Central Administrative Tribunal
Govardhan Mahawar vs SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY on 2 November 2026
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
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…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
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 )