Kerala High Court
Union Of India vs G. Somanathan Nair on 4 June, 2025
1
OP CAT 199/2024
2025:KER:42278
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1947
OP (CAT) NO. 199 OF 2024
OA NO.751 OF 2006 OF CAT,ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN THE OA:
1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI, PIN - 600003
3 CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER
SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI, PIN - 600003
4 SR. DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER
PALAKKAD DIVISION, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD, PIN - 680002
BY ADV SHRI.K.SHRI HARI RAO, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS IN THE OA:
1 G. SOMANATHAN NAIR, AGED 83 YEARS
S/O. GOPALAN NAIR, RESIDING AT SREEPADAM, S.K. LANE, PERINTHALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM., PIN - 679322
2 V. NANDHAKUMAR, AGED 81 YEARS, S/O. S.V. RAMA VARIYAR, RESIDING AT 7/D1,
NANDANA, WOODCOTE, COONOOR, PIN - 643102
3 C. VENU, AGED 79 YEARS, S/O. A. CHAKRAPANI, RESIDING AT RAVENDHU, NO. 52, RAIL
NAGAR, OLAVAKKODE PO, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678002
BY ADVS. SMT.ALINA ANNA KOSE
SMT.P.I.RAHEENA, SMT.AKHILA S.
SMT.KARTHIKA GANESH, SHRI.VISHNU PRASAD N.K.
SHRI.NAYAN LAL A.,
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV SRI. M. R HARIRAJ SR.
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
OP CAT 199/2024
2025:KER:42278
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 4th day of June 2025) Basant Balaji J., The Petitioners are the Respondents in O.A. No.751 of 2006, on the files of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The Respondents were the Applicants therein. The Original Application was filed to quash Annexure Nos.A13 and A14 to the extent it refuses revision in dates of promotion to the dates given to their junior in each grade and its consequential benefits. A further direction is also sought to revise the dates of promotion of the Applicants to each grade to the dates of promotion of their juniors available in that grades on the date on which Applicants are deemed to enter such grade and give them all consequential benefits including refixation of pay, pension and other monetary benefits, and arrears of such monetary benefit with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The Tribunal allowed the prayers in full. Aggrieved by the said order, this Original Petition is filed by the Respondents.
2. For a proper understanding of the case, brief facts of the case are narrated below:
The Applicants commenced their service in the Southern Railway as Assistant Station Masters. According to the Applicants, many of their juniors were given accelerated promotion to various grades by applying the principle of reservation in promotion. The juniors, who were given accelerated 3 OP CAT 199/2024 2025:KER:42278 promotion, continued in the grade, and the seniority of the Applicants was not restored in accordance with the seniority in the lower grade. The Applicants, therefore preferred Original Applications claiming recasting of seniority, which was disposed of by the Tribunal in O.A. No.552 of 1990 and connected cases, holding that the principles of reservation operate on cadre strength and that seniority vis-à-vis reserved and underserved categories of employees in the lower category will be reflected in the promoted category also notwithstanding the earlier promotion granted to juniors. This was challenged before the Apex Court in S.L.P. No.106 of 1995, which was ultimately dismissed, and the order of the Tribunal has become final. Thereafter, the Railway continued to give promotion based on erroneous seniority, which was challenged in O.A.No.1488 of 1995 and the Tribunal directed to draw his roster as in Circular No. 95-E (SCT) 1/49/5(1) dated 21 August 1997 and to prepare the seniority list accordingly.
3. The final seniority list published was challenged again in O.A. No.282 of 1998 on the ground that it was not in accordance with the Tribunal's order. The Original Application was dismissed, and it was challenged in O.P. No.16893 of 1998. This Court directed the Tribunal to reconcile the claim in the light of the decision reported in Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab and others1. Alleging non-compliance of the directions of the Tribunal, CCC Nos.48 of 2001 and 1740 of 2000 were filed. But the same were also closed, holding that Respondents have not voluntarily flouted the 1 1999 (7) SCC 209 4 OP CAT 199/2024 2025:KER:42278 orders of the court. It went up to the Apex Court, and in S.L.P. No.5629 of 1997, the matter was again remitted to the Tribunal. By Order dated 20.04.2004, the O.A. was allowed directing the Respondents to issue orders as applicable to the Applicants in O.A. No. 552 of 1991, applying the principles laid down.
