Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 613
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5498 OF 2012
DINESH D PANCHAL AND ORS. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5791 of 2025
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.15769 OF 2010)
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (C) No.15769
of 2010.
FACTUAL ASPECT
2. The appellants were working in Bhavnagar Division
of the Western Railway Zone. They were holding the posts
of goods guard, senior goods guard, passenger guard,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2025.05.01
16:44:46 IST
Reason:
senior passenger guard and mail/express guard. By the
year 2002, there was a reduction of goods traffic within
Civil Appeal No.5498 of 2012, etc. Page 1 of 13
the territorial jurisdiction of Bhavnagar Division on
account of the conversion of railway tracks from meter
gauge to broad gauge. Apart from a considerable
reduction in the number of goods trains running between
Sabarmati and Botad, there was a cancellation of
mail/express trains running between Ahmedabad and
Bhavnagar as well.
th
3. On 17 September 2002, the Western Railway
accorded sanction for the surrender of 19 posts of goods
guard in Bhavnagar Division. Similarly, by a letter dated
th
8 January 2003, sanction was accorded for
surrendering 12 permanent posts of goods guard based
on a six-monthly cadre review. In view of surrender, the
Division Officer of Bhavnagar Division, by a
communication dated 22nd November 2002, gave an
option to the employees (guards and drivers category) to
opt for transfer to another division. Some of the
petitioners before the High Court exercised this option.
th
By memorandum dated 7 March 2003, the option of
original petitioners Nos. 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15
before the High Court, and three others was accepted,
and they were posted at Ahmedabad with a direction that
they should be relieved to report to the place of posting.
They were all goods guards. At the relevant time,
Ahmedabad Division was not in existence, but
Civil Appeal No.5498 of 2012, etc. Page 2 of 13
Ahmedabad was falling within the territorial jurisdiction
st
of Baroda Division. On 1 April 2003, due to
restructuring, new divisions were created, and
accordingly, Ahmedabad Division was formed. Those
petitioners before the High Court, whose option was
th
accepted under the memorandum dated 7 March 2003,
th
joined at Ahmedabad Station on various dates from 9
th
April 2003 to 26 April 2003.
th
4. There was a communication issued on 30 June
2003 by the Divisional Office, Bhavnagar, addressed to
the Deputy Regional Manager, Ahmedabad, requesting to
give acceptance for absorbing 12 surplus guards
mentioned therein on the ground of being rendered
surplus. The original petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9
and 10 were named in the letter. They were either
mail/express guards, senior passenger guards and
th
passenger guards named in the letter. On 5 April 2004,
the competent authority in Bhavnagar Division issued a
formal office order in accordance with the approval of the
competent authority for the surrender of a total of 11
posts and accorded approval for the transfer of original
petitioners Nos.1 to 6, 9 and 10 before the High Court,
th
and three others. Accordingly, on 9 April 2004, the
original petitioners Nos. 1 to 6, 9 and 10 resumed duties
at Ahmedabad. The surrender of 11 posts, which was
Civil Appeal No.5498 of 2012, etc. Page 3 of 13
approved on 5th April 2004 by Bhavnagar Division, was
in respect of three mail/express guards, four posts of
passenger guards, and the remaining posts of senior
goods guard.
5. In the present appeals, we are dealing with two
categories of appellants. The first category is of original
petitioners Nos. 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 before the
High Court, who belonged to the goods guard category
and who joined Ahmedabad station in April 2003. The
second category of appellants are original petitioners
Nos.1 to 6, 9, and 10 before the High Court, who
belonged to the cadre of guards, such as mail/express
guards, senior passenger guards, and passenger guards
who were in a higher pay scale than the first category.
th
They joined at Ahmedabad on 5 April 2004, after the
formation of Ahmedabad Division. As far as the first
category is concerned, they were rendered surplus in
Bhavnagar Division and were absorbed in Baroda
Division in Ahmedabad. After the formation of
Ahmedabad Division, they were allotted to Ahmedabad
Division. The rest of the petitioners before the High
Court, as stated above, were higher in hierarchy. After
ascertaining the willingness to be treated as surplus,
they were transferred and absorbed in Ahmedabad
Civil Appeal No.5498 of 2012, etc. Page 4 of 13
Division on the condition that they would take seniority
in respect to cadre from the date of their absorption.
6. Respondents Nos.4 to 7 in Civil Appeal No. 5498 of
2012, filed original application No. 355 of 2006 before the
Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, ‘the
Tribunal’). The Tribunal held that goods guard absorbed
in the Baroda Division and later allotted to Ahmedabad
Division shall take their seniority from the date of
absorption in the Baroda Division. It was held that other
goods guards higher in hierarchy who had expressed
their willingness to be posted in Ahmedabad Division
would be absorbed at the bottom of the seniority list in
the recruitment grade of the goods guard. By the
impugned judgment, a Division Bench of the Gujarat
High Court confirmed the view taken by the Tribunal.
Being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, Civil
Appeal No. 5498 of 2012 was filed by those appellants
who were parties before the Tribunal. Civil appeal arising
out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.15769 of 2010 is
preferred by the appellant, who was a passenger guard
and was not a party before the Tribunal.
SUBMISSIONS
7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants in Civil Appeal No. 5498 of 2012 submitted
Civil Appeal No.5498 of 2012, etc. Page 5 of 13
that the appellants were absorbed in Ahmedabad Division
on 5th April 2004. He submitted that the circular no. E
106/2004 dated 25th May 2004 and consequent
amendment brought in the Indian Railway Establishment
Manual, 1989 (for short, ‘the Manual’) in the form of
paragraph 313A cannot be made applicable to the
appellants for fixing their seniority at the bottom of the
recruitment grade instead of fixing it at the bottom of the
absorption grade. He pointed out that paragraph 313A of
the Manual means that only the seniority of surplus
employees is to be fixed at the bottom of the grade of
absorption and not at the bottom of recruitment grade.
He submitted that the appellants who were given the
option for absorption cannot be made to suffer by fixing
the seniority of surplus employees at the bottom of the
recruitment grade.
8. Learned senior counsel for the appellants invited
our attention to the prayers made in the original
application before the Tribunal filed by the 4th to 7th
respondents in Civil Appeal No. 5498 of 2012. He pointed
out that the prayer ‘A’ was for a direction to the railway
authorities to consider the representation made by the
4th to 7th respondents. The prayer ‘B’ was to declare that
respondents Nos. 9 to 19 to the original application were
not surplus staff of Bhavnagar Division when they were
Civil Appeal No.5498 of 2012, etc. Page 6 of 13
transferred from Bhavnagar Division to Ahmedabad
Division. A prayer was made to repatriate them to their
original Bhavnagar Division, or alternatively, they may be
put at the bottom level of the original recruitment grade,
i.e., the bottom level of goods guard in the seniority list at
the transferred place. He submitted that, therefore,
prayer for repatriation ought to have been considered.
9. Learned counsel representing the respondents
supported the decisions of the Tribunal and the High
Court.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
10. We must note here from the impugned judgment of
the High Court that the prayer to repatriate the
appellants was not pressed into service. Therefore, now
in this appeal, the appellants cannot be permitted to
agitate the same.
11. We have carefully perused the impugned judgments.
Even the Tribunal has noted that respondents Nos. 4 to 7
in Civil Appeal No. 5498 of 2012 were working in
Ahmedabad Division after its formation on 1st April
2003. The Tribunal noted that those who have come to
Ahmedabad Division after having been declared surplus
in Bhavnagar Division were the private respondents in
the original application. Both the Tribunal and the High
Civil Appeal No.5498 of 2012, etc. Page 7 of 13
Court considered the grievance that the original
application was barred by limitation. It was held that
when the representation of the 4th to 7th respondents
was rejected by the order dated 19th April 2006, the
cause of action arose for filing the original application.
