UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusV.K. KRISHNAN & ORS

                  [2015] 3 S.C.R. 183


               UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                       A
                           v.
                V.K. KRISHNAN & ORS

             (Civil Appeal No. 2532 of 2010)               B

                  FEBRUARY 17, 2015

     [ANIL R. DAVE AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.]

     Railway service: Indian Railway Establishment Manual, C
 1989 - Paras 180, 189, 320 - Promotion of railway
 employees from one group to another and from one grade
 to another within the group - Respondent nos. 1 to 3
 working in group D - Respondent nos.2 and 3 working in D
highest grade in group D promoted to higher post, in group
 C - Respondent no. 1 was in a lower grade than respondent
nos. 2 and 3 - Claim of respondent no. 1 that he was having
the longest service in group D but was not promoted - Held:
Respondent no. 1 .was not in the highest grade of group D E
and being in a lower grade than respondent nos.2 and 3,
he could not have been promoted along with respondent
nos.2 and 3 - 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 F
gtoup D, he should also have been promoted along with
respondent nos.2 and 3, who were working in a higher
grade in group D - There cannot be one seniority list for
all the employees working in different grades in one
particular group - The seniority list for employees working G
in different grades should be different and there cannot be
any common seniority list for all the employees working in .
one particular group.

                          183                              H
184      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2015) 3 S.C.R.


A       Disposing of the appeals, the Court

       HELD: 1. 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
B 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 this
  reason, respondent nos.2 and 3 were promoted to a
  higher post, namely, in the lowest grade of group C
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 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
D the highest grade of group D 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. [Paras 11] [189-C-F]

E      2. Para 180 of the Indian· Railway Establishment
  Manual, 1989 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
F grades in the transportation and commercial branches.
  The said para further deals with a 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
G 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
H service in different grades. This clarifies that there
           UNION OF INDIA v. V.K. KRISHNAN                      185


cannot be one seniority list for all the employees A
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 B
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 C
included in the seniority list of the employees of the
higher grade. [Para 14] E191-D-H; 192-A]

     3. Para 189 pertains to the promotion to higher
grade in group C. As per the provisions of para 189,             D
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                 E
promotion from the highest grade of group D, a person
gets promotion to the lowest grade in group C. So far
as maintenance· of seniority is concerned, para 320
stipulates that the.re would be different seniority lists        F
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 scale,
and a seniority list for those persons working in one           G
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          H
186         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2015] 3 S.C.R.


A grade. [Paras 18 and 19] [193-B-F]

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
      2532 of 2010.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 27.11.2007 of the
8
      High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Original Petition No.
      14500 of 2003.

                                     with

C         C. A. Nos .. 1972-1973, 1974-1975 & 1976-1977 of
      2015.

      A. K. Sanghi, Kiran Bhardwaj, S. N. Terdal, Anil Katiyar,
  B. Krishna Prasad, C. N. Sreekumar, G. Prakash for the
D Appellants.

         Gurusharan Sharma, Amit Sharma, Dipesh Sinha, A.
      Raghunath for the Respondents.
                                       '
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
          ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1. Leave granted in all the special
      leave petitions.

          2. A common question of law is involved in all the11e
F     appeals and thE:lrefore, at the request of the learned counsel
      appearing in these appeals, all these appeals have been
      heard and decided together. ·
       3. The issue involved in these appeals is with regard
  to interpretation of some of the paras of Indian Railway
G 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
H Appeal No.2532 of 2010, which is the main matte~ in this
          UNION·OF INDIA v. V.K. KRISHNAN                   187
                 [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]

group of matters.                                            A
    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
                                                              8
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 C
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, D
as stated hereinabove. The persons working in a particular
grade would be 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, E
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.                                  F

     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 G
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.      H
                                                         •
188         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 3 S.C.R.


A           7. After hearing the concerned parties, the Tribunal had
        allowed Original Application No.1761 of 1998 on 21 51 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.
B
       8. Union of India, the appellant herein, was aggrieved
  by the aforestated order passed by the Tribunal and had,
  therefore, approached the High Cpurt of Kerala by filing O.P.
  No.14500 of 2003. Vide judgment dated 271h November,
C 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 rio.1, who was working as
o 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
E and 3 had been promoted. It i~ an admitted fact that so
  far as length of service in group Dis concerned, respondent
  no.1 was having longer service than respondent nos.2 and
      3.
F        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
G promoted to a higher grade within the group. As stated
    earlier, we are not concerned with the basis on which
    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
H on the basis of his seniority in his group irrespective of the
          UNION OF INDIA v. V.K. KRISHNAN                     189
                 [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]

length of service rendered in a particular grade. So as to A
understand the issue in a better perspective, hypothetically
we may say that there are four grades in group D viz. I, II,
Ill 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 Ill, then to grade II and B
then to grade I. After he has been placed in grade I of group
o;  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     C
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             D
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 0, was not
promoted to a group C post. To be able to get promoted         E
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         F
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 G
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 : H
190          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 3 S.C.R.


A         "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
B         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
c        ·training. Systematic and adequate training and
          examinations or tests must precede actual promotions."


                                              (emphasis supplied)
D
          Relevant portion of para 189, which pertains to
      promotion to a higher grade in group C, is as under:

      "189.     Promotion to higher grades in Group 'C' :-
E     (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
F
            Stores Clerks etc. should be earmarked for promotion.
            The quota for promotion of Group 'D' staff in the Ac-
            counts Deptt. to Group 'C' post of Accounts Clerks will
            be 25% ................................... "
G           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/ .
H           NON-SELECTION POST IN HIGHER GRADE.
            UNION OF !NOIA v. V.K. KRISHNAN                         191
                · [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]

     When a post (selection as well as non-selection) is filled A
     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 B
     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."                                                    c
      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          D
should be eligible for consideration for promotion to higher
grades in the transportation and commercial branches. The
said para further deals with a 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         E
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           F
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          G
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   H
192      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 3 S.C.R.


A 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
B promotion to grade Ill, would get his name included in the
  seniority list of employees working in grade Ill and he would
  be 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 Ill, though having longer
C 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 Ill than the employee having a longer
  service in grade IV or in that group, may get promotion to
0
  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.
E      15. So far as CivH 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
F 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
G regard to promotion of respondent nos.2 and 3 to a higher
   post in group C.

      17. For the aforestated reason, the Tribunal as well as
  High Court committed an error by g~ng a direction to the
H appellant to consider the case of respondent no.1 for
           UNION OF INDIA v. V.K. KRISHNAN                   193
                  [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]

promotion to the post to which respondent nos.2 and 3 were    A
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 0, who has no regular avenue B
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 C
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 liow many posts are reserved for such
employees who have no avenue for further promotion in
their group D.                                                 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 E
branches or different units doing different type of work, but
they are in one grade, i.e. in one pay 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 F
event a person working in one particular grade would be
promoted to the h_igher grade on the basis of his seniority
in that particular grade.

     20. The aforestated position is so clear that the learned G
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 responde~t no.1 was appointed H
194       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 3 S.C.R.


A 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
B . 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,
C according to him, had been superseded, that a common
  seniority list. for employees in 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
D and on the basis of seniority of respondent no.1, he too
  should have been ·promoted as it is an admitted fact that
  respo~dent no.1 was appointed earlier to respondent nos.2
  and 3 in the railway service.

E        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.
F 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
G had not been p'romoted 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
H appeals on the same princip!e.
            UNION OF INDIA v. V.K. KRISHNAN                    195
                   [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]

       23. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the A
  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.                       B

      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 C
 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 D
 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 E
 grades should be different and there cannot be any
 common seniority list for all the employees working in one
 particular group. ·

      25. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment F
 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.                                                      G

     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 H
196         SUPREME COURT REPORTS ·          (2015] 3 S.C.R.


A . 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 b_ehalf. From
   the facts stated hereinabove, in our opinion, they do not
B 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.
C     Devika Gujral                        Appeals disposed of.