Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2903
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
M.SWAMINATHAN, Judicial Member, M.L.SRIVASTAVA, Administrative Member
K. Nandakumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Applicant in person
For the Respondents: Mr. Sai Srujan Tayi (R1-R4)
No parity claim from allegedly illegal ex-cadre promotions; laches bars relief after long delay post-reorganization.
Headnote:Under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, applicant sought quashing of orders dated 19.07.2016 and 14.08.2016 denying absorption as Senior Engineer Grade-II on par with junior ex-cadre employee post cadre reorganization per Railway Board letter dated 17.11.2004. Facts involve applicant's cadre-based service from Data Entry Operator (1987) to Junior Engineer (IT) (2005), while 5th respondent, from Typist cadre, received ex-cadre promotions and absorption as Senior Engineer-II. Court found no illegality entitling parity, noting laches since 2005 reorganization and Supreme Court precedent barring relief for illegal promotions. Issues framed around validity of ex-cadre absorptions under Para 7 of Railway Board order requiring regular grade holding and 10 years service, and applicant's claim of seniority discrimination. Ratio: Promotions in ex-cadre posts do not confer parity rights; challenging others' promotions years later via laches disentitles relief, as illegal promotions cannot ground claims for equals (citing Ghulam Rasool Lone principle). OA dismissed. No costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. cadre reorganization and ex-cadre absorption criteria per railway board order. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. challenge to irregular ex-cadre promotions and unit-wise seniority. (Para 4) |
| 3. no parity from illegal promotions; laches applies post-2005 delay. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr.M.L.SRIVASTAVA, Member(A)) The applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
“To call for the records relating to the impugned orders of the 4th respondent in No P720/W/GOC/ADMN/IT/RTI dated 19.07.2016 and No P720/W/GOC/ ADMN/ITC/RTI dated 14.08.2016 and quash the same and direct the respondents [1] to [4] to absorb the applicant in the post of Senior Engineer Grade-II on par with the 5th respondent with effect from the date of reorganization and grant him all attendant benefits and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus Render Justice.”
2. The brief facts of this case as stated by the applicant are as follows:
The applicant is presently working as Junior Engineer (Information Technology) at the Southern Railway Information Technology Centre, Chennai. He was initially appointed on 08.07.1983 as Clerk in the Commercial Department, Chennai Division. Subsequently, after a written examination, he was appointed as Data Entry Operator (a cadre post) in the scale of pay of Rs.4500-7000 on 08.07.1987. He was later promoted as Senior Data Entry Operator in the scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000 during the year 1996. Thereafter in the year 2004, there was Cadre Reorganization following which the Data Processing Centre came to be known as the Information Technology Centre and the cadre of Junior Engineer [Information Technology] in the pay-band of Rs.9300-34800 with Grade pay Rs.4200/- became the entry grade in the said Information Technology Centre consequent to the VI Pay Commission. The applicant submits that since the date of his appointment as Data Entry Operator in the scale of pay of Rs.4500- 7000 on 08.07.1987, he had been working in the said cadre based stream of the Information Technology branch which was subsequently formed as Information Technology cadre. However, there were several others who belonged to various other parent cadres were working in the Information Technology sections in ex-cadre posts. The said persons had their lien in their respective parent cadres.
The applicant submits that the hierarchy of posts earlier comprised of Data Entry Operator in the scale of Rs.4500-7000, the next higher promotion post of Senior Data Entry Operator in the scale of Rs.5000- 8000 and thereafter the posts of General Supervisor in the scale of Rs.5500-9000 and Data Processing Supervisor in the scale of Rs.6500- 10500. Similarly from the post of Senior Data Entry Operator onwards there was another branch comprising of Console Operator in the scale of Rs.5500-7000, Senior Console Operator in the scale of Rs.6500- 10500 and Console Supervisor in the scale of Rs.7450-11500. The applicant submits that the persons posted in the computer centres on ex-cadre basis ought to have been considered only in posts equivalent to their respective cadre in the parent department. The said persons appointed on ex-cadre basis ought not to have been considered for appointment in any higher posts which would in the normal course be considered as promotion posts in comparison with their respective cadre in the parent department. However, one Mr. Janardhanam, who was initially appointed on 27.02.1982 as Typist, and promoted to the post of Head Typist only on 21.07.1997 in the scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000 and was posted in the Computer Centre on ex-cadre basis during the year 1993 was considered for the post of Data Processing Supervisor [DPS] in the scale of Rs.6500-10500 on ex-cadre basis in the computer centre and was subsequently absorbed in the post of Senior Engineer-II in the scal