Therefore, the objection of limitation was rightly rejected.
The Original Application was filed within three years from
19th April 2016. Hence, there is no merit in the
contention based on the bar of limitation.
12. The Tribunal in paragraph 24 has noted that the
question was whether inter-divisional transfer of surplus
staff and intra-divisional transfer of surplus staff are
governed by the same set of rules. The Tribunal referred
to paragraphs 311-312 of the Manual, which is a
compilation of instructions of the Railway Board. It also
referred to RE 106/89 dated 21st April 1989, which is on
the subject of absorption. Thereafter, the Tribunal
considered the Railway Board circular No. RE 106/2004
dated 26th June 2004. Accordingly, paragraph 313A was
incorporated dealing with assignment of seniority to
redeployment of surplus staff. Paragraph 313A provided
that the surplus employees are not entitled for benefits of
the past service rendered in the previous
units/departments for the purposes of their seniority in
the new department and such persons are to be treated
Civil Appeal No.5498 of 2012, etc. Page 8 of 13
as fresh entrants in the department. The Tribunal also
considered the argument that circular no. RE 106/2004
was brought in on 26th June 2004. The Tribunal held
that the circular itself provided that closed cases should
not be reopened based on the said circular. The Tribunal
found, as a matter of fact, that the draft seniority list was
published for the first time in November 2004, and
therefore, the circular dated 26th June 2004 would apply.
This view is correct.
13. Now, we may refer to the Railway Board circular
dated 26th June 2004, which the Tribunal has quoted.
Relevant paragraphs of the circular read thus:
“…………………………………………………
Para 1, 3, 3.1 & 3.2 are as under:-
1. In terms of instructions contained in
this Ministry’s letter No. E(NG) 11-
84/REI/10 dated 21.04.1989. and
reiterated in their letter No. E
(MPP)/99/1/75 dated 28.11.2000.
Seniority of surplus staff absorbed in
other units/ departments is
determined as follows:-
(1) When only a small number of staff
is being rendered surplus and they
have to be absorbed in various
units of other departments against
vacancies of duly sanctioned posts.
They can be suitably adjusted in
those units with their full seniority
Civil Appeal No.5498 of 2012, etc. Page 9 of 13
and their seniority merged in the
respective units.
(2) When large number of staff is being
rendered surplus and they are
absorbed in new units, they should
be given their full seniority but kept
in a separate block against special
supernumerary posts in
consultation with the unions so
that they get promotion separately
as per percentage applicable to
them. In their original cadre and
the existing staff in the absorbing
unit are also not adversely affected.
(3) In light of the above, the question
of review of instructions regulating
seniority of surplus staff on their
absorption in the new
cadre/department has been under
consideration by this Ministry. The
views of both the recognized
Federation have also been obtained
and taken into account, it has been
decided that the service rendered
by the surplus staff prior to
redeployment will not count for
seniority and promotion in the
absorbing unit. To this extent item
(i) of para 1 above stands modified.
Other stipulations in the existing
instruction including the one
referred to in (ii) of para 1 above
will remain unaltered.
3.1 Indian Railway Establishment
Manual, 1989 may also be
Civil Appeal No.5498 of 2012, etc. Page 10 of 13
amended as per advance correction
Slip No. 159 enclosed.
3.2 Past cases decided otherwise
will not be reopened.”
13.1 As provided therein, paragraph 313A was inserted
into the Manual. Paragraph 313A reads thus:
“313A – Assignment of seniority to
redeployment surplus staff:-
The surplus employees are not
entitled for benefits of the past
service rendered in the previous
units/department for the purpose of
their seniority in the new
unit/department. Such employees are
to be treated as fresh entrants in the
matter of their seniority, promotion
etc.
Note: 1. When two or more surplus
employees of a particular grade in a
unit/department are selected on different
dates for absorption in a grade in
another unit/department, their inter se
seniority in the latter unit/department
will be same as in their previous
unit/department. Provided that-
(i) No direct recruit has been selected
for appointment to that grade in
between these dates; and
(ii) No promotee has been approved for
appointment to that grade between
these dates.
