The High Court · 2025

1 16s ftpgistrar, The Central Adminlstrative Tribunal' Hyderabad Bench' Manoi Kumar Yaflqv, $/o Sri Hiralal Yadav' Aged'about 32 vears' Occ' 3:dp$.3tq?$:1{}}Slji,t;iEtpdTt*Et,iigi',;,yr'S:,HS}BJltiV: Adilabad Prakash Harun, $/o . Sri Viiav Biswass '9"0 i??Jlul,2t[1ili tS;in J 4 5 b Ashuthosh Kumar Verma' S/o Sri Sashinath Verma' aoed about 38 years' 0i::,,,f fl Tffi*R;1grh',i:isHlroL*tm$3?{ioo,BvEi"l;''"*n ears' Oca Commercial Hi"t,F:ihiilc'..,t"1,$;ffi#i*ertffi''1r;n:E#i'ii')iJii,, 'fi:lii';"':l'*'lXil Bi#ilL:[i'3',:;n,t'fl,,01",1".f'31'iii",fn",1"10"3:"?;' Divisioh, tvludhked. ..RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances staterl in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particurarry one irr the nature writ of Certigrari by caltino for the order dt. 23.10.2018 in O, A.No.ig4,,2Q.15 on the fiJe of Honble Qentral Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench apd deciare the same as illegal. arbitrary, capricious and contrary to the judgments pf Apex Court. lA NO: I OF 20't9 Petition under liestion 1S1 CpC prayilg that in t[9 crrcumst,ances stated ip the affidavit filed irr s.upport of the petition, the High eourt may O" O,*r."1 ,, grant interim stay of all further pr:oceedings in pursuance of thp coder dt,ZQ ,10.2018 in O.A. No 184/2015 o5r the file of Centrql Adminir;trative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench pending disposal of the Writ petition. A NO:1 O F 2021 Betwe en: 1 3 'su5iervis6i, Prakash Hanrrr. S/o Sr,^yla- ei.yass, aged about 32 years, Occ. Sr'coinmerciar rnsoector/ cgriirierciar Farohani station south centrat Raitway Nanded Diviii".;, ru;h;;#;,'AjIi n! e R B 2/65/1 Ashuthosh Kumar Verma. S/o sri paqhinatn Verma, aged arrout 38 vears. occ. Commerciar ggpgrvlr., paroirni tirtt"n"riinoeo Dvision. South centrat Raitway \anded rvraharastii, Hlo. 6.iii.n,elizg/0 j p arbhani. l\4lanoj Kumar, S/0. Sri Kishori-Ram a.ged aQout 33 years, CJcc. Commercial supervisor Auraroabad station, Soutfi-d;ffi'{Iir'*ryr Na.rded Division, R/o. Rty e No 73,E, nailway coibny Aijl.J"dibjo,.fi,ilharastra AND ...PETITIONERS/RESpONDENT No.3toS 1 ? 3 R,rpresented by The Secretary, Bailway Board, Rait Bhavan, H:fB8lnl"o', The Qgngrsl Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Ser;underabad. Ill,?.,3s1*"j"3;f fl,:*::ti:Jner officer, south centrar Rairrvav, Nanded 4 The Registrar, I he Central ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS Administrative Tribunal, Hyderzrbad Bench, Hyderabad. Manoj Kumar VarJav. S/o Sri Hir{al yadav, Aged about 3! years, Occ, commerciar suoe'visor aoitaoaa nlirwrv ti'"t,"Y,-"s"uth centrar Rairwav. Division t\4aharastra. nro,-Hiy.' d."i,ti'so'zA R';ii,J;; btl,,jfii; IS,?".r% ,

6. B. P. Narasimhulu, S/o. not known, aged about 57 years, Occ. Chief - - South Central Railways, Nanded Itludkhecl Station, Commercial Clerk, Division, tvludhked. (Respondents 4,5,6 are not necessary parties in this petition) ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS petition unde( Sectiqn '!Sf CeC praying that in the circpmstgpCes state( in the affi{avi{ filed in support sf the pgtition, lhe l.lish Qourt may bq please( fq vacpte the inlerim qrder pgssqd in WF NO. EQQG dqted 29t41?919' counsel for the PetitionFl : SRI B.{IfHENPER (Sq FqR cENTRAL qovT) Counsel for t[e Responlents f.'1o.1,2&6 : gounsel for tl;e Regpon6qnle l'lo.1to! : SBI P.LAXMAUA RAp :' W.P.N .8923 0F 2019 Beweqn: New Delhi. i Unioo qJ lndia, ReBresented by The Secretary' Rqilway Board' Rail Bhavan' 2 The Qglera! frllanager, .s9uth !1ntrf !a!!*av, Rai! Nilav4ryr, Sgcunderaba{' 3. The Senior Divisional ferson;rel Qtficer, QPuth Ceniia! Raltlryay, Nan(ed Qivision, Nanded, I!l4harqshtra. ...PErTtoNERS AND 1 The Rpgistfaf, The Central Administrative Tribuna!, Hydgrqbad Bellptl, Hyderabad. Jitendranath Baral, S/o. Jogindranalh Ba-ral' Aged.about 39 years' Occ 3i;iil;"il;djjl'i'r.,iiio siriiin, Siiuth centrarRailwevs' Nanded Divisia'n Maharastra. Udav 6hankar, S/o. Karyanand, aged about 41 ygars. occ. $tStion Master ll dnrliristJjibn Sorin b"ntiar'riul*avp N anded Divisibn' Maharastra' Mukesh Kumar lttteena, $/o Mool Chalp M991a, qge! about 33 years' Occ Ti;ril'in;;;;T;iA-oliu6.I st'iiiti, Nindea Divisiqnl south central Railwavs' Nanded, Maharastra. Amrut Kishan Bhange, S/o. Not Known, aged.aqo-ut.1B years' Occ Assistant 3U6; il;;;];rl, Ni".obo Division., Souih dentral Railwav' Nanded' '- P Venkat Ramana, S/o. Not Known, agqd qbqt{ g.1 yeqrg' Qc9' Assistanl btJi"Iii,r jiGi L itrinoJo oivision., soutli central Railwav' Nanded' Kumar Raieev Ranian, S/o. Not Known, aged abqut 51 years' Occ Assistant iir,jil; ffi;ci i, ulnabo Division , sduth eentral RaiMav, Nanded' .: Z 4 5 b 7 8 Ajay Kumar Shukle, S/o. Not Known, aged about 43 years, -Occ- S^afety Cb[nselor iOoerating) O/o. The Senior- Divisional Safet'/ Officer, South Central Rail'ruay, Nanded Division, Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS Fetitign uncler A(icle 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Coun pay be pleased to issue a Writ, ()rcler or direction more pa!'ticularly one in :hi) nature Writ of Certiorari by calling for the order dl. 23.102018 in O.A No.020/129812014 on the file of Honourable Qentral Administr-aliye TtibUnal, Hy-derabad llench and declare the same as illeg4l, arbilrary, capliciggs qn$ confrary to the juclgp,lents of Apex Coqrt. lA NO: { OF 2019 Petitio0 under Section 151 CPQ praying tha! in the circurn-';tances Stated in the affrdavit filed rn support of the pgtition, the High Court nray be pleased tp gqspend operatior cf the othet dt 23 10 201q in O A Nq,0201129t\ of 2014 on the file of Centrat Adnrrnistrative Tribupal, Hyderabad Bench pendintl (!qposal of the Writ Pelition Coqnsel for the Petitioner : SRI B.JITHENDER (Sq FOR CENTRAL GOVT) CqUnse! for the Respondqntg No.!,{to8: Counsgl for the Respondents No.2to4 : SRI P,LAIMANA RAO The Court maCe the folloyving: COIVIMON QFDER TIIE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON,BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Writ Petition Nos. 8896 and 8923 of2Ol9 COMMON ORDER: Pet the Hon'bb Sn Justice Abhinand Kumar Shauiti) Both these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by way of a common order since the issue raised in these Writ Petitions is one and the same

2. Both these writ petitions are filed against the common order, dated 23.IO.2018 Passed 1n O.A.Nos. 1298 of 2Ol4 and 184 of 2015, respectively, by ttre Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, the Tribunal).

3. Heard Sri B. Jithender, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri P. Laxmana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.

4. For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.P.No.8896 of 2Ol9 are hereunder discussed 1 2

5. Leanred Standing Counsel appearin5; for the petitioner- Railways had contended that the Tribunal has adjudicate cl the interse seniority dispute by ,luashing clause (iiit of the Railway Board Circular (RBII), dated

26.09.2012 and directed the Railways to res;tore the original se rnority of the contesting respondenl.s, without appreciatinp, any of the contentions raised by the petitionersr. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ I)r: t.itions by setting aside the comnt(rn order, dated 23. 1C.2018 passed in O.A.Nos.184 of 2015 and 7298 of 2Cr l, i and allow the Writ Petitions

6. On :he other hand, learned counsel for the contesting respondents had contended that the petitioner-Railways, as an employer, has no 1o,:rrs standi to challen,ge the orders passed by the Tribuni,rl in the matters in.,,,:>lving inter-se disputes. If the contesting respondents therein are aggrieved by the comro()n order, dated 23.10 2018 passed by the Tribuna-l, the.r should approach rhis Court, but not Railways. As at employer, the petiticn,::r-Railways must remain impartlal in the I I I t, I i I I I I I j i l 3 matters concerning inter-se seniority between, the employees. In the event of aly such dispute, the State should apply the Rules fairly. If the matter is brought to judicial forum, then the State should confine its role to Amicus Curiae by assisting the judiciat forum to arrive at a correct conclusion. This principle was laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in S.L Rooplal and another o. Lt. Goaerttor through ChieJ Secretary, Delhi and otherst. Therefore, the Writ Petition filed by the Railways is not rnaintainable, and as the employer, the Railways cannot take sides concerning certain set of employees and litigate on their behalf. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petitions and the sarne a,re liable to be dismissed.

7. This Court, having considered the submissions made by both the parties, is of the view that as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in S.L RooplaPs case, an employer cannot f,rle the Writ Petition on behalf of contesting respondents therein. Therefore, this Court is ' (2ooo) r scc 644 I ) ) ) \ I 4 not inclin,:d to interfere with the orders passed by the i I Tribunal

8. With the above observations, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. 9 As a sr:quel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/-A.V.S. PRASAD DqPUTY BEGETRAR \ SECTION OFFICER Qne CC to S'Rl B JITHENDER (SC FOR CENTRAL cOW) [rfPUC] One 99 to SRI P LAXMANA BAQ, Advqcate. [OPUC] Two CD Cop,iss. \ I To, 1 a BSK BS i I I l i I I ) HIGH COURT DATED:2910112025 C{r*e s 14 a- .Y ?. tl't nw ?A?c ( a \ / COMMON ORDER '\.'',r,..,."..,,.- ^ - ,?,, WP.No.8896 & 8923 of 2019 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS I l i I I &q 1,1Itr