UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus V.K. KRISHNAN & ORS
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 183, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Ratio
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 183 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
v. 
V.K. KRISHNAN & ORS 
(Civil Appeal No. 2532 of 2010) 
FEBRUARY 17, 2015 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Railway service: Indian Railway Establishment Manual, C 
1989 -
Paras 180, 189, 320 - Promotion of railway 
employees from one group to another and from one grade 
to another within the group - Respondent nos. 1 to 3 
working in group D - Respondent nos.2 and 3 working in D 
highest grade in group D promoted to higher post, in group 
C - Respondent no. 1 was in a lower grade than respondent 
nos. 2 and 3 - Claim of respondent no. 1 that he was having 
the longest service in group D but was not promoted - Held: 
Respondent no. 1 .was not in the highest grade of group D E 
and being in a lower grade than respondent nos.2 and 3, 
he could not have been promoted along with respondent 
nos.2 and 3 - The Tribunal as well as the High Court 
committed an error while coming to the conclusion that 
simply because respondent no. 1 had a longer service in F 
gtoup D, he should also have been promoted along with 
respondent nos.2 and 3, who were working in a higher 
grade in group D - There cannot be one seniority list for 
all the employees working in different grades in one 
particular group - The seniority list for employees working G 
in different grades should be different and there cannot be 
any common seniority list for all the employees working in . 
one particular group. 
183 
H
184 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. 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 
B 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 this 
reason, respondent nos.2 and 3 were promoted to a 
higher post, namely, in the lowest grade of group C 
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 
D the highest grade of group D 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. [Paras 11] [189-C-F] 
E 
2. Para 180 of the Indian· Railway Establishment 
Manual, 1989 pertains to promotion to higher grades in 
group D and group C posts. 
According to the said 
para, all railway employees in the lowest grade should 
be eligible for consideration for promotion to higher 
F grades in the transportation and commercial branches. 
The said para further deals with a preparation of 
seniority list. According to the said para, an ad hoc 
seniority list is to be prepared on the basis of length 
of continuous service in the grade
and for the purpose 
G of promotion, a suitable person is selected and placed 
on a panel of training. The aforestated content of para 
180 clearly denotes that seniority lists of the employees 
are to be prepared on the basis of length of continuous 
H service in different grades. This clarifies that there
UNION OF INDIA v. V.K. KRISHNAN 
185 
cannot be one seniority list for all the employees A 
working in different grades in one particular group. In 
other words, there would be different seniority lists in 
one particular. group and each seniority list will contain 
list of employees working in one particular grade or 
there may be different sub-seniority lists of employees B 
working in different branches of one grade. Promotion 
will be given from lower grade to higher grade in one 
group and for that purpose, seniority list of the lower 
grade will be taken into account. Once a person gets 
promotion to the higher grade, his name will be C 
included in the seniority list of the employees of the 
higher grade. [Para 14] E191-D-H; 192-A] 
3. Para 189 pertains to the promotion to higher 
grade in group C. As per the provisions of para 189, D 
when an employee working in group D, who has no 
regular avenue for promotion in group D, i.e. when he 
is in the highest grade in group D, he becomes eligible 
for promotion to a group C post. Group C posts are 
also divided into different grades. Upon getting E 
promotion from the highest grade of group D, a person 
gets promotion to the lowest grade in group C. So far 
as maintenance· of seniority is concerned, para 320 
stipulates that the.re would be different seniority lists F 
for persons who are in equivalent grades. It may 
happen that different persons might be working in 
different branches or different units doing different
type 
of work, but they are in one grade; i.e. in one pay scale, 
and a seniority list for those persons working in one G 
particular grade would be a common seniority list. 
Thus, it is very clear that seniority list shall be different 
for each grade and in that event a person working in 
one particular grade would be promoted to the higher 
grade on the basis of his seniority in that particular H
186 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A grade. [Paras 18 and 19] [193-B-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
2532 of 2010. 
8 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.11.2007 of the 
High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Original Petition No. 
14500 of 2003. 
with 
C 
C. A. Nos .. 1972-1973, 1974-1975 & 1976-1977 of 
2015. 
A. K. Sanghi, Kiran Bhardwaj, S. N. Terdal, Anil Katiyar, 
B. Krishna Prasad, C. N. Sreekumar, G. Prakash for the 
D Appellants. 
E 
Gurusharan Sharma, Amit Sharma, Dipesh Sinha, A. 
Raghunath for the Respondents. 
' 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1. Leave granted in all the special 
leave petitions. 
2. A common question of law is involved in all the11e 
F appeals and thE:lrefore, at the request of the learned counsel 
appearing in these appeals, all these appeals have been 
heard and decided together. 
· 
3. The issue involved in these appeals is with regard 
to interpretation of some of the paras of Indian Railway 
G Establishment Manual, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 
Manual'). We are mainly concerned with interpretation of 
paras 180, 189 and 320 of the Manual. For the purpose 
of deciding these appeals, we have taken facts from Civil 
H Appeal No.2532 of 2010, which is the main matte~ in this
UNION·OF INDIA v. V.K. KRISHNAN 
[ANIL R. DAVE, J.] 
group of matters. 
187 
A 
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 
8 
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 C 
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. 
5. Group D is the lowest group having different grades, D 
as stated hereinabove. The persons working in a particular 
grade would be having same pay scale though they might 
be working in different branches i.e. different persons 
working in one grade, who would be having same pay scale, 
E 
might be working in different departments or different 
branches with different qualifications and different nature 
of work. For the purpose of service conditions and for the 
purpose of higher promotion, persons belonging to one 
grade are treated equally. 
F 
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 G 
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. 
H
• 
188 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
7. After hearing the concerned parties, the Tribunal had 
B 
allowed Original Application No.1761 of 1998 on 21 51 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. 
8. Union of India, the appellant herein, was aggrieved 
by the aforestated order passed by the Tribunal and had, 
therefore, approached the High Cpurt of Kerala by filing O.P. 
No.14500 of 2003. Vide judgment dated 271h November, 
C 2007, the Original Petition filed by the Union of India has 
been dismissed and therefore, the Union of India has filed 
the present appeal. 
9. The case of respondent rio.1, who was working as 
o 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 
E and 3 had been promoted. It i~ an admitted fact that so 
far as length of service in group Dis concerned, respondent 
no.1 was having longer service than respondent nos.2 and 
3. 
F 
10. As stated hereinabove, in one particular group, 
there are employees working in different grades and the 
grades are also having a different hierarchy and a person 
working in the lowest grade within the group on the basis 
of his seniority- or merit or both, as the
case may be, is 
G promoted to a higher grade within the group. As stated 
earlier, we are not concerned with the basis on which 
promotion is given from one grade to another or from one 
group to another. The question here is whether a person 
. working in one grade of a lower group can get promotion 
H on the basis of his seniority in his group irrespective of the
UNION OF INDIA v. V.K. KRISHNAN 
[ANIL R. DAVE, J.] 
189 
length of service rendered in a particular grade. So as to A 
understand the issue in a better perspective, hypothetically 
we may say that there are four grades in group D viz. I, II, 
Ill and IV; grade IV being the lowest and.grade I being the 
highest. A person working in the lowest grade i.e. in grade 
IV would get promotion to grade Ill, then to grade II and 
B 
then to grade I. After he has been placed in grade I of group 
o; he would get promotion to the lowest grade in group C, 
which is a higher group. 
11. It is an admitted fact that respondent no.1 was C 
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 D 
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 0, was not 
promoted to a group C post. To be able to get promoted E 
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 F 
been promoted along with respondent nos.2 and 3. 
12. In our opinion,
the Tribunal as well as the High 
Court committed an error while coming to the conclusion 
that simply because respondent no.1 had a longer service 
in group D, he should also have been promoted along with G 
respondent nos.2 and 3, who were working in a higher 
grade in group D. 
13. Para 180 of the Manual, which relates to promotion 
to higher grades in group D and C posts, reads as under : H
190 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
"180. Transportation (Traffic) and Commercial 
Department. - All railway servants in the lowest grade 
should be eligible for consideration for promotion to 
higher grades in both the Transportation and 
Commercial brnches. Applications should be invited 
from amongst categories eligible for promotion from 
both the branches. All Railway servants who apply will 
be considered. An adhoc seniority list will be prepared 
on the basis of length of continuous service in the grade 
and suitable men selected and placed on a panel for 
·training. Systematic and adequate training and 
examinations or tests must precede actual promotions." 
(emphasis supplied) 
Relevant portion of para 189, which pertains to 
promotion to a higher grade in group C, is as under: 
"189. 
