Subsequent training batches of railway employees rank en-bloc junior to previous batches for determining seniority.

The fourteen applicants, serving as Loco Pilots (Shunting) and Senior Assistant Loco Pilots in the South Western Railway, challenged seniority orders dated 27.08.2018, 03.09.2018, and 24.03.2021

They argued that the respondents’ method of assigning seniority—based on training batches rather than the original Railway Recruitment Board (RRB) merit—was arbitrary and unconstitutional, specifically for candidates recruited together but sent for training in different batches between 2015 and 2018

During the pendency of the proceedings, the Railway Board issued a new circular, RBE No. 87/2025 dated 25.08.2025, which clarified the interpretation of seniority rules for candidates split into multiple batches for administrative reasons

In light of this development, the applicants sought to withdraw the application to file fresh administrative representations

1. Whether the seniority of non-gazetted employees recruited via the same RRB panel must be determined by their original merit rank or the date of training batch completion

2. Whether the applicants should be permitted to withdraw the application to seek remedy under the newly issued Railway Board Circular RBE No. 87/2025

Paragraphs 303(a) and 304 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) Vol. I, which govern the seniority of non-gazetted staff

Railway Board Circular RBE No. 87/2025 (New Delhi, dated 25.08.2025). This circular mandates that seniority should be decided based on the RRB/RRC panel position, ensuring that candidates who could not be sent for initial training in an appropriate batch due to administrative reasons are not penalized, and that subsequent batches rank en-bloc junior to previous appropriate batches

The Tribunal observed that the issuance of Circular RBE No. 87/2025 during the pendency of the case provided a new regulatory framework to address the applicants' grievances

While the respondents cited a previous judgment in Dileep Kumar v. Union of India (OA No. 44/2023) to argue for dismissal, the Tribunal prioritized the fact that the Railway Board had issued a specific clarification to prevent the misinterpretation of Para 303(a) of IREM Vol. I

The Tribunal reasoned that since the circular explicitly states that seniority should be determined by panel position when administrative delays occur, the applicants should be allowed to exhaust their administrative remedies by filing representations under the new guidelines before the court adjudicates on the merits

It granted the applicants liberty to file detailed representations in light of Circular RBE No. 87/2025 and directed the respondents to dispose of these representations within three months of receipt

The Tribunal further held that the applicants would have the liberty to file a fresh petition if the administrative outcome remained unsatisfactory

No order as to costs was made