Civil Appeal No.5498 of 2012, etc. Page 11 of 13
Note: 2 When two or more surplus
employees of a particular grade in a
unit/department are simultaneously
selected for redeployment in another
unit/department in a grade, their inter
se seniority in the particular grade, on
redeployment in the latter
unit/department would be same as in
their previous unit/department.
(Authority: Ministry’s of Railway letter
No. E(NG-1-2000/SR6/28 dated
25.05.2004).”
14. Now, coming to the decision of the High Court, we
find that the High Court has referred to the policy of
Western Railway, which was in force from 1989. The High
Court has quoted the said policy, which reads thus:
“Normally, the junior most of the
employees should be rendered surplus,
irrespective of the manner in which they
had entered the grade. However, where
staff give their willingness to go on
bottom seniority in recruitment grades to
other departments, such volunteers
should be given preference depending
upon the availability of vacancies in the
other cadre and their suitability,
including medical fitness.”
15. Therefore, those who have been rendered surplus in
Bhavnagar Division cannot have a grievance if they were
Civil Appeal No.5498 of 2012, etc. Page 12 of 13
to go to the bottom of the seniority of the recruitment
grade. As regards the first category, which we have
referred to is of goods guards who were rendered surplus.
The second category comprises senior goods guards,
senior passenger guards, and mail/express guards.
Though the persons belonging to the second category
were not rendered surplus, on the option exercised by
them, they were brought to Ahmedabad Division. Thus,
they volunteered to be rendered surplus, and therefore,
as per the policy, they went down to the bottom of the
seniority in recruitment grade.
16. No case is made out to interfere with the concurrent
findings of the Tribunal and High Court. Hence, appeals
are dismissed.
……………………..J.
(Abhay S. Oka)
……………………..J.
(Ujjal Bhuyan)
New Delhi;
May 01, 2025
Civil Appeal No.5498 of 2012, etc. Page 13 of 13
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5498 OF 2012
DINESH D PANCHAL AND ORS. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5791 of 2025
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.15769 OF 2010)
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (C) No.15769
of 2010.
FACTUAL ASPECT
2. The appellants were working in Bhavnagar Division
of the Western Railway Zone. They were holding the posts
of goods guard, senior goods guard, passenger guard,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2025.05.01
16:44:46 IST
Reason:
senior passenger guard and mail/express guard. By the
year 2002, there was a reduction of goods traffic within
Civil Appeal No.5498 of 2012, etc. Page 1 of 13
the territorial jurisdiction of Bhavnagar Division on
account of the conversion of railway tracks from meter
gauge to broad gauge. Apart from a considerable
reduction in the number of goods trains running between
Sabarmati and Botad, there was a cancellation of
mail/express trains running between Ahmedabad and
Bhavnagar as well.
th
3. On 17 September 2002, the Western Railway
accorded sanction for the surrender of 19 posts of goods
guard in Bhavnagar Division. Similarly, by a letter dated
th
8 January 2003, sanction was accorded for
surrendering 12 permanent posts of goods guard based
on a six-monthly cadre review. In view of surrender, the
Division Officer of Bhavnagar Division, by a
communication dated 22nd November 2002, gave an
option to the employees (guards and drivers category) to
opt for transfer to another division. Some of the
petitioners before the High Court exercised this option.
th
By memorandum dated 7 March 2003, the option of
original petitioners Nos. 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15
before the High Court, and three others was accepted,
and they were posted at Ahmedabad with a direction that
they should be relieved to report to the place of posting.