Promotion to higher grades in Group 'C' :-
(a) 
Railway servants in Group 'D' categories for whom 
no regular avenue of promotion exists 33-1/3% of the 
vacancies in the lowest grade of Commercial Clerks, 
Ticket Collectors, Trains Clerks, Number Takers, Time 
Keepers, Fuel Checkers, Office Clerks, Typists and 
Stores Clerks etc. should be earmarked for promotion. 
The quota for promotion of Group 'D' staff in the Ac-
counts Deptt. to Group 'C' post of Accounts Clerks will 
be 25% ................................... " 
Para 320 of the Manual reads as under : 
"320. RELATIVE SENIORITY OR EMPLOYEES IN AN 
INTERMIDIATE GRADE BELONGING TO DIFFERENT
SENIORITY UNITS APPEARING FOR A SELECTION/ . 
NON-SELECTION POST IN HIGHER GRADE.
UNION OF !NOIA v. V.K. KRISHNAN 
· 
[ANIL R. DAVE, J.] 
191 
When a post (selection as well as non-selection) is filled A 
by considering staff of different seniority units, the total 
length of continuous service in the same or equivalent 
grade held by the employees shall be the determining 
factor for assigning inter-seniority irrespective of the 
date of confirmation of an employee with lesser length B 
of continuous service as compared to another 
unconfirmed employee with longer length of continuous 
service. This is subject to the proviso that only non-
fortuitous service should be taken into account for this 
purpose." 
14. Let us now look at the provisions of para 180 of 
the Manual first. The said para pertains to promotion to 
higher grades in group D and group C posts. 
According 
c 
to the said para, all railway employees in the lowest grade D 
should be eligible for consideration for promotion to higher 
grades in the transportation and commercial branches. The 
said para further deals with a preparation of seniority list. 
According to the said para, an ad hoc seniority list is to be 
prepared on the basis of length of continuous service in the E 
grade and for the purpose of promotion, a suitable person 
is selected and placed on a panel of training. The 
aforestated content of para 180 clearly denotes that 
seniority lists of the employees are to be prepared on the F 
basis of length of continuous service in different grades. 
This clarifies that there
cannot be one seniority list for all 
the employees working in different grades in one particular 
group. In other words, there would be different seniority 
lists in one particular group and each seniority list will G 
contain list of employees working in one particular grade 
or there may be different sub-seniority lists of employees 
working in different branches of one grade. Promotion will 
be given from lower grade to higher grade in one group and 
for that purpose, seniority list of the lower grade will be taken H
192 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A into account. Once a person gets promotion to the higher 
grade, his name will be included in the seniority list of the 
employees of the higher grade. For clarity once again, we 
may give an illustration that a person who is in grade IV, 
as hypothetically stated hereinabove, upon getting 
B promotion to grade Ill, would get his name included in the 
seniority list of employees working in grade Ill and he would 
be eligible to be promoted to grade II. It may happen that 
a person working in grade IV, who has not been promoted 
for whatever reasons to grade Ill, though having longer 
C service as an employee working in that group, may not get 
promotion to grade II because he is still working in grade 
IV and in such an event, a person who might be having 
lesser service in grade Ill than the employee having a longer 
0 service in grade IV or in that group, may get promotion to 
grade II. From grade II: an employee gets promotion to 
grade I and thereafter he gets promotion to the lowest grade 
in the higher group. This appears to be the normal mode 
of promotion. 
E 
15. So far as CivH Appeal No.2532 of 2010 is 
concerned, respondent no.1 was in the lowest grade of 
group D, whereas respondent nos.2 and 3, though having 
lesser length of service in group D, were in the higher grade 
F of group D and therefore, they got promotion to the post of 
Pointsman B in group C. 
16. As respondent nos.2 and 3 were employees 
·working in
the higher grade of group D than respondent 
no.1, respondent no.1 cannot make any grievance with 
G regard to promotion of respondent nos.2 and 3 to a higher 
post in group C. 
17. For the aforestated reason, the Tribunal as well as 
High Court committed an error by g~ng a direction to the 
H appellant to consider the case of respondent no.1 for
UNION OF INDIA v. V.K. KRISHNAN 
[ANIL R. DAVE, J.] 
193 
promotion to the post to which respondent nos.2 and 3 were A 
promoted. 
18. Para 189 pertains to the promotion to higher grade 
in' group C. As per the provisions of para 189, when an 
employee working in group 0, who has no regular avenue B 
for promotion in group D, i.e. when he is in the highest grade 
in group D, he becomes eligible for promotion to a group 
C post. Group C posts are also divided into different 
grades. Upon getting promotion from the highest grade of 
group D, a person gets promotion to the lowest grade in C 
group C. Para 189 gives details as to how the promotion 
is to be given to an employee working in the highest grade 
of group D and liow many posts are reserved for such 
employees who have no avenue for further promotion in 
their group D. 
D 
19. So far as maintenance of seniority is concerned, 
para 320 stipulates that there would be different seniority 
lists for persons who are in equivalent grades. It may 
happen that different persons might be working in different E 
branches or different units doing different type of work, but 
they are in one grade, i.e. in one pay scale, and a seniority 
list for those persons working in one particular grade would 
be a common seniority list. Thus, it is very clear that 
seniority list shall be different for each grade and in that F 
event a person working in one particular grade would be 
promoted to the h_igher grade on the basis of his
seniority 
in that particular grade. 
20. The aforestated position is so clear that the learned G 
counsel appearing for the appellants had hardly to make 
any further submission to substantiate his case. According 
to~him, the Tribunal as well as the High Court had committed 
an error by looking at the length of service of respondent 
no.1 in group D. True, that responde~t no.1 was appointed H
194 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A earlier in point ·of time than respondent nos.2 and 3, but 
because of their ability respondent nos.2 and 3 had been 
promoted to higher grades earlier and therefore, they got 
an opportunity to get promotion to a higher post, whereas 
respondent no.1, who was working in a much lower grade 
B . as a substitute porter, 'could not get promotion like 
respondent nos.2 and 3. 
21. On the other hand, it had been submitted by the 
learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1, who, 
C according to him, had been superseded, that a common 
seniority list. for employees in different group should have 
. 
' 
been maintained and on the basis of length of service an 
employee should be given promotion to the higher group 
or grade. According to him, seniority was most important 
D and on the basis of seniority of respondent no.1, he too 
should have been ·promoted as it is an admitted fact that 
respo~dent no.1 was appointed earlier to respondent nos.2 
and 3 in the railway service. 
E 
22. It had been further submitted by the learned counsel 
· appearing for the employees who had not been promoted 
that for the purpose of giving promotion to higher group, 
i.e. from group D to group C, overall seniority of an 
employee working in the railways should be considered. 
F According to his interpretation, para 189 provides that 
promotion should be given on the basis of seniority and that 
seniority should be seniority in the group and not in
the 
grade. For the aforestated reasons, it had been submitted 
by the learned counsel appearing for the employees who 
G had not been p'romoted by the railways that the impugned 
judgment affirming the order of the Tribunal was just and 
proper and therefore, the main appeal should be dismissed 
and appropriate orders should also be passed in all other 
H appeals on the same princip!e.
UNION OF INDIA v. V.K. KRISHNAN 
[ANIL R. DAVE, J.] 
195 
23. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the A 
parties and looking at the legal position which we have 
already discussed hereinabove-, we are of the view that the 
Tribunal as well as the High Court were not right while giving 
a direction to the appellants that the case of respondent 
. no.1 should be considered for promotion. 
B 
24. In our opinion, respondent no.1 was rightly not 
promoted to the higher group because he was not in the 
highest grade of group D. Respondent no.1 was in a lower 
grade whereas respondent nos.2 and 3 were in the highest C 
grade of group D. Without getting promotion to the highest 
grade in his own group D, the said respondent could not 
have claimed promotion to a higher group, i.e. group C. 
Respondent no.1 was working as a substitute Porter, which 
is the lowest grade in group D, whereas respondent nos.2 D 
and 3 were working in the grade which was much above 
than the grade in which respondent no.1 was working, 
though they had been appointed later in a point of time than 
respondent no.1 in the railway service. As stated 
hereinabove, seniority list for employees working in different E 
grades should be different and there cannot be any 
common seniority list for all the employees working in one 
particular group. · 
25. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment F 
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. 
G 
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 H

196 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS · 
(2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A . 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 b_ehalf. From 
the facts stated hereinabove, in our opinion, they do not 
B 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. 
C 
Devika Gujral 
Appeals disposed of.