Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
M Prakash vs South Western Railway on 31 October, 2025
1
O.A.No.170/00686/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.170/00686/2024
Order Reserved on: 27.10.2025
Date of Order: 31.10.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
M.Prakash
S/o.M.Shastri
Aged 55 years
Chief Office Superintendent (stores)
Construction unit, South Western Railway
# 18, Millers Road
Cantonment, Bengaluru-560 046 ...... Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri.K.Shivakumar)
Vs.
1. Union of India
Rep. By General Manager
South Western Railway
Rail Soudha, Gadag Road
Hubballi - 580 020
2. Principal Chief Personnel Officer
South Western Railway
Rail Soudha, Gadag Road
Hubballi - 580 020 ......Respondents
(By Advocate Shri. Sayed S Kazi)
SHAI SHAINEY
CAT
VIJU
NEY Bangalore
2025.11.04
17:30:12
VIJU +05'30'
2
O.A.No.170/00686/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
ORDER
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act. 1985 to claim the following reliefs:
"(i) Quash the communication of second respondent dated 4.11.2024 (Annexure A7) as unconstitutional, illogical and against rules;
(ii) Direct the respondents to extend the benefit of financial upgradation in Level 8 to the applicant from June 2024 against one existing vacancy with all consequential benefits, as he is the only eligible incumbent available in the category of Chief Office Superintendent in Level-7 as on date; and
(iii) Grant any other relief or reliefs as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity."
2. The reliefs are claimed based on the grounds as mentioned in paragraphs 5(1) to 5(4) of the Original Application. The brief facts of the case of the applicant, as mentioned in the synopsis of the O. A are that the applicant is working as Chief Office Superintendent in the Construction Unit of South Western Railway, Bengaluru cantonment, and he asserts that he is entitled to financial upgradation to Level-8 based on the orders of the Railway Board dated 17.11.2022 (Annexure A1) against one post lying vacant as on date. SHAI SHAINEY CAT VIJU NEY Bangalore 2025.11.04 17:30:12 VIJU +05'30' 3 O.A.No.170/00686/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
3. The applicant further asserts that since he is the only employee available in Level-7 entitled for upgradation, he submitted representation on 11.09.2024 requesting grant of financial upgradation (Annexure A6). But his request was not considered, stating that the post is reserved for the 'SC' category (Annexure A7), duly ignoring the decision of the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in O.A No.327/2023 and the fact that the post is meant for UR. As the decision of the respondents is unconstitutional, discriminatory, arbitrary, irrational and against rules and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the applicant is approaching this Tribunal seeking justice through this O.A.
4. On notice, respondents have filed their reply statement. No rejoinder has been filed by the applicant thereafter.
5. When the case came up for final hearing on 27.10.2025, learned counsel Shri.K.Shivakumar for the applicant and Shri.Sayed S Kazi for the respondents were present and heard.
6. We have carefully gone through the records and considered the rival contentions.
SHAI SHAINEY CAT VIJU NEY Bangalore 2025.11.04 17:30:12 VIJU +05'30' 4 O.A.No.170/00686/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
7. The contention of the applicant regarding the grounds of this Original Application is that he is the only eligible person available in the cadre of Chief Office Superintendent in Level 7 for financial upgradation to Level 8 against one vacancy available as on date and the contention of the respondents that the same is reserved for the SC category is against the rules. He further asserts that in Level 8 one SC employee by the name Sri.Sankar S is already available to fulfil the requirements of SC, if any. So there is no requirement of another SC employee in Level 8. Further, there is no other person other than the applicant is available in Level-7 to get financial upgradation to Level-
8. The vacancy at level-7 can be filled only by promotion and not by upgradation from Level 6 and the decision of the respondents to promote an SC employee to Level 7 has no bearing on the granting of upgradation to the applicant to level-8.