They were all goods guards. At the relevant time,
Ahmedabad Division was not in existence, but
Civil Appeal No.5498 of 2012, etc. Page 2 of 13
Ahmedabad was falling within the territorial jurisdiction
st
of Baroda Division. On 1 April 2003, due to
restructuring, new divisions were created, and
accordingly, Ahmedabad Division was formed. Those
petitioners before the High Court, whose option was
th
accepted under the memorandum dated 7 March 2003,
th
joined at Ahmedabad Station on various dates from 9
th
April 2003 to 26 April 2003.
th
4. There was a communication issued on 30 June
2003 by the Divisional Office, Bhavnagar, addressed to
the Deputy Regional Manager, Ahmedabad, requesting to
give acceptance for absorbing 12 surplus guards
mentioned therein on the ground of being rendered
surplus. The original petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9
and 10 were named in the letter. They were either
mail/express guards, senior passenger guards and
th
passenger guards named in the letter. On 5 April 2004,
the competent authority in Bhavnagar Division issued a
formal office order in accordance with the approval of the
competent authority for the surrender of a total of 11
posts and accorded approval for the transfer of original
petitioners Nos.1 to 6, 9 and 10 before the High Court,
th
and three others. Accordingly, on 9 April 2004, the
original petitioners Nos. 1 to 6, 9 and 10 resumed duties
at Ahmedabad. The surrender of 11 posts, which was
Civil Appeal No.5498 of 2012, etc. Page 3 of 13
approved on 5th April 2004 by Bhavnagar Division, was
in respect of three mail/express guards, four posts of
passenger guards, and the remaining posts of senior
goods guard.
5. In the present appeals, we are dealing with two
categories of appellants. The first category is of original
petitioners Nos. 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 before the
High Court, who belonged to the goods guard category
and who joined Ahmedabad station in April 2003. The
second category of appellants are original petitioners
Nos.1 to 6, 9, and 10 before the High Court, who
belonged to the cadre of guards, such as mail/express
guards, senior passenger guards, and passenger guards
who were in a higher pay scale than the first category.
th
They joined at Ahmedabad on 5 April 2004, after the
formation of Ahmedabad Division. As far as the first
category is concerned, they were rendered surplus in
Bhavnagar Division and were absorbed in Baroda
Division in Ahmedabad. After the formation of
Ahmedabad Division, they were allotted to Ahmedabad
Division. The rest of the petitioners before the High
Court, as stated above, were higher in hierarchy. After
ascertaining the willingness to be treated as surplus,
they were transferred and absorbed in Ahmedabad
Civil Appeal No.5498 of 2012, etc. Page 4 of 13
Division on the condition that they would take seniority
in respect to cadre from the date of their absorption.
6. Respondents Nos.4 to 7 in Civil Appeal No. 5498 of
2012, filed original application No. 355 of 2006 before the
Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, ‘the
Tribunal’). The Tribunal held that goods guard absorbed
in the Baroda Division and later allotted to Ahmedabad
Division shall take their seniority from the date of
absorption in the Baroda Division. It was held that other
goods guards higher in hierarchy who had expressed
their willingness to be posted in Ahmedabad Division
would be absorbed at the bottom of the seniority list in
the recruitment grade of the goods guard. By the
impugned judgment, a Division Bench of the Gujarat
High Court confirmed the view taken by the Tribunal.
Being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, Civil
Appeal No. 5498 of 2012 was filed by those appellants
who were parties before the Tribunal. Civil appeal arising
out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.15769 of 2010 is
preferred by the appellant, who was a passenger guard
and was not a party before the Tribunal.
SUBMISSIONS
7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants in Civil Appeal No. 5498 of 2012 submitted
Civil Appeal No.5498 of 2012, etc. Page 5 of 13
that the appellants were absorbed in Ahmedabad Division
on 5th April 2004. He submitted that the circular no. E
106/2004 dated 25th May 2004 and consequent
amendment brought in the Indian Railway Establishment
Manual, 1989 (for short, ‘the Manual’) in the form of
paragraph 313A cannot be made applicable to the
appellants for fixing their seniority at the bottom of the
recruitment grade instead of fixing it at the bottom of the
absorption grade. He pointed out that paragraph 313A of
the Manual means that only the seniority of surplus
employees is to be fixed at the bottom of the grade of
absorption and not at the bottom of recruitment grade.
He submitted that the appellants who were given the
option for absorption cannot be made to suffer by fixing
the seniority of surplus employees at the bottom of the
recruitment grade.
8. Learned senior counsel for the appellants invited
our attention to the prayers made in the original
application before the Tribunal filed by the 4th to 7th
respondents in Civil Appeal No. 5498 of 2012. He pointed
out that the prayer ‘A’ was for a direction to the railway
authorities to consider the representation made by the
4th to 7th respondents. The prayer ‘B’ was to declare that
respondents Nos. 9 to 19 to the original application were
not surplus staff of Bhavnagar Division when they were
Civil Appeal No.5498 of 2012, etc. Page 6 of 13
transferred from Bhavnagar Division to Ahmedabad
Division. A prayer was made to repatriate them to their
original Bhavnagar Division, or alternatively, they may be
put at the bottom level of the original recruitment grade,
i.e., the bottom level of goods guard in the seniority list at
the transferred place. He submitted that, therefore,
prayer for repatriation ought to have been considered.
9. Learned counsel representing the respondents
supported the decisions of the Tribunal and the High
Court.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
10. We must note here from the impugned judgment of
the High Court that the prayer to repatriate the
appellants was not pressed into service. Therefore, now
in this appeal, the appellants cannot be permitted to
agitate the same.
11. We have carefully perused the impugned judgments.
Even the Tribunal has noted that respondents Nos. 4 to 7
in Civil Appeal No. 5498 of 2012 were working in
Ahmedabad Division after its formation on 1st April
2003. The Tribunal noted that those who have come to
Ahmedabad Division after having been declared surplus
in Bhavnagar Division were the private respondents in
the original application. Both the Tribunal and the High
Civil Appeal No.5498 of 2012, etc. Page 7 of 13
Court considered the grievance that the original
application was barred by limitation. It was held that
when the representation of the 4th to 7th respondents
was rejected by the order dated 19th April 2006, the
cause of action arose for filing the original application.
Therefore, the objection of limitation was rightly rejected.
The Original Application was filed within three years from
19th April 2016. Hence, there is no merit in the
contention based on the bar of limitation.
12. The Tribunal in paragraph 24 has noted that the
question was whether inter-divisional transfer of surplus
staff and intra-divisional transfer of surplus staff are
governed by the same set of rules. The Tribunal referred
to paragraphs 311-312 of the Manual, which is a
compilation of instructions of the Railway Board. It also
referred to RE 106/89 dated 21st April 1989, which is on
the subject of absorption. Thereafter, the Tribunal
considered the Railway Board circular No. RE 106/2004
dated 26th June 2004. Accordingly, paragraph 313A was
incorporated dealing with assignment of seniority to
redeployment of surplus staff. Paragraph 313A provided
that the surplus employees are not entitled for benefits of
the past service rendered in the previous
units/departments for the purposes of their seniority in
the new department and such persons are to be treated
Civil Appeal No.5498 of 2012, etc. Page 8 of 13
as fresh entrants in the department. The Tribunal also
considered the argument that circular no. RE 106/2004
was brought in on 26th June 2004. The Tribunal held
that the circular itself provided that closed cases should
not be reopened based on the said circular. The Tribunal
found, as a matter of fact, that the draft seniority list was
published for the first time in November 2004, and
therefore, the circular dated 26th June 2004 would apply.
This view is correct.
13. Now, we may refer to the Railway Board circular
dated 26th June 2004, which the Tribunal has quoted.
Relevant paragraphs of the circular read thus:
“…………………………………………………
Para 1, 3, 3.1 & 3.2 are as under:-
1. In terms of instructions contained in
this Ministry’s letter No. E(NG) 11-
84/REI/10 dated 21.04.1989. and
reiterated in their letter No. E
(MPP)/99/1/75 dated 28.11.2000.
Seniority of surplus staff absorbed in
other units/ departments is
determined as follows:-
(1) When only a small number of staff
is being rendered surplus and they
have to be absorbed in various
units of other departments against
vacancies of duly sanctioned posts.
