Union Of India & Ors vs V.K.Krishnan & Ors

4. Before adverting to the real issue, in our opinion, it would be proper to deal with the subject, which pertains to preparation of seniority lists and promotion of railway employees from one group to another and from one grade to another within the group. Railway services have been mainly classified in four groups. In the instant case, we are concerned with services included in different grades in groups C and D. In each group, there are different grades and the employees working in the lowest grade in one group get promotion to the higher grade within the group. When an employee is in the highest grade in a group, he would get promotion to the higher group and the promotion is given on different basis, with which we are not concerned.

6. So far as the facts of Civil Appeal No.2532 of 2010 are concerned, all the respondents were initially working in group D, which is the lowest group as per the railway set-up. Out of respondent nos.1, 2 and 3, respondent nos.2 and 3 were promoted to a higher post of Pointsman 'B' in group C, whereas respondent no.1, who was having the longest service in group D, had not been promoted and therefore, he had approached Central Administrative Tribunal with a grievance that he had been denied benefit of promotion.

7. After hearing the concerned parties, the Tribunal had allowed Original Application No.1761 of 1998 on 21st June, 2001 and had directed that respondent no.1, who was the applicant before the Tribunal, should be considered for promotion on the basis of his seniority.

9. The case of respondent no.1, who was working as a substitute porter in group D, was that he was having longer service in group D than respondent nos.2 and 3 and therefore, case of respondent no.1 ought to have been considered for promotion and he ought to have been promoted to the higher post in group C as respondent nos.2 and 3 had been promoted. It is an admitted fact that so far as length of service in group D is concerned, respondent no.1 was having longer service than respondent nos.2 and 3.

11. It is an admitted fact that respondent no.1 was working in the lowest grade of group D, as a substitute porter, whereas respondent nos.2 and 3 were working in the highest grade in group D. Respondent no.1, though having longer service in group D, was in a lower grade than respondent nos.2 and 3 in group D service. For the aforestated reason, respondent nos.2 and 3 were promoted to a higher post, namely, in the lowest grade of group C from the highest grade of group D, whereas respondent no.1, who was in the lower grade of group D, was not promoted to a group C post. To be able to get promoted to a post in group C, one must be in the highest grade of group C and admittedly respondent no.1 was not in the highest grade of group C and being in a lower grade than respondent nos.2 and 3, respondent no.1 could not have been promoted along with respondent nos.2 and 3.

25. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment affirming the order of the Tribunal and also direct that according to the provisions of the aforestated paras contained in the Manual, the appellants shall prepare different seniority lists for employees working in different grades.

26. Civil Appeal No.2532 of 2010 is, therefore, allowed with no order as to costs.

27. So far as other related appeals are concerned, they have been filed by the persons who are similarly situated, like Respondent No.1 in the main matter, i.e. Civil Appeal No.2532 of 2010, who had not been promoted. No separate arguments were advanced on their behalf. From the facts stated hereinabove, in our opinion, they do not have any right to be promoted, especially when they were not in the highest grade of group D. Therefore, their appeals would fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs.

FEBRUARY 17, 2015.