Policy decisions maintaining separate seniority for existing staff during cadre merger are immune from judicial interference.

The applicant was appointed as a Ticket Collector in 1997 and later joined as an Enquiry-cum-Reservation-Clerk (ECRC) in 2007

Following the 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommendations, the Railway Board issued RBE No. 28/2018, which mandated the merger of three categories—Ticket Checking (TC), Commercial Clerk (CC), and ECRC—into a unified cadre

Pursuant to this, a provisional integrated seniority list was published on 01.07.2018, where the applicant’s name was placed at Sl. No. 52, significantly lower than his position in the previous separate seniority list

Due to widespread grievances and litigation across various Benches of the Tribunal, the Railway Board issued RBE No. 59/2019

This later order clarified that for existing employees, the three seniority groups would remain separate, and merger would only apply to future direct recruits

The applicant challenged Clause (vi) of Annexure-A of RBE No. 59/2019, seeking the implementation of a fully integrated seniority list as per the original 7th CPC recommendations with retrospective effect

1. Whether Clause (vi) of Annexure-A of RBE No. 59/2019, which maintains separate seniority for existing staff despite the 7th CPC recommendation for merger, is arbitrary, illegal, or contrary to service jurisprudence

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to a direction compelling the Respondents to prepare an integrated seniority list with retrospective effect

The Tribunal relied on the principle that the Railway Board's orders possess statutory force, as established in Railway Board v. P.R. Subramaniyam (1978)

It further applied the ruling in Prabhat Ranjan Singh v. R.K. Kushwaha (2018), which affirmed that the Railways are empowered to frame their own service rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution

the government has the unilateral authority to alter service conditions through statutory rules and that the "Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation" does not apply to matters strictly governed by service regulations

The Tribunal observed that while the 7th CPC recommended a merger of cadres to enhance organizational flexibility

the implementation through RBE 28/2018 resulted in administrative difficulties and multiple court cases

RBE 59/2019 was a policy-based corrective measure issued after consultations with major staff federations (AIRF and NFIR) to protect the promotional prospects of existing employees by maintaining separate seniority groups

The Tribunal emphasized that the applicant failed to challenge the foundational order, RBE 28/2018, and instead only targeted the subsequent clarificatory RBE 59/2019

The court reasoned that policy decisions regarding cadre structure and seniority are within the exclusive domain of the employer

Since the applicant provided no evidence of malice or gross arbitrariness, and since his seniority within his own category was protected (shifting to Sl. No. 11 in the 2022 list), there was no basis for judicial interference

The court concluded that RBE 59/2019 was a valid exercise of statutory power designed to resolve field-level implementation issues

The prayer for an integrated seniority list was denied, and the parties were ordered to bear their own costs