4. After the issuance of the orders, CCC No.48 of 2001 was filed before this Court, contending that the seniority list was not prepared in accordance with the directions. In such circumstances, Annexure Nos.A13 J/P.612/VIII/Vol.VII dated 30.9.2004 and A14, J/P.612/VIII/Vol.VII dated 24.1.2025 were issued, which are challenged in this Original Application.
5. The main ground on which Annexure Nos.A13 and A14 are challenged is that the Applicants were compared with one Sri.V. Rajan, who got promotions in all the grades. The date of promotion of Rajan to the scale of 455-700 was not on 18 September 1980, but on 1 October 1979. The contention was that once the Applicants are appointed to the scale of 455- 700, they should be ranked senior to all juniors, who continued in the grade on the date of appointment. It was also contended that as per the combined seniority list of 2375-3500 as on 1 April 1994, the juniors to the Applicants other than Sri.V.Rajan were promoted prior to 1 August 1982, the date of promotion of the Applicants from the scale of 550- 750 to the higher grade of 700-900.
6. One Mr.Meghanathan, who entered into service on 18 March 1968, who was junior to the Applicants, was promoted to the grade of 700- 900 on 15 October 1982 and since he was continuing in the scale of 550-750 as on 1 5 OP CAT 199/2024 2025:KER:42278 August 1982, the date of appointment of the Applicants in that grade, the Applicants ought to be considered in the grades of 700 - 900 with reference to the date of promotion of Mr.Meghanathan. Thus, the date of promotion of the Applicants to the grade of 700- 900 ought to have been on 15 October 1982 and not 16 November 1984 as given in the Annex.Nos.A13 and A14. Mr.Meghanathan was again promoted to 840- 1040 on 1 August 1983, and thus, the date of promotion of the Applicants must also be revised to 1 August 1983 instead of 10 July 1998 as done in Annex.Nos.A13 and Annex.A14. The Tribunal disposed of the matter by order dated 22 September 2009, allowing the claim of the Applicants partly. The Applicants as well as the Respondents challenged the order before this Court by filing O.P. (C.A.T.) No. 190 of 2011 and W.P.(C.) No. 24069 of 2010 and connected cases.
7. A Division Bench of this court, by a common Judgment dated 17 October 2017, remanded the matter to the Tribunal on three specific points. It is, thereafter, the order impugned is passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered three points under the two heads, Point No.1 separately and Point Nos. 2 and 3 together separately. Point No.1 was, whether there were any factual mistakes in the order of the Tribunal regarding the due date of promotion of the first Applicant and that of Rajan, which had affected the final relief. The Tribunal found that Rajan's promotion to the scale of 455- 700 was incorrectly mentioned as 18 September 1980, and he was actually promoted to that grade on 1 October 1979. In such circumstances, the Applicants who are appointed to the scale of 455-700 should also be promoted and placed as seniors to all juniors, who continued in that grade on 6 OP CAT 199/2024 2025:KER:42278 the date of appointment.
8. Moreover, in the combined seniority list of 2,375-3,500, as on 1 April 1994, the individuals who were junior to the Applicants other than Rajan were promoted prior to 1 August 1982. Mr.Meghanathan was promoted to the grade of 700-900 on 15 October 1982, and he was continuing the scale of 550- 750 as on 1 August 1982, and therefore, the Applicants should also be considered to the grade of 700-900 with reference to the date of promotion of Mr.Meghanathan. He was again promoted to 840- 1,040 on 1 August 1983, and thus, the promotion of the Applicants ought to have been revised to 1 August 1983 instead of 10 July 1998 as in Annex.Nos.A13 and A14.
