CAT - ['Ahmedabad']

SETTLED SENIORITY CANNOT BE DISTURBED AFTER ONE YEAR OR ONCE FINALITY IS ACHIEVED

Ram Naresh Meena vs WESTERN RAILWAY

CAT - ['Ahmedabad']JUDGMENT: May 08, 20263 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The applicants were appointed as Assistant Loco Pilots (ALP) in various Railway Zones via RRB examinations

Source reference: p. 8, para 3.1

Between 2016 and 2020, they transferred to the Vadodara Division on a "mutual exchange basis" under Para 310 of IREM Vol. I

Source reference: p. 9, para 3.2

Their seniority was fixed upon joining, and they were subsequently promoted to Senior ALP based on seniority lists finalized in 2018, 2020, and 2021

Source reference: p. 9-10, para 3.5

On 15.05.2023, the respondents issued a revised draft seniority list drastically lowering the applicants' positions

Source reference: p. 10, para 3.7

While the Tribunal had previously set aside this revision for similarly situated employees in O.A. 104/2024, the respondents issued a new provisional list on 31.12.2025, claiming the court’s earlier relief was restricted only to the specific litigants of that case (in personam) and not applicable to the applicants (in rem)

Source reference: p. 12-13, para 3.12-3.13
02

Issues

1. Whether the legal relief granted to similarly situated employees in a previous judgment can be restricted to those specific litigants (in personam) or must be extended to all similarly placed employees (in rem)

Source reference: p. 31, para 9

2. Whether a long-settled seniority list, finalized and acted upon for several years, can be unilaterally disturbed by the administration

Source reference: p. 31, para 9
03

Law Applied

Para 321 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) Vol. I, which prohibits the revision of seniority lists beyond one year of publication

Source reference: p. 35, para 11

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. Munshi Ram, which mandates equal treatment for similarly situated employees to avoid discrimination under Articles 14 and 16

Source reference: p. 17, para 4.8

The doctrine that settled seniority should not be unsettled after a reasonable period (3-4 years) drawn from Malcom Lawrence Cecil D'Souza v. Union of India and K.R. Mudgal v. R.P. Singh

Source reference: p. 15, para 4.5; p. 36, para 12

The principle from State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava that benefits granted by a court to one set of employees must be extended to all others identically situated

Source reference: p. 19, para 4.9
04

Reasoning

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicants were identically situated to those in O.A. 104/2024, as both groups joined via mutual transfer and faced seniority downgrades based on the same administrative circulars

Source reference: p. 34, para 10.1

Applying the principle of parity, the court held that denying the applicants similar relief solely because they were not parties to the earlier litigation was discriminatory and violative of Article 14

Source reference: p. 35, para 10.2

Regarding the revision of seniority, the court found that since the applicants’ seniority had been settled since 2018 and they had already received promotions based on those lists, the administration was barred by Para 321 of IREM Vol. I from reopening the matter after a lapse of five years

Source reference: p. 36, para 11

The court observed that unsettling these positions would generate administrative instability and "bitterness" among employees, contrary to the settled ratio in H.S. Vankani v. State of Gujarat

Source reference: p. 33, para 13
05

Holding

The Tribunal answered both issues in favor of the applicants, holding that the earlier judgment was in rem and that settled seniority cannot be disturbed after the statutory period

The Tribunal quashed the modified seniority list dated 31.12.2025, the order rejecting representations dated 21.01.2026, and the promotion notification dated 09.01.2026. The respondents were directed to restore the applicants' original seniority as per the list dated 08.10.2025 and proceed with promotions accordingly, subject to the final outcome of SCA No. 9388/2025 pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat

Source reference: p. 39, para 15
CAT - ['Ahmedabad']

Original Court PDF

Ram Naresh MeenavsWESTERN RAILWAY

CAT - ['Ahmedabad'] · May 08, 2026

Click to open original judgment

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

Click to open original judgment