V. Balasubamanian v Union of India & Others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- K. Balakrishnan Nair
- P. Ravindran
- Judgment Date
- 2008-02-28
- Court Decision / Holding
- The Original Petition fails and it is dismissed.
- Final Disposition
- Original Petition dismissed
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- V. Balasubamanian
Respondents
- Union of India through the General Manager, Southern Railway, Head Quarters Office, Madras - 3
- The Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Head Quarters Office, Park Town P.O., Madras - 3
- The Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Palghat Division, Palghat
- P.C. Sundaram, Shornur, Diesel Assistant, Southern Railway
- K.S. Hameed, Shornur
- K. Kannan, Erode
- R. Ramasamy, Shunter, Southern Railway, Mangalore
- P. Sukumaran, Mangalore, Diesel Assistant, Southern Railway
- T. Mani, Palghat
- C. Devamani, Erode
- C. Periyan, Erode
- C.A. Somasundaram, Palghat
- R. Gurumoorthy, Erode
- T.T. Balan, Mangalore, Shunter, Southern Railway
- P.P. Anandankutty, Calicut, Diesel Assistant, Southern Railway
- N. Rangasamy, Coonoor, Diesel Asstt., S. Railway
- V. Chinnasamy, Erode
- C. Sreendran, Mangalore
- P. Prabhakaran, Mangalore, Shunter, S. Railway
- T. Alavi, Mangalore, Diesel Assistant, S.Rly
- ShkaiK Dawood, Erode, Diesel Assistant, Southern Railway
- Md. Ibrahim, Erode
- C. Shanmugham, Erode, Diesel Assistant, Southern Railway
- T.S. Balarajan, Erode
- K. Rajendran, Erode
- S. Oliver Kamale Karan, Erode
- S.S. Sanker, Erode
- M.Md. Ismail, Erode
- P. Umapathy, Erode
- J. Raman, Erode
- A. Murugesan, Erode
- T. Balasubramaniam, Erode
- K. Krishnamoorthy, Erode
- Geral d Melony, Erode
- Sedric Sebastian, Labo, Erode
- P. Mod. Basha, Erode
- T. Govindarajan, Erode
- A. Subramanian, Erode
- M.A. Sivasankaran, Shornur
- M. Ramakrishnan, Palghat, Diesel Assistant, Southern Railway
- M. Balasubramanian, Erode
- M. Selvakumar, Shornur
- K. Raju, Shornur
- A. Sreedharan, Calicut
- K. Surendran, Shornur
- C.K. Ravindran, Shornur
- M. Unni, Calicut
- K.C. Ravindranathan,
- Bhaskaran, Mangalore
- B. Velayudhan, Mangalore
- P.S. Krishnankutty, Erode
- V. Radhakrishnan, Erode
- I. Innas Babu, Palghat
- K. Subramanian, Erode
- K. Rajendran, Erode
- T.P. Ravindran, Calicut
- C. Balakrishnan, Erode, Shunter, S. Rly.
- K. Ravindran, Erode, Diesel Asstt., S.Rly.
- P.K. Rama Gounda, Driver, S. Rly.
- K. Devaraj, Erode, Diesel Asstt., S. Rly.
- John Philipose, Erode
- G. Thiyagarajan, Erode
- P.P. Soman, Calicut
- C. Nagendran, Erode
- N. Babu, Calicut
- P.S. Venkateswaran, Palghat
- G. Devadasan, Calicut
- M. Gopi, Kannur
- A. Abdul Rasheed, Erode
- CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, ERNAKULAM
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri. T.C. Govinda Swamy
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri. C.N. Radhakrishnan
Case Synopsis & Summary
The writ petitioner, V. Balasubamanian, a Diesel Assistant in the Southern Railway, challenged the provisional inter se seniority list of Diesel Assistants (Annexure-A2) published for the Palakkad Division and the subsequent actions culminating in Annexure-A6 (speaking order), Annexure-A8 (treating A2 as final seniority), and Annexure-A11 (promotions based on that list). His career spanned several cadres: Loco Khalasi, Engine Cleaner, Assistant Motor Man, and later Diesel Assistant after training in 1993. He argued that the inter se seniority between steam loco staff absorbed into the diesel wing should follow older, established principles and that the Railways’ procedures were unjustified or misapplied. He relied on three apex court decisions — Rama Kant Chaturvedi v. Divisional Supdt., N.Rly.; V.K. Dubey v. Union of India; and South Eastern Railway v. Ramanarain Singh — to challenge the Railways’ method of determining seniority. The Central Administrative Tribunal distinguished those decisions on facts and upheld the Railways’ approach, while also noting that the OA was barred by limitation. The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the CAT’s reasoning and holding that the petitioner’s challenge to the provisional list, and its consequent orders, was time-barred. It also observed that the petitioner had started Diesel Assistant later than some seniority contenders, supporting the Railways’ method as just and proper. Ultimately, the Court held that the Original Petition fails and is dismissed.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contended that the provisional seniority list (Annexure-A2) and the subsequent actions (Annexures A6, A8 and A11) were arbitrary and not in consonance with the established principles for inter se seniority. He relied on three Supreme Court decisions — Rama Kant Chaturvedi v. Divisional Supdt., N.Rly. (1981 SCC (L & S) 423), V.K. Dubey v. Union of India (1997 SCC (L & S) 1123), and South Eastern Railway v. Ramanarain Singh (1997 SCC (L & S) 1126) — to challenge the Railways’ method of determining seniority, arguing that the inter se seniority principles followed for steam staff absorbed into the diesel wing were not properly applied. He also challenged Annexure-A6 as not being challenged within the time limit, and that Annexures-A8 and A11 derived from Annexure-A6. The petitioner asserted illegality in the process of finalizing the seniority and promotions and sought relief against the interim and final orders. He argued lack of timely consideration of his objections (Annexure-A4) and sought liberal condonation of delay but was rejected by the CAT; he emphasized that limitation could not defeat his substantive challenge to the seniority list.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents argued that the provisional seniority list (Annexure-A2) and the subsequent finalization (Annexures-A6, A8, A11) were issued following due process and in accordance with the inter se seniority rules applicable to Diesel Assistants absorbed from steam staff. They contended that the CAT’s approach, which upheld the provisional list and treated the O.A. as barred by limitation, was correct. They stressed that the three apex court decisions cited by the petitioner were distinguished by the CAT on facts and not applicable to the present case. They asserted that the petitioner did not challenge Annexure-A6 within the prescribed period and that the relief sought would disrupt the established seniority and promotions scheme. The respondents also maintained that the inter se seniority was just and proper and that the petitioner’s claims failed on merits given the evidence and the sequence of postings and promotions. They urged dismissal of the O.P. on both limitation and merit grounds.
Cited Precedents (3)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rama Kant Chaturvedi v. Divisional Supdt., N.Rly. | 1981 SCC (L & S) 423 | Distinguished | The CAT distinguished the decision on facts; the High Court affirmed that those apex court principles were not applicable to the present facts. |
| V.K. Dubey v. Union of India | 1997 SCC (L & S) 1123 | Distinguished | Distinguished on facts by CAT; not applicable to the petitioner’s case. |
| South Eastern Railway v. Ramanarain Singh | 1997 SCC (L & S) 1126 | Distinguished | Distinguished on facts; held not applicable to the case at hand. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against V. Balasubamanian v Union of India & Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.