9. The Division Bench, while disposing of W.P.(C) No.24069 of 2010 and O.P.(CAT.) No.190 of 2011 and connected cases had found that there had been some factual mistakes regarding the date of promotion given to the first Applicant. The Tribunal found that the date of promotion of Rajan to Station Master Grade - III was shown as 18 September 1980. In fact, it ought to have been 1 October 1979. Thus, the Tribunal has concluded that the Applicants are also entitled to be promoted as Station Master Grade-III in the pay scale of 455 -700 with effect from 1 October 1979 and accordingly, the pay has to be fixed.
10. As far as the claim regarding seniority of the Applicants in par with Mr.Meghanathan, the Tribunal, relying on paragraph 81 of Ajith Singh II's (supra) case, held that Mr.Meghanathan was promoted to the post of SM Grade-II on 20 March 1977 and SM on 15 October 1982. As on 15 October 7 OP CAT 199/2024 2025:KER:42278 1982, the Applicants were only in the grade of Senior ASM, which was 3 steps below Station Master Grade - 1. In Ajith Singh (supra)'s case, it was specifically mentioned that in case any general candidate at level 2 reaches level 3, before the reserved candidate at level 3 goes further to level 4, in that case the seniority at level 3 has to be modified by placing general candidate above the roster promotee, reflecting them inter se seniority at level 2. Further, promotion to level 4 must be on the basis of such a modified seniority at level 3, namely, that Senior General Candidate of level 2 will remain senior level also at level 3 to the reserved candidate, even if the latter has reached level 3 earlier and remained there till the senior candidate reaches the level.
11. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in M.G. Badappanavar and another v. State of Karnataka and others2 . It was held that the Applicants are entitled to step up to par with the juniors at each level till they catch up with their junior. It was also held that the revision of seniority of the Applicants has to be done at each level with reference to the junior of the applicants promoted to that level, and the date of promotion of the Applicants will have to be refixed accordingly. Ultimately the Tribunal held that the claim of the Applicants is to be allowed and the benefits arising out of the re-working of the seniority in terms of monetary benefits has to be paid and the Applicants are also entitled for interest at the rate of 6% calculated from the respective dates when it became due till the date of payment.
12. The main ground on which this Original Petition is filed is that the 2 [(2001) 2 SCC 666] 8 OP CAT 199/2024 2025:KER:42278 Tribunal, after remand by this Court of W.P.(C) No.24069 of 2010 and O.P.(CAT.) No.190 of 2011 and connected cases have not considered paragraph No.19 of the Judgment. A perusal of the judgment of this Court would show that a common judgment was passed, wherein O.A. No.751 of 2006, which was challenged in W.P.C No. 24069 of 2010 and O.P. (CAT) No.190 of 2011, was separately dealt with from paragraph 26 onwards.
13. It is to be noted that Paragraph 19 of the Judgment of this Court deals with an issue which was not raised in the Petitioners' case, but a different issue regarding the promotions to reserved category in excess of the prescribed quota. The said issue does not have any bearing on the question raised by the Applicants before the Tribunal. Moreover, based on the 85th Amendment to the Constitution and the judgment of the Apex Court in M.Nagaraj and others v. Union of India and others3, the validity of the Constitution was upheld, which was given legal effect from 17 June 1995. It is to be noted that the Applicants before the Tribunal have claimed the seniority before 17 June 1995, and therefore, the said question does not arise for consideration in this Original Petition.
14. A reading of the grounds raised in the Original Petition shows that the Petitioners mainly relied on the non-consideration of the directions in paragraphs Nos.19 and 29. As mentioned earlier paragraph, No.19 dealt with a different issue, which is not the subject of this Original Petition. As far as paragraph No.29 is concerned, the Tribunal has applied the dictum laid by 3 [(2006) 8 SCC 212] 9 OP CAT 199/2024 2025:KER:42278 the Constitutional bench of the Apex Court in Ajith Singh's case, mainly paragraph No.81 and has given cogent reasons for allowing the Application.
15. We have thoroughly perused the order of the Tribunal and the judgments of this Court in the previous round of litigation. We are of the considered view that the finding of the Tribunal that the Applicants are entitled for stepping up at par with the juniors with effect from the date, on which each of their such juniors in each grade was promoted. Seniorities to be refixed at each level, is perfectly valid and does not need any interference by this Court.