They can be suitably adjusted in
those units with their full seniority
Civil Appeal No.5498 of 2012, etc. Page 9 of 13
and their seniority merged in the
respective units.
(2) When large number of staff is being
rendered surplus and they are
absorbed in new units, they should
be given their full seniority but kept
in a separate block against special
supernumerary posts in
consultation with the unions so
that they get promotion separately
as per percentage applicable to
them. In their original cadre and
the existing staff in the absorbing
unit are also not adversely affected.
(3) In light of the above, the question
of review of instructions regulating
seniority of surplus staff on their
absorption in the new
cadre/department has been under
consideration by this Ministry. The
views of both the recognized
Federation have also been obtained
and taken into account, it has been
decided that the service rendered
by the surplus staff prior to
redeployment will not count for
seniority and promotion in the
absorbing unit. To this extent item
(i) of para 1 above stands modified.
Other stipulations in the existing
instruction including the one
referred to in (ii) of para 1 above
will remain unaltered.
3.1 Indian Railway Establishment
Manual, 1989 may also be
Civil Appeal No.5498 of 2012, etc. Page 10 of 13
amended as per advance correction
Slip No. 159 enclosed.
3.2 Past cases decided otherwise
will not be reopened.”
13.1 As provided therein, paragraph 313A was inserted
into the Manual. Paragraph 313A reads thus:
“313A – Assignment of seniority to
redeployment surplus staff:-
The surplus employees are not
entitled for benefits of the past
service rendered in the previous
units/department for the purpose of
their seniority in the new
unit/department. Such employees are
to be treated as fresh entrants in the
matter of their seniority, promotion
etc.
Note: 1. When two or more surplus
employees of a particular grade in a
unit/department are selected on different
dates for absorption in a grade in
another unit/department, their inter se
seniority in the latter unit/department
will be same as in their previous
unit/department. Provided that-
(i) No direct recruit has been selected
for appointment to that grade in
between these dates; and
(ii) No promotee has been approved for
appointment to that grade between
these dates.
Civil Appeal No.5498 of 2012, etc. Page 11 of 13
Note: 2 When two or more surplus
employees of a particular grade in a
unit/department are simultaneously
selected for redeployment in another
unit/department in a grade, their inter
se seniority in the particular grade, on
redeployment in the latter
unit/department would be same as in
their previous unit/department.
(Authority: Ministry’s of Railway letter
No. E(NG-1-2000/SR6/28 dated
25.05.2004).”
14. Now, coming to the decision of the High Court, we
find that the High Court has referred to the policy of
Western Railway, which was in force from 1989. The High
Court has quoted the said policy, which reads thus:
“Normally, the junior most of the
employees should be rendered surplus,
irrespective of the manner in which they
had entered the grade. However, where
staff give their willingness to go on
bottom seniority in recruitment grades to
other departments, such volunteers
should be given preference depending
upon the availability of vacancies in the
other cadre and their suitability,
including medical fitness.”
15. Therefore, those who have been rendered surplus in
Bhavnagar Division cannot have a grievance if they were
Civil Appeal No.5498 of 2012, etc. Page 12 of 13
to go to the bottom of the seniority of the recruitment
grade. As regards the first category, which we have
referred to is of goods guards who were rendered surplus.
The second category comprises senior goods guards,
senior passenger guards, and mail/express guards.
Though the persons belonging to the second category
were not rendered surplus, on the option exercised by
them, they were brought to Ahmedabad Division. Thus,
they volunteered to be rendered surplus, and therefore,
as per the policy, they went down to the bottom of the
seniority in recruitment grade.
16. No case is made out to interfere with the concurrent
findings of the Tribunal and High Court. Hence, appeals
are dismissed.
……………………..J.
(Abhay S. Oka)
……………………..J.
(Ujjal Bhuyan)
New Delhi;
May 01, 2025
Civil Appeal No.5498 of 2012, etc. Page 13 of 13