Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2532 OF 2010

Union of India & Ors. ... Appellants

Versus V.K. Krishnan & Ors.  ... Respondents

WITH

C.A. Nos. 1972-1973 of 2015 (@ S.L.P. (C) Nos.10172-10173 of 2012)

WITH

C.A. Nos. 1974-1975 of 2015 (@ S.L.P. (C) Nos.14651-14652 of 2012)

WITH

C.A. Nos. 1976-1977 of 2015 (@ S.L.P. (C) Nos.19708-19709 of 2012)

J U D G M E N T

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.  

2. A common question of law is involved in all these appeals and  

therefore, at the request of the learned counsel appearing in these  

appeals, all these appeals have been heard and decided together.

Page 2

2

3. The  issue  involved  in  these  appeals  is  with  regard  to  

interpretation of some of the paras of Indian Railway 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 Appeal No.2532 of 2010, which is the main  

matter in this group of matters.

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.  

5. Group D is the lowest group having different grades, as stated  

hereinabove.  The persons working in a particular grade would be

Page 3

3

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, 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.

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.

Page 4

4

8. Union  of  India,  the  appellant  herein,  was  aggrieved  by  the  

aforestated  order  passed  by  the  Tribunal  and  had,  therefore,  

approached the High Court of Kerala by filing O.P. No.14500 of 2003.  

Vide  judgment  dated  27th November,  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 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.

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 promoted to a higher grade within the group.  

As stated earlier,  we are not  concerned with the basis on which

Page 5

5

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  on  the  basis  of  his  

seniority in his group irrespective of the length of service rendered  

in a particular grade.  So as to understand the issue in a better  

perspective, hypothetically we may say that there are four grades  

in group D viz. I, II, III 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 III, then to grade II and then  

to grade I.  After he has been placed in grade I of group D, 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 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

Page 6

6

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.

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 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 :

“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

Page 7

7

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  Accounts  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. When a post (selection as well as non-selection) is filled  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  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  to  the  said  para,  all  railway  

employees in the lowest grade should be eligible for consideration  

for  promotion  to  higher  grades  in  the  transportation  and  

commercial  branches.   The  said  para  further  deals  with  a

Page 8

8

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 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  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 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 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 promotion to grade III, would get his name included in the  

seniority  list  of  employees working in  grade III  and he would be

Page 9

9

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 III, though having longer 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  III  than  the  employee  

having  a  longer  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.

15. So  far  as  Civil  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 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 regard to promotion of respondent  

nos.2 and 3 to a higher post in group C.

Page 10

10

17. For the aforestated reason, the Tribunal as well as High Court  

committed  an  error  by  giving  a  direction  to  the  appellant  to  

consider the case of respondent no.1 for promotion to the post to  

which respondent nos.2 and 3 were 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 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 promotion from the highest grade of  

group D, a person gets promotion to the lowest grade in 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 how many  

posts  are reserved for  such employees who have no avenue for  

further promotion in their group 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  branches  or  different  units  doing  

different type of work, but they are in one grade, i.e. in one pay

Page 11

11

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 event a  

person working in one particular grade would be promoted to the  

higher grade on the basis of his seniority in that particular grade.

20. The aforestated position is so clear that the learned 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  

respondent  no.1  was  appointed  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  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, according to him, had  

been superseded,  that  a  common seniority  list  for  employees in

Page 12

12

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 and on the basis of seniority of respondent no.1, he too  

should  have  been  promoted  as  it  is  an  admitted  fact  that  

respondent no.1 was appointed earlier to respondent nos.2 and 3 in  

the railway service.

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.   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 had not  been  

promoted 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 appeals on the same principle.   

Page 13

13

23. Upon hearing the learned counsel  appearing for  the 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.

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  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 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 grades should be different and there cannot be  

any  common seniority  list  for  all  the  employees  working  in  one  

particular group.

Page 14

14

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.    

          …………………………………J.  

(ANIL R. DAVE)

                                     …………………………………J.

Page 15

15

  (SHIVA KIRTI SINGH) NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 17, 2015.