Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 8667
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR
Mukut Bihari – Appellant
Versus
North Western Railway – Respondent
O.A./338/2026 (JAIPUR)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.K. Bhargava
For the Respondents: Manu Bhargava
Seniority lists revised through Review DPCs conducted in compliance with judicial mandates to correct quota violations (e.g., including Stenographers in the Assistant cadre) are valid, even if they alter the seniority of individuals who were previously senior.
Headnote:Under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant challenged the All India Draft Seniority List of Administrative Officer-II dated 22.04.2013, seeking to be placed above respondent No. 5. The applicant contended that he was promoted to the post of Assistant in 2000, whereas respondent No. 5 was promoted in 2002, and thus should remain senior. The matter had been previously dismissed and subsequently remanded by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan for fresh consideration regarding the relative dates of promotion. The primary issue was whether the seniority list dated 22.04.2013 was illegal given the applicant's prior promotion dates. The court observed that the seniority was revised retrospectively from 1998-99 in the grade of Assistant and subsequent grades to comply with the directions of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal and the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in the case of Bal Krishan, which mandated the inclusion of Stenographers in the Assistant cadre under a 10% quota. The court found that after Review DPCs were conducted in compliance with these judicial mandates, respondent No. 5 became senior to the applicant in the grades of Assistant, Office Superintendent, and Administrative Officer-II. In view of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the applicant has failed to make out any case for grant of the reliefs prayed for in the present Original Application. Accordingly, the Original Application being devoid of merit deserves to be, and is hereby, dismissed.
Order Sheet
Item no.: 5
No of Adjournment:
The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs :
"8(i). By an appropriate order or direction the impugned seniority list dated 22.04.2013 may kindly be quashed and set aside and be modified to the extent of the applicant and he may be placed above the respondent No.5 as per his seniority.
8(ii). By an appropriate order or direction the respondents may be directed to make correction in the impugned seniority list with all consequential benefits of promotion etc to the applicant.
8(iii). Cost of the application may also kindly be awarded to the applicant and And other order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper may also kindly be passed in favour of the applicant in the larger interest of the equity justice and law."
The applicant was initially appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk (for short 'LDC') in the year 1984 and, thereafter, was promoted to the post of UDC in the year 1989. Subsequently, the applicant was promoted to the post of Assistant in the year 2000 and upon becoming eligible for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent (for short 'OS'), the applicant came to be promoted as OS in March, 2003.
It is the contention of the applicant that the respondent No.5 initially belonged to a different cadre and was holding the post of Stenographer. In the year 2011, after holding review DPC meetings for various grades viz., Assistant Office Superintendents, Administrative Officer-I, inter alia, officials were also included in the cadre of Assistants in compliance with the judgment dated 22.10.2010 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, upholding the judgment rendered by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal of Chandigarh Bench. Thereafter, a revised seniority list of Assistants, after inclusion of Stenographers Grade-III, was circulated vide letter dated 29.09.2011, wherein, the name of the applicant was shown at Serial No.439. The applicant objected to the same vide his representation dated 15.11.2011, however, the said representation was neither considered nor acted upon by the respondents and no decision thereon was communicated to the applicant.
Presently, the applicant is aggrieved by the All India Draft Seniority List of Administrative Officer-II as on 01.04.2013, circulated vide letter dated 22.04.2013, whereby, the applicant has been placed at Serial No.15, whereas, prior to the related Review DPC, he was placed at Serial No.27 in the seniority list as on 31.03.2011. The applicant has further contended that the respondent No.5, who according to the applicant was junior to him, has been placed at Serial No.3 in the seniority list dated 01.04.2013, though he was placed at Serial No.51 in the draft seniority list of the year 2011.
Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the respondents have wrongly issued the seniority list of the year 2013, which has resulted in revision of the seniority position with retrospective effect from the years 1998-1999 in the Grade of Assistant and upwards.
On the other hand, the respondents have taken the stand that the seniority list of Administrative Officer Grade-II as on 01.04.2013 was rightly issued vide letter dated 22.04.2013 because the same was issued in pursuance to the judgment dated 18.05.2009 rendered in TA No.36/JK/05(SWP No.639/2002) titled as Bal Krishan and others Vs. Union of India and others by the Chandigarh Bench (Circuit Bench at Jammu) of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal pursuant as well as in accordance to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu.
We have heard both the learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents available on record.
The present Original Application had earlier been decided by this Bench of the Tribunal in OA No.823/2013