16. In the result, the Original Petition is devoid of merit, and it is dismissed.
NITIN JAMDAR CHIEF JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI JUDGE dl/ 10 OP CAT 199/2024 2025:KER:42278 APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 199/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF FINAL ORDER DATED 6.9.1994 IN OA 552/1990 AND CONNECTED CASES.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 30.8.1996 IN SLP NO.
10691/95 AND CONNECTED CASES OF HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ALONG WITH TYPED COPY Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.10.1997 IN OA 1488/1995 AND CONNECTED CASES.
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. 95-E(SCT)1/49/5(1) DATED 21.8.1997 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RAILWAY BOARD, NEW DELHI.
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF FINAL ORDER DATED 9.7.1998 IN OA 282/1998.
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 10.10.2000 IN OP 16893/1998.
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.12.2003 IN CA 5629/1997.
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.4.2004 IN OA 483/1991 AND CONNECTED CASES.
Annexure A9 TRUE COPIES OF ORDER NO. V/P535 II/SM/VOL 15 DATED 18.8.2004 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, TRIVANDRUM.
Annexure A10 TRUE TYPED COPY OF ORDER NO. NO.V/P/612-III CC OA 483/1991 DATED 20.8.2004 ISSUED BY THE SR.
DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, TRIVANDRUM.
Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 4.11.2005 IN CCC 48/2001 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMBINED SENIORITY LIST OF 6500- 10500/- SCALE (PRE REVISED 700-900) REFERRED TO IN ANNEXURE A11.
Annexure A13 TRUE TYPED COPY OF THE MEMO NO.
J/P.612/VIII/VOL.VIII(COURT CASE) DATED 30.9.2004 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Annexure A14 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO. J/P.612/VIII/VOL. VII (COURT CASE) DATED 24.1.2005 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Annexure A15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CCC 48/01 DATED 27.2.2006 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. Annexure A16 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CCC 1740/04 DATED 6.4.2006 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. Annexure A17 CONSOLIDATED TABLE SHOWING ORIGINAL REVISED DATES OF PROMOTION TO VARIOUS GRADES WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICANTS.
11 OP CAT 199/20242025:KER:42278 Annexure A18 TRUE TYPED COPY OF SENIORITY LIST IN THE SCALE 455- 700 AS ON 1.4.1982 TOGETHER WITH LETTER DATED 19.7.1982.
Annexure A19 TRUE COPY OF COMBINED SENIORITY LIST OF THE SCALE 2375- 3500 AS ON 1.4.1994 TOGETHER WITH LETTER NO. P(S) 612/II/10/SSS/T1S VOL. III DTD. 6.7.1994. Annexure A20 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF CADRE LIST OF TRANSPORTATION (TRAFFIC) AND COMMERCIAL Annexure R1 TRUE RELEVANT PAGE NO. 8 OF OA NO. 282/98 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN Annexure R2 TRUE COPY ORDER DATED 8.3.2002 ISSUED BY THE RAILWAY BOARD.
Annexure R3 TRUE COPY ORDER DATED 28.2.1997 ISSUED BY THE RAILWAY BOARD.
Annexure R4 TRUE COPY INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE RAILWAY BOARD, VIDE RBE NO. 7/2005.
Annexure R5 TRUE RELEVANT PAGE NO. 9 OF OA NO. 375/93 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.751/2006 DATED 31.10.2006 ON THE FILE OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY PETITIONERS HEREIN IN OA NO.751/2006 BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF MA NO.646/2008 DATED 26.08.2002 IN OA.751/2006 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN MA.646/2008 IN OA.751/2006 Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.J/PG/RTI/2008-09/APPEAL NO.L DATED 10.06.2009 Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.9.2009 IN OA NO.751/2006 Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.10.2017 IN BOTH THE W.P.(C) NO.24069/2010 AND OP(CAT) NO.
190/2011Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.10.2023 IN OA NO.751/2006 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH