Settled Seniority and Positions Cannot Be Unsettled Post-Finalization and Promotion Absent Statutory Authorization

The applicants were appointed as Assistant Loco Pilots (ALP) in various Railway Divisions (Vadodara, Rajkot, Ahmedabad) via the Railway Recruitment Board.

They subsequently sought and were granted "mutual exchange" transfers to the Bhavnagar Division under Para 310 of IREM Vol. I.

Upon joining, their seniority was fixed based on the persons they exchanged with, and they were later promoted to Senior ALP.

Seniority lists issued in 2022 and 2023 attained finality as no objections were raised.

In 2024, the respondents retrospectively revised the seniority of mutual-transfer employees, placing them at the bottom of the list based on a clarification (P.S. No. 30/2024) regarding different community/grade exchanges.

Consequently, the applicants were displaced by junior direct recruits and excluded from promotion lists for Loco Pilot (Shunter).

1. Whether the benefits granted to similarly situated applicants in O.A. No. 104/2024 and 105/2024 should be extended to the present applicants under the principle of parity.

2. Whether the respondents can legally disturb or unsettle a seniority list that has reached finality and remained unchallenged for several years.

Para 310 of IREM Vol. I and Para 230 of IREC Vol. I, which govern seniority fixation during mutual exchange transfers.

Para 321 of IREM Vol. I, which prohibits revisions of seniority lists beyond one year after publication.

Settled seniority is a civil right that should not be unsettled to avoid administrative bitterness, as held in H.S. Vankani v. State of Gujarat (2010).

Seniority lists unchallenged for 3-4 years must not be disturbed, as established in Shiba Shankar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa (2009) and K.R. Mudgal v. R.P. Singh (1986).

The principle of parity among similarly situated employees as derived from Union of India v. Munshi Ram (2022) and State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015).

The Tribunal reasoned that since the applicants’ seniority in the ALP cadre was finalized in 2022/2023 without objection and acted upon through promotions to Sr. ALP, the respondents were barred by Para 321 of IREM Vol. I from revising it years later.

The court noted that the respondents failed to distinguish this case from O.A. No. 104/2024, where similar retrospective seniority revisions were quashed.

The Tribunal found that the respondents’ reliance on a 2024 HQ clarification to unsettle 2021-2022 seniority was arbitrary and violated the doctrine of stare decisis and Article 14, as it created a disparity between divisions under the same employer.

Raking up old seniority matters after 3-4 years was deemed a catalyst for administrative chaos and insecurity, contrary to the Supreme Court's directives in K.R. Mudgal.

The Tribunal quashed the impugned notifications dated 11.07.2024, 30.05.2024, 21.02.2025, and 16.09.2025.

The respondents were directed to restore the applicants' original seniority as per the list dated 08.04.2024 and carry out promotions to the post of Shunter accordingly, subject to the outcome of SCA No. 9388/2025 pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat.