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000 and was posted in the Computer Centre on ex-cadre basis during the year 1993 was considered for the post of Data Processing Supervisor [DPS] in the scale of Rs.6500-10500 on ex-cadre basis in the computer centre and was subsequently absorbed in the post of Senior Engineer-II in the scale of Rs.6500-10500 in the newly formed Information Technology Cadre and was further promoted to the post of AEDPM. Whereas, the applicant who was appointed in the cadre based post of Data Entry Operator in the scale of pay of Rs.4500-7000 on 08.07.1987 and was later promoted as Senior Data Entry Operator in the scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000 during the year 1996, continues to hold the lower level post of Junior Engineer [I.T] which is the entry level post in the said Information Technology Cadre after the reorganization. Similarly certain other persons have also been considered for absorption in the computer centre and information technology cadre in the posts which were higher than the posts of their respective cadre in the parent department. As a result of such absorption the applicant being a senior has been discriminated and 5 OA 1862/2016 deprived of his promotional opportunities. He made several representations to the respondents to set right the anomaly but in vain. Finally in reply to the applicant's representation under the RTI Act, the respondents issued the impugned order dated 19.07.2016 stating that the 5th respondent was working as Data Processing Supervisor (DPS) in scale Rs.6500-10500 in the computer centre/GOC on regular basis and that he was absorbed as Senior Engineer IT Grade II as on 01.04.2005 and seniority assigned with reference to the parent cadre position. The contention of the applicant is that the order pertaining to reorganization contemplates that the staff working on ex-cadre basis should have been holding the grade on regular basis after due selection and that the posting on ex-cadre basis itself ought to have been in accordance with due procedure and which in turn implied that persons holding lower posts in the parent cadre could not have been posted in a higher post in the computer centre on ex-cadre basis. Being aggrieved the applicant has filed the present OA seeking the aforesaid relief.
3. After notice, the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel and filed their reply statement refuting all the averments made in the OA except those which are admitted on facts and also reiterating the statements made by them in the impugned order. 3.1 The respondents have tabulated the service particulars of the applicant and the 5th respondent as under:-
6 OA 1862/2016
Name K.Nandakumar S.Janarthan
Designation Junior Engineer/IT Assistant Electronic Data
as on date Processing Manager
Date of 08/07/83 27.02.1982
Appointme
nt
Designation Office Clerk in the office of then Temporary Typist Under Physically
as on Date Senior Divisional Commercial Handicapped quota in the office of
of Superintendent/Madras under Personnel Office/Golden Rock
Appointme compassionate grounds workshop
nt
Next Temporarily promoted as Sr.Clerk Senior Typist as on 1.6.1987 in
promotion on 01.07.1987 in scale Rs.1200- scale Rs.1200-2040
in own 2040 on adhoc measure Head Typist as on August 1997 in
cadre scale Rs.1400-2300
Chief Typist as on 14.03.2008 in
scale Rs.5500-9000
Date of Data Entry 08/07/87 On cadre Data Entry 13.05.88 On Ex. Cadre
joining in Operator in basis Operator in scale
Electronic scale Rs.1350- Rs.1350
Data 2200 -2200
Processing Senior Data 25.04.95 On adhoc Senior 27.10.88 -do-
cadre and Entry Operator followed Data Entry in scale
promotions in scale by Operator Rs.1400
in EDP Rs.1400-2300 regular -2300
cadre (Rs.5000-8000 w.e.f
in 5th CPC) 29.08.96
Junior 01/04/05 Absorpti Genl. 05.03.91 -do-
Engineer/IT in on on Supervisor in scale
scale Rs.5000- cadre Rs.1600
8000 reorganiz -2660
ation
Data 17.03.93 -do-
Processing in scale
Supdt. Rs.2000
-3200
(6500-
10500 in
V PC)
Section 01.04.05 Absorption in
Engineer- in scale the regular
II Rs.6500 cadre in the
-10500 newly
7 OA 1862/2016
formed IT
centre as per
Railway
board order
dt.
17.11.2004
Assistant 16.11.12 Gr.B
Electronic
Data
Processing
Manager
3.2 The respondents submitted that the 5th Respondent was working as Data Proccesing Superintendent w.e.f 17.03.1993 on ex-cadre basis and after completion of 12 years in the same grade, he was absorbed as Section Engineer Gr.ll in the equivalent grade w.e.f 01.04.2005 The Para no.7 of the said Railway Board's order dated 17.11.2004 clearly stipulates about the absorption/deployment of the existing staff in the newly formed IT endre. The absorption of 5th Respondent into the IT cadre was done in accordance with the instructions laid down in the Railway Board order dt. 17.11.2004. The condition enumerated in 7 (ii) of the Railway Board's letter is reproduced below:-
"Staff working on ex-cadre basis in computer centres at Division, Workshops and Stores Depots will be considered for deployment in the equivalent grade on their request in the new set up subject to the condition that they are holding the grade on regular basis after due selection, and are working for at least 10 years in the Computer Centre either on continuous basis or in broken spells.
On absorption in the new set up they will be assigned seniority in the absorbing grade with reference to non-fortuitous length of service in the grade held by them on regular basis in their parent cadre as on 01.04.2005. Others will be repatriated to their cadre in due course. Caderisation will start only from the entry grade and will cover the higher grades in the hierarchy in due course as and when the existing incumbents holding the posts on ex-cadres vacate the same and staff 8 OA 1862/2016 inducted in the new set up in terms of revised procedure as outlined in Para 5 above become eligible for promotion."
As per the conditions stipulated in the point no. 7 (ii) of the Railway Board's order dt. 17.11.2004, the staff working on ex-cadre will be considered in the equivalent grade on their request in the new organisation provided that they are holding the grade on regular basis after due selection, and are working atleast 10 years in the Computer Centre either on continuous basis or broken spells. The non-fortuitous length of service in the grade held by them on regular basis in their parent cadre as on 01.04.2005 will be the criteria for assigning seniority in the new set up. The 5th Respondent at the time of issuance of order for Re-organisation of Electronic Data Processing centre vide Railway Board letter dated 17.11.2004, was working as Data Processing Superintendent/Golden Rock (Golden Rock Workshop) in Scale Rs.2000-3200/- (i.e. Rs.6500-10500 in V Pay Commission) on ex-cadre basis since 17.03.1993. As he had completed 10 years of service on ex-cadre basis in scale Rs.6500-10500 as on 01.04.2005, he was absorbed in the equivalent grade as Senior Engineer Gr.II, ie. in Scale Rs.6500-10500 in terms of Para 7 (ii) of Railway boards order dt.17.11.2004. In terms of para 7 (i) of Railway Boards order dated. 17.11.2004, the existing staff who are encadred shall be absorbed in the corresponding/equivalent grade in the newly formed IT cadre and the grade in which they are working shall be the basis for their 9 OA 1862/2016 absorption. Since the Applicant was working as Senior Data Entry operator on cadre basis in scale Rs.1400-2300 (i.e. Rs.5000-8000 in V Pay Commission) since 25.04.1995, he was absorbed in the corresponding/equivalent grade as Junior Engineer/Information Technology w.e.f 01.04.2005 in scale Rs.5000-8000 as per the conditions laid down at para 7(i) of Railway Board's order dated 17.11.2004.
3.3 The applicant was working in Chennai area all along in the Zonal Headquarters wherein all the posts in the then Electronic Data Processing centers were filled on cadre basis, whereas the 5 th respondent, till he got his elevation to the post of Asst. Electronic Processing Manager, was working in Golden Rock Workshop where all the posts were filled on ex-cadre basis. Also in terms of PBC No.233/3007 a decision was taken in consultation with the recognised unions to have 2 distinct seniority units for SE Gr.I and SE Gr.II, i.e., one for the staff working in Electronic Data Processing Centres of Chennai area and another for the staff working in Electronic Data Processing Centres of Golden Rock workshop Madurai division and Palghat Division. The applicant without analysing the facts has falsely alleging at this distant date that the absorption of the 5 th respondent as Senior Engineer-II w.e.f. 01.04.2005 was not in accordance with the instructions issued in Railway Board letter dated 17.11.2004. The 5 th respondent was working in a distinct seniority unit at the time of his 10 OA 1862/2016 promotion as Section Engineer-II whereas the applicant was working in another seniority unit and the promotion of the 5 th respondent has no way affected the elevation of the applicant at his unit. Moreover, had the applicant got any grievances at the time of re-organisation of Electronic Data Processing Center staff, he would have brought the same to the notice of the authorities concerned at that time itself. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the OA.
4. Refuting the averments made in the reply, the applicant has filed a rejoinder wherein he has stated that the subsequent promotions given to the 5" respondent to the posts of Senior Data Entry Operator on 27.10.1988 and General Supervisor on 05.03.1991 and Data Processing Superintendent on 17.03.1993 are not regular cadre based promotions and these promotions were all promotions to the ex-cadre posts. Hence the said promotions to the ex-cadre posts cannot therefore be construed as regular promotions and thus the applicant who is senior in the cadre-based post is entitled to be considered on par with the 5th respondent who had been promoted to the ex-cadre posts.
4.1 Further, on 01.04.2005 when the reorganization took place, it was proposed to have unit wise seniority for the post of Junior Engineer and Zonal Wise seniority for the post of Senior Engineer. By the Sixth Pay Commission the post of Junior Engineer (IT) Grade-ll and the post of Junior engineer(IT) Grade-l were merged and the post of 11 OA 1862/2016 Junior engineer (IT) in pay band 9300-34800 with grade pay Rs. 4200 was provided for. The post of Senior Engineer(IT) Grades were also merged as Senior Engineer(IT) and the pay band of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4600/ was provided for in the re organized set up. It was provided in Railway Board Letter dated 17.11.2004 that the new IT cadre set up shall be under administrative and professional control of FA&CAO of Zonal railway and Production units and so far as zonal railways are concerned, IT cadre will be a unified cadre covering the existing EDP centres and computer centres in divisions, workshops and stores depot and will be centrally controlled by Zonal Railways headquarters. However the first two grades namely the entry grade of Junior Engineer (IT) Grade II in the Pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 and Junior Engineer (IT) grade I in the Pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 will be decentralized and may be filled up Unit-wise. However, when the regular cadre is considered for the purpose of seniority, despite being junior the 5th respondent has been considered for next higher post, which is a Group B post and he continues to avail all benefits accruing from such promotion. The 5th respondent was only holding the post of Head Typist in scale Rs. 1400-2300 from August 1997 in his regular cadre, namely, the typist cadre, his subsequent regularization ought to be done only with reference to his promotions in his cadre and not with reference to his ex-cadre post. Further the Railway reforms committee had provided instructions which were issued vide letter 12 OA 1862/2016 number E(NG)1/85/PM1/12(RRC) dated 19.02.1987, wherein two years' service was prescribed in the immediate lower grade for promotions within Group-C. However, in the case of the 5th respondent, the reply states that the 5th respondent was promoted from the ex-cadre post of Data Entry Operator to the ex-cadre post of Senior Data Entry Operator within a period of just seven months, which is in clear violation of the instructions. Within a span of less than five years from the date of the 5th respondent's appointment to the ex-cadre post of Data Entry Operator on 13.05.1988, the said 5th respondent was granted nearly three promotions to the ex-cadre posts, that is, to the ex-cadre post of Senior Data Entry Operator on 27.10.1988, to the ex-cadre post of General Supervisor on 05.03.1991 and thereafter to the post of Data Processing Superintendent on 17.03.1993. While the said 5th respondent had been granted such promotions to the ex-cadre posts periodically, the applicant who has been holding the cadre post all along, was promoted to the post of Senior Data Entry Operator (redesignated as Junior Engineer) only on 29.08.1996 and is yet to be considered for promotion to the next higher promotion post of Senior Engineer, even after working continuously in the cadre based post in the EDP cadre for nearly thirty years.
4.2 The applicant further submitted that as per the information obtained under the Right to Information Act, the notings dated 13 OA 1862/2016 05.10.2007 and 18.12.2007 indicate that separate seniority is maintained for Chennai area and for other units, namely, GOC, MDU and PGT both for Junior Engineer and Senior Engineer cadres. However, as per the Railway Board letter, the seniority in the cadre of Junior Engineer ought to be maintained Unit wise and in the cadre Senior Engineer the seniority ought to be maintained Zonal wise. As per Railway Board Letter dated 24.06.2011, it is specifically stated that the ratification of the decision taken for forming two seniority units for Senior Engineer, one for Chennai and another for other than Chennai area has been examined and it has been advised that the decision may be taken in consultation with both the recognized Unions. The applicant submits that such consultation had not taken place with at least one of the recognized Unions. Despite that, on account of the implementation of such different seniority, the applicant had been deprived of promotion.
5. Heard the applicant in person and Mr.Sai Srujan Tayi, learned standing counsel for the respondents and perused the material placed on record.
6. Perused the pleadings, heard the rival contentions and scrutinised the whole conspectus of the case.
7. In the instant case, the applicant has prayed for quashing of the impugned orders dated 19.07.2016 and 14.08.2016. It is submitted by the applicant that the applicant joined the respondent organisation 14 OA 1862/2016 as a Clerk in the year 1983 and had subsequent promotion on 01.07.1987 as Senior Clerk and on 08.07.1987 joined the Electronic Data Processing cadre as Data Entry Operator in scale Rs.1350-2200 and subsequently on 25.04.1995 promoted as Senior Data Entry Operator in scale Rs.1400-2300 (Rs.5000-8000 in 5 th CPC) and finally on 01.04.2005 promoted as Junior Engineer/IT in scale Rs.5000-8000. As per the Railway Board notification No.2002/AC-II/37/8 dated 17.11.2004, the staffing pattern is encadred only in Zonal and Production Units' EDP Centres; others being manned on ex-cadre basis. As per the submissions made by the applicant one Mr.N.Janarthan of Typist cadre joined the EDP cadre as a Data Entry Operator on 13.05.1988. The aforementioned Railway Board notification clearly mentions that the grade in which they are working shall be the basis for their absorption in the corresponding/equivalent grade. Mr.S.Janarthan joined the EDP cadre in the scale Rs.1350- 2200. After joining the EDP centre as per the Railway Board notification for subsequent promotions, a staff in the EDP centre needs to have a minimum of five years service in the immediate lower grade. In the case of Mr.S.Janarthan he received subsequent promotions on 27.10.1988 as Senior Data Entry Operator in the scale of Rs.1400- 2300 (5000-8000 in 5th CPC), on 05.03.1991 as General Supervisor in the scale of Rs.1600-2660(5500-9000 in 5 th CPC), on 17.03.1993 as Data Processing Superintendent in the scale Rs.2000-3200 (6500- 15 OA 1862/2016 10500 in 5th CPC) and on 01.04.2005 as Section Engineer in scale Rs.6500-10500. It is visible that in none of these promotions, the norm of 5 years experience in the lower scale has been followed. All these promotions are mentioned to be given on the basis of the staff/officer being on ex-cadre basis. However, in the Typist cadre also, the corresponding promotions were made in the years 1997 and 2008. Thus the contention that the promotion accorded to Mr.S.Janarthan on 27.10.1988 on ex-cadre basis does not hold ground.
8. The relief as prayed for by the applicant is to absorb the applicant in the post of Senior Engineer Grade-II on par with the 5th respondent with effect from the date of reorganization and grant him all attendant benefits and the applicant is currently functioning as Junior Engineer IT in the scale of Rs.5000-8000. From the available records, it is evident that the applicant was absorbed as JE-IT on cadre re-organisation on 01.04.2005 in the scale Rs.5000-8000 and since then he has been functioning in the same post. As per the records available it is not evident why he was not considered for subsequent promotions. The contention of the applicant that his contemporary Mr.S.Janarthan, the 5th respondent was accorded promotions in contravention to the established rules of the Railway Board and he being senior to him on joining the EDP cadre should also be placed in the same position/scale as that of 5th respondent, does not hold ground. The respondent authorities have not produced any 16 OA 1862/2016 directions/orders in respect of the promotions of the 5 th respondent. The issue in the instant OA is not to enter into the legality of the aforementioned promotions of the 5 th respondent. If the said promotions are accused of being illegal not following the norms/rules, this fact mere cannot hold the applicant eligible for the required relief of according promotion on par with the 5 th respondent. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that the cadre re-organisation for EDP Centres was effected in the year 2005. Since then the 5 th respondent has attained three promotions and the applicant has not raised any objections that he raised only in the year 2016, vide the current OA. All these years he has been a fence sitter. On this count also, the OA does not deserve merit. It is a fact of law that if a promotion is illegal, others cannot claim parity with it as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghulam Rasool Lone Vs. State of J & K & Ors 2009 (15) SCC 321. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the relief for illegal promotions cannot be granted if the petitioner delays the action significantly (laches) and the promotion was based on a prior illegal relaxation of rules, even if another employee previously benefitted.
9. In the light of the above, this OA deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, the OA is dismissed. No costs.
(M.L.SRIVASTAVA) (M.SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER (J)
04.02.2026
THANG Digitally signed
by THANGAM M
AM M Date: 2026.03.03
12:43:40 +05'30'