8. Further, the applicant asserts that even if an SC employee is promoted to Level-7 from Level-6, he cannot be granted financial upgradation to level-8 unless he completes the residency period of 2 years in Level-7. So the statement of the second respondent that action has already been initiated to fill up the vacancy in Level-8 with a reserved employee is highly ridiculous and made with non-application SHAI SHAINEY CAT VIJU NEY Bangalore 2025.11.04 17:30:12 VIJU +05'30' 5 O.A.No.170/00686/2024/CAT/BANGALORE of mind. The applicant further asserts that the reservation is not applicable in financial upgradation, and it is applicable only in promotion, and the same has been clearly explained by the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in their order dated 1.12.2023 in O.A No.327/2023.
9. The respondents, in their reply to the grounds, mention that the averment is denied. That the reservation benefits are extended to the employees is as per the constitutional provisions of Article 16(4A) as there is no deviation in extending the benefit of reservation in promotion as per the constitutional provision.as under:-
"Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which in the opinion of State are not adequately represented in the services under the State."
10. The respondents further submit that the Court orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in O.A No.327/2023 referred by the above employee is for an individual case, and it is not applicable to the whole of Indian Railways. SHAI SHAINEY CAT VIJU NEY Bangalore 2025.11.04 17:30:12 VIJU +05'30' 6 O.A.No.170/00686/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
11. They have further stated in paragraph 7 of the reply statement that, in terms of instructions contained in RBE No.91/2023 dated 14.07.2023, it is clarified that:-
" 1. In case of Mass Up-gradation, where a grade of whole cadre is upgraded from existing grade to higher grade and where all the incumbents are placed in higher grade, without creation of new posts, reservation shall not be applicable.
2. However, in cases, where a portion of the sanctioned cadre strength is upgraded to an existing higher grade in that category or a new higher grade, resulting in increase in number of posts, then the reservation is to be applied to parted strength in lower grade as well as upgraded strength."
12. We have carefully considered the case of the applicant with reference to the order of the C.A.T Mumbai Bench in O.A No.327/2023, dated 1st December 2023, wherein the Tribunal has observed that the questions involved in that Original Application were:
(a) whether vacancies were created because of 50 percent upgradation;
(b) whether the impugned order is upgradation or promotion; and (c) whether reservation is applicable in case of promotion or upgradation.
If we compare the facts of the said case and these issues framed, we find that they are identical with the case in hand in the present O.A No.170/686/2024.
SHAI SHAINEY CAT VIJU NEY Bangalore 2025.11.04 17:30:12 VIJU +05'30' 7 O.A.No.170/00686/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
13. In the Original Application No.327/2023 before the Mumbai Bench, the applicant had joined the Railways in the post of Junior Clerk on 8th May 1990, and she was working as Chief Office Superintendent. The post of Chief Office Superintendent as per Railway Board Order dated 17th November 2022 carried a Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- in PB-II (Level-7) and, after approval from the Ministry of Finance, issued a circular dated 17th November 2022 on the subject of upgradation of pay structure of certain cadres vide which upgradation of pay structure of certain group "C" cadres of Ministry of Railway was approved. The upgrdation was with effect from 1.12.2022. 50 percent of posts in a particular category of post are upgradated to the next level i.e., from Grade pay of Rs.4600/- to Grade Pay of Rs.4800/-. The remaining 50 percent of the posts will continue in Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- and there will not be any change in the nomenclature/designation, duties and responsibilities, and they will remain classified in Group "C." There was no change in the vacancy position/cadre structure. There was no enhancement or additional vacancies created in the said upgradation and the upgradation of pay structure is only financial upgradation and not promotion.
