ARUNACHALAM E vs SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY on 5 November 2026

O R D E R

PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)

This application is filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: “i. Call for records and quash the Provisional Seniority list bearing no. SWR/P.612/Statistical/Seniority/Minst dated 07.11.2024 and Memorandum bearing No. SWR/P.535/STAT/CR dated 05.12.2024, published by Respondent No 2 (Annexure A1 & Annexure A2) (OR)

ii. To direct the respondents to consider the representation given by Applicant dated 26.09.2023 & 18.12.2024 (Annexure A7 & 8) and pass orders in accordance with law.

iii. Grant any other relief or reliefs as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Facts in brief are that the applicant was appointed to the Statistical Department of South Western Railway on 22.11.2012 and has rendered over 13 years of service in the said Department. The grievance of the applicant is that Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 who were previously working as Running Staff (i.e., Goods Guards/Loco Pilots) were found medically unfit and were medically de-categorized in March,2014, November,2013 and December,2011, respectively. The Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 are accommodated as Office Superintendents in Statistical Department of Bangalore Division, South Western Railway. Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 were offered alternative appointment as Chief Commercial Clerk in Level 6 vide order dated 13.07.2020. Being aggrieved by the said order, Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 approached this Tribunal in OA No. 245/2021 and 590/2020 seeking for quashing of the order, appointing them as Chief Commercial Clerks dated 13.07.2020. This Tribunal, on perusal of materials on record, was pleased to pass an order directing Respondent No. 2 to consider representations and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Pursuant to which, the Respondent No. 1 passed a speaking order dated 10.07.2023 to continue the Respondent No. 4 in the ministerial cadre of Statistical Department, Headquarters, under Bangalore Division on administrative grounds by continuing his lien in ministerial cadre of Statistical Department. Respondent No. 2 passed similar orders in respect of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 vide order dated 10.07.2023. Thereafter, the applicant submitted representation stating that accommodating the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in Statistical Department by giving lien and seniority in the Statistical Department would disturb the right of promotion and other facilities for the existing staff and violates principles of equality and rules of the department. It is the grievance of the applicant that the further representations submitted by him dated 26.09.2023 along with others and 18.12.2024 individually were also not considered. The respondent authorities have issued the provisional seniority list dated 07.11.2024 and memorandum dated 05.12.2024 wherein Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 have been placed over and above the applicant and other existing staff of the cadre. Further, Respondent No. 4 is placed in the Provisional Select List for promotion to the post of Chief Office Superintendent. Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

3. Learned counsel Shri Varun Sai Y. representing the applicant submitted that this Tribunal in OA Nos. 245/2021 and 590/2020 passed orders directing Respondent No. 2 to consider their representations sympathetically and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. However, the speaking order passed by Respondent No. 1 in accommodating the said respondents has severely affected the promotion aspects, seniority and morale of the applicant who was in line for promotion to the post of Chief Office Superintendent/Statistical Branch/Headquarters in SC category. The Statistical Department falls under the control of Headquarters, South Western Railway. Any accommodation/absorption in the said

Department requires prior approval/sanction of Respondent No. 2 i.e., the Principal Chief Personnel Officer (PCPO) which was not followed in this case. The respondent authorities have turned blind eye towards Master Circular No. 25 issued by Railway Board which categorically deals with “Absorption of Medically De- Categorized Non-Gazetted Staff in Alternative Jobs”. The applicant having been appointed and served for 13 years in the same department, at the time when he was bound to reap the benefit of promotion, the same has been deprived due to administrative action of the respondent authorities who have placed the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in the Statistical Department without following due process of law which has resulted in adversely affecting the promotion prospects, seniority and morale of the applicant. Learned counsel submitted that in the erstwhile seniority list dated 01.01.2018 at Annexure A10, the private respondents are nowhere found, however, in the impugned seniority list dated 07.11.2024, they have been horizontally interpolated and placed over and above the applicant and other existing staff members of the department/cadre under the purported guise of an order from this Hon'ble Tribunal.

4. Learned counsel Shri S. Prakash Shetty representing the official respondents referring to the reply statement submitted, the private respondents were screened and absorbed as Office Superintendents without intimating PCPO, South Western Railway. No approval from the Headquarters being obtained, it was advised that, these employees are to be provided alternative appointment in the Division itself since the ministerial cadre of Statistical Department is controlled by Headquarters Office and any posting to Statistical Departments needs to be decided by Cadre Controlling Officer i.e., PCPO, South Western Railway. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer/SBC had advised Senior Assistant Financial Advisor/SBC to relieve the said 3 private respondents to attend the screening on 12.09.2017 at 15.30 hours as they are to be provided alternative appointment in Division as per the office letter dated 14.06.2017, but they were not relieved stating that there is acute shortage of staff in Traffic Accounts, SBC. Subsequently, the screening was conducted in June, 2020 and all three medically de- categorized employees were offered alternative appointment as Chief Commercial Clerk in Level 6 as per SBC’s letter dated 13.07.2020. On the challenge made to the said order, this Tribunal directed the Respondent No. 2 to consider their representations in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders having regard to the medically de-categorized status of the said employees, which requires sympathetic consideration. In compliance with the orders passed in the said OAs, respondents have disposed of the representations of the said employees passing a speaking order to continue their lien in ministerial cadre of Statistical Department in Headquarters, under Traffic Accounts in SBC on administrative grounds. However, their seniority has been considered from the date of posting in statistical branch. Accordingly, the office had issued the provisional seniority list, duly interpolating the said staff in the relevant position as per their joining in statistical branch. Hence, submitted that the application is liable to be rejected.

5. Learned counsel Shri K. Shivakumar representing the Respondent No. 5 submitted that the said respondent who was working as Senior Assistant Loco Pilot was promoted as Loco Pilot (Goods) in Grade Pay Rs. 4200/- on 01.10.2012 and further to his medical de-categorization in 2013, he was kept in supernumerary post upto September, and subsequently on the recommendation of the screening committee he was offered with alternative appointment in Statistical Department on 25.08.2014 in Grade Pay Rs. 4200/- as Office Superintendent which has been admitted by the applicant himself in Para 4.2 of the OA. Having

worked for about six years in the Statistical Department, when he was issued again with another alternative appointment as Commercial Clerk in 2020, the respondent approached this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No. 590/2020 which has been disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 30.03.2023.

6. In compliance of the orders of this Tribunal, the case of the respondent was examined by the 2nd respondent and it was ordered to continue his lien in Statistical Department by passing speaking order dated 10.07.2023. The said respondent entered into the Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- on 01.10.2012 well before the appointment of the applicant. Further, the said respondent has been absorbed in the post of Office Superintendent from 26.09.2014, whereas the applicant has been promoted to that post only on 22.07.2015, on completion of the minimum residency period of two years. Hence, by no means, the applicant can overstep the respondent. Thus, justifying the speaking order and the publication of the provisional seniority list dated 07.11.2024, learned counsel sought for dismissal of the OA.

7. There is no representation on behalf of Respondent Nos. 4 and 6.

8. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

9. It is true that the private respondents had approached this Tribunal in OA Nos. 590/2020 and OA No. 245/2021 challenging the inaction of the respondents in not considering their representations to absorb them in Statistical Department since they were working in Traffic Accounts of the Statistical Department from 2014 on medical de-categorization and subsequently during 2020 alternative appointment was provided to them in Commercial Department. This Tribunal considering the material aspects, disposed of the OA No. 590/2020 (DD: 30.03.2023) directing the Respondent No. 2 to consider the representations dated 28.07.2020 submitted by the applicants individually and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and OA No. 245/2021 (DD: 30.03.2023) directing the Respondent No. 1 to consider the representation submitted by the applicant dated 24.02.2021. However, in both the matters it was observed that having regard to the medically de-categorized status of the applicants therein, the same requires sympathetic consideration.

10. The main ground of challenge to appoint the private respondents in the Statistical Department on medical de- categorization is that, the mandatory requirement of approval from the 2nd respondent was not obtained and hence alternative appointment was given to them to Commercial Department. Pursuant to passing of the orders by this Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation referred to, supra, Respondent No. 1 as well as Respondent No. 2 have disposed of the representations submitted by the applicants by passing the speaking order dated 10.07.2023 (Annexure A6) by the Respondent No. 1 relating to OA No. 245/2021 and speaking order dated 10.07.2023 (Annexure R1) passed by the Respondent No. 2 relating to OA No. 590/2020 wherein it has been decided to continue the lien of the private respondents in ministerial cadre of Statistical Department of Headquarters under Traffic Accounts at SBC on administrative grounds. The applicant has not challenged these speaking orders, the basis for placing them above the applicant in the impugned seniority list dated 07.11.2024. Hence, on this ground alone, the OA is liable to be dismissed.

11. Even otherwise, the ground urged on behalf of the applicant that no approval was obtained for posting/accommodating the private respondents in the Statistical Department falling under the administrative control of the Headquarters, South Western Railway, Hubballi does not subsist in view of the speaking orders dated 10.07.2023 passed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the respective cases stated supra. By passing such orders, the approval is deemed to have been given for such posting/absorption in the Statistical Department. The applicant aired no grievances when the private respondents were accommodated in the Statistical Department on the recommendation of the Screening Committee and joined on 26.09.2014. The private respondents have entered into the Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- much before the date of appointment of the applicant and the applicant has been promoted to that post only on 22.07.2015, on completion of the minimum residency period of two years.

12. It is true that, Clause 5.8 and 6.2 of the Master Circular No. 25 which categorically deals with “Absorption of Medically De-categorized Non-Gazetted Staff in Alternative Jobs” states that the administration should ensure that the interest of staff in service in the cadre of staff in absorption should not be adversely affected as far as possible, at the same time, Para 1304 of Chapter XIII, Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) Volume I (Revised Edition 1989), points out that disabled/medically de-categorized staffs to be absorbed in posts they can adequately fill. While finding alternative post for absorption of disabled/medically de-categorized staff, the railway administration should ensure that the interests of other staff in service are not adversely affected and no reversion of any officiating railway servant is made to absorb the disabled/medically de-categorized staff. For this purpose, attempt should be made to absorb the disabled/medically de-categorized railway servant not only in the Unit/Division or Department but in other Unit/Division or Department. Para 1306 (8) provides that before any post is filled or a promotion is ordered, officers concerned will refer to their registers and satisfy themselves that no disabled/medically incapacitated railway servant who is suitable for the post is available. If any such disabled/medically incapacitated employee is available, he will be given preference over all other categories of staff for appointment. The applicant is not working as officiating railway servant and no reversion of officiating railway servant is made to absorb the disabled/medially de-categorised staff as enumerated in 1304. There is no bar to absorb the disabled/medically de-categorized railway servant not only within the Unit/Division or Department but in other Unit/Division or Department. Hence, the private respondents’ seniority has to be protected as per RBE No. 89/1999 and under Section 47 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

13. Para 1310 deals with fixation of seniority of disabled/medically de-categorized staff absorbed in alternative employment. This provision envisages that the disabled/medically de-categorized staff absorbed in alternative posts should be allowed seniority in the grade of absorption with reference to the length of service rendered on non-fortuitous basis in the equivalent or corresponding grade before being declared medically unfit. This is subject to the proviso that if a disabled/medically de-categorized employee happens to be absorbed in the cadre from which he was originally promoted, he will not be placed above his erstwhile seniors in the grade of absorption. In the light of these provisions, placing the private respondents above the applicant in the

Provisional Seniority List, 2024 is not illegal. Hardship caused to the applicant cannot nullify the seniority list.

14. For the reasons stated hereinabove, OA is devoid of merit. Resultantly, OA stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

Sd/-

(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)

MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

/ksk/