IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 28184 of 2000(S) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- V. BALASUBAMANIAN, S/O. V. ACHUTHAN NAIR, DIESEL ASSISTANT, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, SHORNUR, RESIDING AT RAILWAY QUARTERS NO. 240-B, NEAR GANESHAGIRI TEMPLE, SHORNUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, MADRAS - 3. 2. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O., MADRAS - 3. 3. THE DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALGHAT. 4. P.C. SUNDARAM, SHORNUR, DIESEL ASSISTANT, SOUTHERN RAILWAY. 5. K.S. HAMEED, SHORNUR, -DO- 6. K. KANNAN, ERODE, -DO- O.P. NO. 28184/2000-S: 7. R. RAMASAMY, SHUNTER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, MANGALORE. 8. P. SUKUMARAN, MANGALORE, DIESEL ASSISTANT, SOUTHERN RAILWAY. 9. T. MANI, PALGHAT, -DO- 10. C. DEVAMANI, ERODE, -DO- 11. C. PERIYAN, ERODE, -DO- 12. C.A. SOMASUNDARAM, PALGHAT, -DO- 13. R. GURUMOORTHY, ERODE, -DO- 14. T.T. BALAN, MANGALORE, SHUNTER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY. 15. P.P. ANANDANKUTTY, CALICUT, DIESEL ASSISTANT, SOUTHERN RAILWAY. 16. N. RANGASAMY, COONOR, DIESEL ASSTT., S. RLY. 17. V. CHINNASAMY, ERODE, -DO- 18. C. SURENDRAN, MANGALORE, -DO- 19. P. PRABHAKARAN, MANGALORE, SHUNTER, S. RLY. 20. T. ALAVI, MANGALORE, DIESEL ASSTT. S.RLY. 21. SHKAIK DAWOOD, ERODE, -DO- 22. MD. IBRAHIM, ERODE, -DO- O.P. NO. 28184/2000-S: 23. C. SHANMUGHAM, ERODE, DIESEL ASSISTANT, SOUTHERN RAILWAY. 24. T.S. BALARAJAN, ERODE, -DO- 25. K. RAJENDRAN, ERODE, -DO- 26. S. OLIVER KAMALE KARAN, ERODE, -DO- 27. S.S. SANKER, ERODE, -DO- 28. M.MD. ISMAIL, ERODE, -DO- 29. P. UMAPATHY, ERODE, -DO- 30. J. RAMAN, ERODE, -DO- 31. A. MURUGESAN, ERODE, -DO- 32. T. BALASUBRAMANIAM, ERODE, -DO- 33. K. KRISHNAMOORTHY, ERODE. -DO- 34. GERALD MELONY, ERODE, -DO- 35. SEDRIC SEBASTIAN, LABO, ERODE, -DO- 36. P. MOD. BASHA, ERODE, -DO- 37. T. GOVINDARAJAN, ERODE, -DO- 38. A. SUBRAMANIAN, ERODE, -DO- 39. M.A. SIVASANKARAN, SHORNUR, -DO- O.P. NO. 28184/2000-S: 40. M. RAMAKRISHNAN, PALGHAT, DIESEL ASSISTANT, SOUTHERN RAILWAY. 41. M. BALASUBRAMANIAN, ERODE, -DO- 42. M. SELVAKUMAR, SHORNUR, -DO- 43. K. RAJU, SHORNUR, -DO- 44. A. SREEDHARAN, CALICUT, -DO- 45. K. SURENDRAN, SHORNUR, -DO- 46. C.K. RAVINDRAN, SHORNUR, -DO- 47. M. UNNI, CALICUT -DO- 48. K.C. RAVINDRANATHAN, -DO- 49. BHASKARAN, MANGALORE, -DO- 50. B. VELAYUDHAN, MANGALORE, -DO- 51. P.S. KRISHNANKUTTY, ERODE, -DO- 52. V. RADHAKRISHNAN, ERODE, -DO- 53. I. INNAS BABU, PALGHAT, -DO- 54. K. SUBRAMANIAN, ERODE, -DO- 55. K. RAJENDRAN, ERODE, -DO- 56. T.P. RAVINDRAN, CALICUT, -DO- O.P. NO. 28184/2000-S: 57. C. BALAKRISHNAN, ERODE, SHUNTER, S. RLY. 58. K. RAVINDRAN, ERODE, DIESEL ASSTT. S.RLY. 59. P.K. RAMA GOUNDA, DRIVER, S. RLY. 60. K. DEVARAJ, ERODE, DIESEL ASSTT., S. RLY. 61. JOHN PHILIPOSE, ERODE, -DO- 62. G. THIAGARAJAN, ERODE, -DO- 63. P.P. SOMAN, CALICUT, -DO- 64. C. NAGENDRAN, ERODE, -DO- 65. N. BABU, CALICUT, -DO- 66. P.S. VENKATESWARAN, PALGHAT, -DO- 67. G. DEVADASAN, CALICUT, -DO- 68. M. GOPI, CANNANORE, -DO- 69. A. ABDUL RASHEED, ERODE, -DO- 70. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, ERNAKULAM, THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR. BY ADV. SRI.C.N.RADHAKRISHNAN. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 28184/2000-S: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN O.A. NO. 1182/98 DTD. 9TH NOVEMBER 1999. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE O.A. NO. 1182/98 LESS ITS ANNEXURES. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN O.A. NO. 1182/98. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.A. NO. 105/98 DTD. 11/08/99 RENDERED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT: EXT.R3.A: COPY OF THE DETAILS OF DATE OF ORDER OF APPOINTMENT AS DIESEL ASSISTANTS IN RESPECT OF RESPONDENTS 11 TO 69. //TRUE COPY// prv. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- O.P. NO. 28184 OF 2000-S ----------------------------------------- Dated 28th February, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner was the applicant in O.A.No.1182/1998 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The said O.A was filed, challenging Annexure-A2 provisional seniority list of Diesel Assistants, published in the Palakkad Division of the Southern Railway and Annexure-A6 communication dated 4.7.1996 issued by the Divisional Personnel Officer, rejecting Annexure-A4 representation filed by him against Annexure-A2. He also challenged Annexure-A8 proceedings by which Annexure-A2 seniority list was ordered to be treated as the final seniority list and Annexure-A11 order of the competent authority, granting promotions to the eligible persons as per the said seniority list. The petitioner was appointed as Loco Khalasi on 1.9.1976 in the Palakkad Division. He was selected and posted as Engine Cleaner on 7.2.1981. Later, he was deployed to the Electrical Motor Unit of the Madras Division as OP 28184/2000 2 Assistant Motor Man on 7.6.1984. Still later, he was engaged in the Mechanical Department/Division. Since the Steam Locostaff became surplus by the gradual phasing out of the steam engines, the petitioner was given training and posted as Diesel Assistant on a regular basis by Annexure-A1 order dated 27.4.1993. When the provisional seniority list of Diesel Assistants was published as per Annexure-A2, the petitioner filed Annexure-A4 representation, pointing out his grievance against the same. Since the competent authority did not take any action, the petitioner moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, by filing O.A.No.406/1996. As per the direction issued by the C.A.T by Annexure-A5 order dated 8.4.1996 in that O.A., the petitioner's representation was considered in detail and his objections against Annexure-A2 were overruled by a speaking order, Annexure-A6 dated 4.7.1996. The petitioner did not challenge Annexure- A6. Later, by Annexure-A8 proceedings, Annexure-A2 seniority list of Diesel Assistants was ordered to be treated as the final seniority list and the same was operated for further promotion, as evident from Annexure-A11 order. As mentioned earlier, the petitioner challenged Annexures – A2, A6, A8 and A11 in the O.A. Before the C.A.T., the petitioner mainly sought to support his case by relying on three decisions of the Apex Court in Rama OP 28184/2000 3 Kant Chaturvedi v. Divisional Supdt., N.Rly. [1981 SCC (L & S) 423], V.K.Dubey v. Union of India [1997 SCC (L & S) 1123] and South Eastern Railway v. Ramanarain Singh [1997 SCC ( L & S) 1126]. The Tribunal distinguished the above decisions on facts and held that the principles followed by the Railways for determining the inter se seniority of the Steam Loco staff absorbed in the diesel wing were just and proper. The Tribunal also found that the O.A was barred by limitation. This Original Petition was filed challenging the said order of the C.A.T., a copy of which is produced as Ext.P1. 2. The grievance of the petitioner regarding the assignment of seniority to him in the cadre of Diesel Assistant in the diesel wing was considered and rejected by Annexure-A6. Annexures-A8 and A11 are only dependent proceedings, which are issued in tune with Annexure-A6. If Annexure-A6 cannot be challenged by the petitioner, the challenge against Annexures-A8 and A11 will also automatically fall to ground. We notice that Annexure-A6 has not been challenged before the C.A.T within the prescribed time limit. So, the challenge against the same is barred by limitation. If that be so, the petitioner cannot challenge the consequential proceedings issued in the form of Annexure-A8 or Annexure-A11. The OP 28184/2000 4 contentions of the petitioner against Annexure-A2 provisional seniority list were rejected by Annexure-A6. So, the challenge against Annexure-A2, which is only a provisional list, is also not maintainable. Therefore, we agree with the finding of the Tribunal that the O.A was barred by limitation. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that this Court may take a liberal view regarding condonation of delay, we notice that the petitioner did not move for condonation of delay before the C.A.T. He filed the application by making a declaration that it is filed within time. Therefore, the principles laid down by the Apex Court concerning condonation of delay cannot have any application to the facts of this case. 3. Since we have already found that the O.A is barred by limitation, we are not giving detailed reasons for affirming the decision of the C.A.T., on the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner. But, we notice the fact mentioned in para 18 of Annexure-A6 that the petitioner started working as Diesel Assistant on a subsequent date when compared to the persons over whom he claims seniority in that cadre. We notice that there is nothing on record to unsettle the above view taken by the competent authority. So, on the merits of the case, we agree with the view taken by the C.A.T that the principles for determining the inter se seniority of the surplus steam loco staff in the diesel wing are just and proper. We also agree with OP 28184/2000 5 the view of the C.A.T that the decisions of the Apex Court pressed into service by the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of this case. In the result, the Original Petition fails and it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/ OP 28184/2000 6 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- O.P NO.28184/2000-S ------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT 28.02.2008.