Central Administrative Tribunal

Govardhan Mahawar vs SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY on 2 November 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD (TELANGANA)

NO. 5-10-193, 1ST FLOOR, HACA BHAVAN,HYDERABAD - 500004

Order Sheet

Item no.: 4

O.A./831/2026 (TELANGANA)

[ SENIORITY ]

Court No.: 1

No of Adjournment:

Order Dated: 02/11/2026

GOVARDHAN MAHAWAR

Vs

SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY

For Applicant(s) Advocate : K SIVA REDDY

For Respondent(s) Advocate : MADHUSUDAN REDDY

Order of The Tribunal

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

1. Heard Mr. K Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the applicant.

2. The applicant was directly recruited as Health & Malaria Inspector Grade- II on 20.06.2009 and was promoted as Grade-I on 25.01.2019, though he claims entitlement to promotion with effect from 01.11.2013. During the cadre restructuring, the respondents initially proposed promotion to 27 posts with effect from 01.11.2013, but the applicant’s name was deleted from the final list dated 13.01.2015, allegedly on the ground of a pending vigilance case, though no charge memo was pending against him as on the crucial date.

3. A major penalty charge memo was subsequently issued on 24.03.2015, resulting in a minor penalty by order dated 28.02.2017. The applicant thereafter repeatedly sought retrospective promotion from 01.11.2013 and was eventually promoted on 25.01.2019.

4. The applicant relies on the seniority lists and contends that he was senior to several employees who were promoted from 01.11.2013. He further submits that B.K. Suresh, who was promoted along with him, subsequently obtained revision of his seniority from 25.01.2019 to 01.11.2013, despite his O.A.No.739/2016 having been dismissed by the Tribunal on 10.03.2025. The applicant claims that he was similarly situated, as no charge memo was pending against him on the crucial date, and therefore the same benefit ought to have been extended to him.

5. The applicant contends that rejection of his claim by the impugned order dated 14.05.2026, while granting similar relief to B.K. Suresh, is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Hence, the present O.A.

6. Mr. Madhusudan Reddy, learned Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

7. List the case on 04.01.2027 before the Registrar’s Court for completion of pleadings.

Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi Member (A) MR MANISH GARG Member (J) Prachi Bhaskar ( court master )

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead