Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 10653
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
S. Sujatha, Member (J), Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)
Sanjeeva Murthy – Appellant
Versus
South Western Railway – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00270/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri K. Shivakumar
For the Respondents: Shri Sayed S. Kazi, Shri A.R. Holla
Seniority for substitute employees in Railways is reckoned from the date of conferment of temporary status (after four months of continuous service) if followed by regular absorption. Parties bound by prior judicial decisions on this issue are estopped from challenging subsequent compliant administrative actions.
Headnote:(A) Seniority - Substitute Khalasis - Date of Appointment - The date of appointment for a substitute to be recorded in the service book should be the date on which he/she attains temporary status after continuous service of four months, provided it is followed by regular absorption. (Para 11)
(B) Doctrine of Estoppel - Ex-parte Proceedings - Parties who were arrayed as respondents in a previous proceeding and remained ex-parte despite notice are bound by the decision of the Tribunal and are estopped from challenging subsequent administrative actions taken in compliance with that order. (Para 14)
Issues: Whether the seniority of substitute Khalasis should be reckoned from the date of grant of temporary status or the date of regular absorption, and whether the applicants are bound by the previous ex-parte order of the Tribunal.
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
This application is filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
“(i) Call for the records leading to the issuance of revised seniority list dated 29.05.2025 (Annexure A2) and on perusal order to quash the said revised seniority list as it is against the rules on seniority;
(ii) Order to quash the communication dated 03.06.2025 of the second respondent (Annexure A4) by which it has been proposed to revert the applicants to the post of Technician-I based on the above said revised seniority list as it is unconstitutional and against rules and also reply order dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure A5) to the joint representation dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure A3);
(iii) Consequently order to restore the seniority list dated 29.06.2023 which was issued as per the rules in force; and
(iv) Grant any other relief or reliefs as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.”
Facts in brief as narrated by the applicants are that they were appointed in Group ‘D’ service through Railway Recruitment Cell as Khalasis in Pay Band Rs. 5200-20200 + Rs. 1800/- Grade Pay on 08.05.2012. The Respondent Nos. 3 to 13, the course completed Act Apprentices, were appointed as Substitutes in -1S Pay Band Rs. 4440-7440 + Rs. 1300/- Grade Pay on 16.11.2011 and were granted temporary status in the said Pay Band on completion of 120 days of continuous service i.e., from 15.03.2012. Subsequently, they were found suitable by the Screening Committee for appointment in Group ‘D’ service and were empanelled in Group ‘D’ service as Temporary Khalasis in Pay Band Rs. 5200-20200 + Rs. 1800/- Grade Pay on 21.05.2012. Since these applicants were appointed in the post of Khalasis in the Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/- on 08.05.2012, and the Respondent Nos. 3 to 13 were appointed to the post carrying the said Grade Pay only on 21.05.2012, the seniority list was issued placing the applicants above the private respondents but the private respondents had approached this Tribunal in OA No. 70/2024 duly challenging their placement in the seniority list of Technician Grade- I issued on 29.06.2023. In the said proceedings, these applicants (private respondents therein) were placed as ex-parte. The said OA No. 70/2024 was disposed of by this Tribunal on 25.02.2025 directing the official respondents to consider their joint representation dated 26.07.2023 and take a decision in accordance with law. Further to the disposal of the OA, the 2nd respondent revised the seniority list dated 29.06.2023 with a seniority list dated 29.05.2025, wherein these applicants have been brought down below that of Respondent Nos. 3 to 13. The applicants submitted a joint representation to the 2nd respondent on 03.06.2025 requesting to revisit on the issue, to which a reply has been issued by the competent authority that the action has been taken as per the decision of this Tribunal. Being aggrieved, the applicants have preferred this OA.
Learned counsel Shri K. Shivakumar representing the applicants submitted that the Respondent Nos. 3 to 13 were appointed in -1S Pay Band in Grade Pay Rs. 1300/-, when these applicants were appointed in Pay Band 1 in Grade Pay Rs. 1800/-. The period spent in -1S Pay Band will not be counted as service for any purpose as their regular service starts only after they were placed in Pay Band in Grade Pay Rs. 1800/- in 6th CPC. This Tribunal directed the respondents to examine the joint representation and take a decision and had not ordered the respondents to revise the seniority list in contradiction to the facts and in contravention of the rules. Though these aspects were brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent through joint representation of the applicants dated 03.06.2025, the same has been mechanically rejected confirming the action placing reliance on the order of this Tribunal in OA No. 70/2024. Issuing the revised seniority list da