SHAI SHAINEY CAT VIJU NEY Bangalore 2025.11.04 17:30:12 VIJU +05'30' 8 O.A.No.170/00686/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
14. In the present case also the applicant is working as Chief Office Superintendent in level 7 and, as per RBE 155/2022, dated 17.11.2022 with regard to upgradation of pay structure of 50 percent posts from level 7 (Grade Pay Rs.4600/-) to level 8 (Grade Pay Rs.4800) has been done and that further upgradation of these 50 percent posts in Level 8 (Grade Pay Rs.4800/-) to Level 9 (Grade Pay 5400) on non-functional basis after 4 years of service in Level-8 and a clarificatory order was issued by the Railway Board in which it was stated that there is no change in the classification or functional responsibilities/duties performed with respect to the upgraded posts in Level 8 and Level 9. As such, the upgraded posts may be classified as non-selection and may be filled up on the basis of seniority, scrutiny of service records and confidential reports, without holding any written tests and / or viva-voce. Hence, it is clear that the facts and circumstances of the case are identical and the issues which were framed in the Original Application No.327/2023 preferred before the Mumbai Bench were one and the same as required to be decided in the present case before us, and the said issues are already decided by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal, and hence the said issues do not remain res-integra anymore before us.
SHAI SHAINEY CAT VIJU NEY Bangalore 2025.11.04 17:30:12 VIJU +05'30' 9 O.A.No.170/00686/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
15. The parties agreed that the said order has attained finality. The only point of difference between the parties is that the respondent department asserts that the said order is in personam and not in rem and so it is not applicable to the present application, whereas the applicant claims that the said order is in rem and is applicable to his case also.
16. We have carefully gone through the said order, which, inter-alia other things, mentions the following:-
"11. ........ In the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra), Supreme Court has explained principles, regarding promotions and upgradations and in which case reservation will be applicable and in which case it will not be applicable. In para 29, Supreme Court held thus:
29. On a careful analysis of the principles relating to promotion and upgradation in the light of the aforesaid decisions, the following principles emerge:
(i) Promotion is an advancement in rank or grade or both and is a step towards advancement to higher position, grade or honour and dignity. Though in the traditional sense promotion refers to advancement to a higher post, in its wider sense, promotion may include an advancement to a higher pay scale without moving to a different post. But the mere fact that both that is advancement to a higher position and advancement to a higher pay scale are described by the common term promotion', does not mean that they are the same. The two types of SHAI SHAINEY CAT VIJU NEY Bangalore 2025.11.04 17:30:12 VIJU +05'30' 10 O.A.No.170/00686/2024/CAT/BANGALORE promotion are distinct and have different connotations and consequences.
(ii) Upgradation merely confers a financial benefit by raising the scale of pay of the post without there being movement from a lower to a In an position higher position. upgradation, the candidate continues to hold the same post without any change in the duties and responsibilities but merely gets a higher pay scale.
(iii) Therefore, when there is an advancement to a higher pay scale without change of post, it may be referred to as upgradation promotion to a higher pay scale. But there is still difference between the two. Where the advancement to a higher pay-scale without change of post is available to everyone who satisfies the eligibility conditions, without undergoing any process of selection, it will be upgradation. But if the advancement to a higher pay-scale without change of post is as a result of some process which has elements of selection, then it will be a promotion to a higher pay scale. In other words, upgradation by application of a process of selection, as contrasted from an upgradation simpliciter can be said to be a promotion in its wider sense that is advancement to a higher pay scale.
(iv) Generally, upgradation relates to and applies to all positions in a category, who have completed a minimum period of service. Upgradation, can also be restricted to a percentage of posts in a cadre with reference to seniority (instead of being made available to all employees in the category) and it will still be an SHAI SHAINEY CAT VIJU NEY Bangalore 2025.11.04 17:30:12 VIJU +05'30' 11 O.A.No.170/00686/2024/CAT/BANGALORE upgradation simpliciter. But if there is a process of selection or consideration of comparative merit or suitability for granting the upgradation or benefit of advancement to a higher pay scale, it will be a promotion. A mere screening to eliminate such employees whose service records may contain adverse entries or who might have suffered punishment, may not amount to a process of selection leading to promotion and the elimination may still be a part of the process of upgradation simpliciter. Where the upgradation involves a process of selection criteria similar to those applicable to promotion, then it will, in effect, be a promotion, though termed as upgradation.
(v) Where the process 18 simpliciter, there is no need to apply rules of an upgradation reservation. But where the upgradation involves selection process and is therefore a promotion, rules of reservation will apply.
(vi) Where there is a restructuring of some cadres resulting in creation of additional posts and filling of those vacancies by those who satisfy the conditions of eligibility which includes a minimum period of service, will attract the rules of reservation. On the other hand, where the restructuring of posts does not involve creation of additional posts but merely results in some of the existing posts being placed in a higher grade to provide relief against stagnation, the said process does not invite reservation."
12. From this decision of Supreme Court, it is clear that promotion is an advancement in rank or grade SHAI SHAINEY CAT VIJU NEY Bangalore 2025.11.04 17:30:12 VIJU +05'30' 12 O.A.No.170/00686/2024/CAT/BANGALORE or both and is a step towards advancement to or honour or a higher position, grade dignity. Upgradation merely confers a financial upgradation by raising the scale of pay of the post without their being movement from a lower post to a higher post and the candidate continues to hold the same post without any change in the duties and responsibilities but merely gets a higher grade pay. When there is a process of selection consideration of comparative merit or suitability for granting the upgradation or benefit of adavacement to a higher pay scale, it will be promotion. A mere scrutiny to eliminate such employees whose service record may contain adverse entries or who might have suffered punishment may not amount to a process of selection leading to promotion and the elimination may still be a part of the process of upgradation simpliciter. Where upgradation involves the process of selection with criteria similar those applicable to promotion, then it will be termed as promotion, though termed as upgradation. This Supreme Court decision further explains that when there is upgradation similiciter, there is no need to apply the rules of reservation but when the upgradation involves the selection process, then it is promotion, and the rule of reservation will apply.
13. If this principle is applied to the present case, the conclusion that necessarily leads is that the upgradation in the case at hand is not promotion but it is upgradation simpliciter. The letter dated 17th November, 2022 regarding upgradation of pay scale of certain categories states that there will be no change in the nomenclature/ designation, duties and responsibilities and classification of the posts after upgradation and they will remain classified as Group "C".
14. This clearly explains that there is change in duty, nomenclature or designation and responsibilities. As explained by Supreme Court in SHAI SHAINEY CAT VIJU NEY Bangalore 2025.11.04 17:30:12 VIJU +05'30' 13 O.A.No.170/00686/2024/CAT/BANGALORE the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra), the test to determine whether upgradation is promotion is when the upgradation involves a process of selection with criteria similar to those applicable to promotion, then it will be a promotion, though it is styled as upgradation. In the case at hand nowhere respondents have contended that the selection criteria similar to promotion have been applied. No document, no rules, no circular has been placed on record to show as to what are the criteria for promotion and the similar criteria have been applied for upgradation. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is a promotion. The criteria applied for upgradation as per letter dated 01st December, 2022 are seniority, scrutiny of service record and confidential records without holding any written test or any viva voce. As indicated earlier, there is nothing on record to gauge that these are the criteria for promotion. upgradation is not Therefore, the promotion but it is upgradation simpliciter. When there is upgradation simpliciter, whether it is partial or mass upgradation, reservation will not apply.
15. There is no change in designation, responsiblilities, duties. Therefore, this is not a promotion but it is upgradation simpliciter. Therefore, the respondents were not justified in applying reservation.
16. The respondents have not placed anything on record to show how many posts were upgraded on account of which vacancies had arisen. They could have produced the order of upgradation of the post of Chief Office Superintendent. The order dated 04th April, 2023 shows that it is upgradation and 18 candidates have been upgraded. The order dated 11th April, 2023 shows that the same candidates have been shown to have been promoted. Therefore, it cannot be said that these promotions were made to fill up the vacancy created on account of upgradation.
SHAI SHAINEY CAT VIJU NEY Bangalore 2025.11.04 17:30:12 VIJU +05'30' 14 O.A.No.170/00686/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
17. In view of the above, it is clear that the impugned order is not of promotion but it is upgradation similiciter and reservation was not permissible to be applied. The respondents have stated in their reply that one vacancy of SC & ST is still there. The applicant is at Sr. No. 20. She ought to have been considered for upgradation. Respondents did not consider her because of application of reservation. Since reservation is not applicable, this post can be given to the applicant.
18. In view of the above, we find it appropriate to allow this OA and direct the respondents to grant financial upgradation to the applicant in the 01 vacant post of SC candidate, subject to her eligibility.
19. In the light of above, OA is allowed. Respondents are directed to grant upgradation from Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- Level-7 to Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/- Level-8 to the applicant in 01 vacant post of SC, if she is found eligible. Pending MAS, if any, stand closed. No cost."
17. Clearly, the order and the reasoning are clear, and it cannot be said to be an order in mere personam, and we cannot in any way disagree with the reasoning of the said order or pass a contrary order to the said citation. We further note that the respondents in their reply statement at paragraph 7 refer to the terms of instructions contained in RBE No.91/2023 dated 14.7.2023, which clarified as under:
" a. In case of Mass Up-gradation, where a grade of whole cadre is upgraded from existing grade to higher grade and where all the incumbents are placed in higher grade, SHAI SHAINEY CAT VIJU NEY Bangalore 2025.11.04 17:30:12 VIJU +05'30' 15 O.A.No.170/00686/2024/CAT/BANGALORE without creation of new posts, reservation shall not be applicable.
b. However, in cases, where a portion of the sanctioned cadre strength is upgraded to an existing higher grade in that category or a new higher grade, resulting in increase in number of posts, then the reservation is to be applied to parted strength in lower grade as well as upgraded strength."
18. Reading of the Clause (a) clearly mentioned that where all the incumbents are placed in higher grade, without creation of new posts, reservation shall not be applicable. And Clause (b) further emphasized that in case where a portion of the sanctioned cadre strength is upgraded to an existing higher grade in that category or a new grade resulting in increase in number of posts, then the reservation is to be applied to parted strength in lower grade as well as upgraded strength. From the pleadings of the parties it is evident that both parties agree that there is no resulting increase in number of posts due to upgradation in the present case. Hence clearly there was no case for reservation in this case of upgradation simpliciter.
19. Considering the same, we are of the considered opinion that the applicant has made out a good case for himself to get an order in terms of the said order in O.A 327/2023 dated 1.12.2023 of the Mumbai Bench of C.A.T, which is based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision SHAI SHAINEY CAT VIJU NEY Bangalore 2025.11.04 17:30:12 VIJU +05'30' 16 O.A.No.170/00686/2024/CAT/BANGALORE in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. R. Santhakumari Velusamy and Others, (2011) 9 Supreme Court Cases 510. In our considered opinion the upgradation in hand is merely by upgradation and is not by either creation of any new post or requiring any promotion, as there is no change in designation, responsibilities and duties, the upgradation is clearly a process of upgradation simpliciter, as per the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. R. Santhakumari Velusamy and Others (supra). Hence in this case there is no need to apply the rules of reservation as this upgradation is merely a financial upgradation by raising the pay from a lower post to a higher post and the candidate continues without any change in duties and responsibilities and merely gets a higher Grade Pay.
20. The applicant has further cited another O.A No.195/2024 dated 11.7.2025, but as the facts of that case are different and issues are distinct, the orders in the said case are not relevant as this case is considered. Hence, considering the above discussions, we pass the following orders:
The Original Application is allowed. The communication dated 04.11.2024 (Annexure A-7) of the second respondent is set aside. The competent authority among the respondents are directed to grant SHAI SHAINEY CAT VIJU NEY Bangalore 2025.11.04 17:30:12 VIJU +05'30' 17 O.A.No.170/00686/2024/CAT/BANGALORE financial upgradation in Level 8 from the eligible date against one existing vacancy since June 2024 with all consequential benefits to the applicant, as he is the only eligible incumbent available in the category of Chief Office Superintendent in Level 7, subject to his eligibility.
Accordingly, Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending are disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Sv
SHAI SHAINEY
CAT
VIJU
NEY Bangalore
2025.11.04
17:30:12
VIJU +05'30'