CAT - Kolkata

SENIORITY DETERMINATION FOR GROUP 'B' PROMOTIONS MUST COUNT TOTAL NON-FORTUITOUS SERVICE FROM GRADE PAY RS. 4200 AND ABOVE.

Sarbani Chanda v. Union of India [O.A. 350/01447/2025]

CAT - KolkataJUDGMENT: no citation4 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The applicant, Sarbani Chanda, was appointed on 14.05.1987 as Clerk Grade – II/Jr. Clerk and was subsequently promoted to various positions, eventually regularized in Level 7 (Grade Pay Rs. 4600/-) on 21.12.2021 and upgraded to Level 8.

Source reference: no citation

The Principal Chief Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, issued a Notification dated 28.11.2024 for the selection and formation of a Group ‘B’ panel for Assistant Commercial Manager (ACM) against a 70% quota, for 10 vacancies, with eligibility for employees in Level 6 and above having three years of non-fortuitous service in Level 6 and above as on 01.01.2025.

Source reference: p.4

The applicant applied and her name appeared at Srl. No. 206 in the eligibility list dated 27.12.2024, showing a total length of service in Level 06 and Level 07 as on 01.01.2025 as 23 years 02 months.

Source reference: p.5

After a Computer Based Test on 18.05.2025, a Provisional Integrated Seniority List was circulated on 18.07.2025, where the applicant was placed at Srl. No. 53 (later revised to 52).

Source reference: p.5, 9

The applicant contended that her total length of service in Level 6 and Level 7 was not considered, and if it had been, she would have been placed at Srl. No. 06.

Source reference: p.5

Her representation dated 23.07.2025 was rejected on 19.08.2025, citing Para IV of RBE No. 216/2019, which states that employees in Level 7 will be placed above those in Level 6 in the integrated seniority list.

Source reference: p.5-6

The final panel for ACM selection published on 26.08.2025 placed her at Srl. No. 25, leading to further unanswered representations.

Source reference: p.8
02

Issues

1. Whether the provisional integrated seniority list for selection to the post of ACM against a 70% quota, prepared in terms of RBE No. 216/2019, is sustainable when it does not consider the total length of non-fortuitous service rendered in Grade Pay Rs. 4200/- and above.

Source reference: p.5-6, 12

2. Whether Para (iv) of RBE No. 216/2019, which places employees in Level 7 above those in Level 6 in the integrated seniority list for Group 'B' selections, is contrary to Paragraphs 203.4 and 203.5 of IREM Vol. I.

Source reference: p.6, 12, 18
03

Law Applied

The court primarily applied Paragraphs 203.4 and 203.5 of the Indian Railways Establishment Manual, Volume I (IREM Vol. I), which outlines rules governing the promotion of subordinate staff to Group 'B' posts.

Source reference: p.14-15

Paragraph 203.4 deals with the "zone of consideration," stipulating the number of employees to be called for selection based on vacancies using a sliding scale.

Source reference: p.15

Paragraph 203.5 specifies that integrated seniority for selection should be determined based on the total length of non-fortuitous service rendered in the feeder grade, specifically mentioning the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- (5th CPC), which corresponds to Grade Pay Rs. 4600/- (6th CPC) and Level 7 (7th CPC).

Source reference: p.15, 17

The court also considered RBE No. 216/2019, which prescribes eligibility conditions for promotion from Group 'C' to Group 'B' posts and deals with integrated seniority, particularly Para (iv) regarding the ranking of Level 7 employees above Level 6 employees.

Source reference: p.11-12
04

Reasoning

The court found that the respondents’ application of RBE No. 216/2019 and Paragraph 203.4 of IREM Vol. I was inconsistent with the manual's provisions.

Source reference: no citation

Paragraph 203.4 outlines a sliding scale for calling candidates, requiring three times the number of vacancies to be considered.

Source reference: p.15

The respondents considered 365 candidates for 10 vacancies for the CBT, and the provisional integrated seniority list considered 304 candidates, which was deemed contrary to the specific stipulation of Paragraph 203.4.

Source reference: p.15-16

Furthermore, Paragraph 203.5 of IREM Vol. I mandates that integrated seniority be determined based on the total length of non-fortuitous service rendered in the specified feeder grade (erstwhile Rs. 6500-10500/-, corresponding to Grade Pay Rs. 4600/- and Level 7 under the 7th CPC).

Source reference: p.15, 17

The court noted that after the 6th CPC, the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- was revised to Rs. 9300-34800/- with different Grade Pays (Rs. 4200/-, Rs. 4600/-, Rs. 4800/-), where Rs. 4200/- is a feeder grade for Rs. 4600/-, and so on.

Source reference: p.17-18

Therefore, when considering three heterogeneous seniority cadres (Level 6 and Level 7), the total non-fortuitous service from Grade Pay Rs. 4200/- and above must be counted.

Source reference: p.18

The court concluded that Para (iv) of RBE No. 216/2019, which places Level 7 employees above Level 6 employees and thus separates the two levels for seniority determination, misinterpreted the guiding principle of counting total non-fortuitous service across relevant feeder grades, thereby contradicting Paragraphs 203.4 and 203.5 of IREM Vol. I.

Source reference: p.18
05

Holding

The court quashed and set aside Paragraph (iv) of RBE No. 216/2019, along with Orders dated 26.08.2025 and 27.12.2019.

The respondents were directed to revise and/or recast the final panel for the selection process circulated vide letter dated 26.08.2025, based on the total length of non-fortuitous service rendered in Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- and above, as per Paragraph 203.5 of IREM Vol. I, within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the Order.

Source reference: p.18-19

The O.A. and M.As were disposed of accordingly.

Source reference: p.19
CAT - Kolkata

Original Court PDF

Sarbani Chanda v. Union of India [O.A. 350/01447/2025]

CAT - Kolkata · no citation

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment