The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has allowed a review application, recalling its earlier dismissal of a writ petition and setting aside a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order that had rejected a seniority claim on the grounds of limitation. The Division Bench ruled that a claim for seniority cannot be considered barred by limitation under the assumption that the cause of action arose prior to the employees’ actual appointment. The High Court clarified that a cause of action for a seniority grievance must necessarily require that the individuals first be appointed to the service. Consequently, the Court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on its merits.
Background
The applicants-petitioners—Ashok Kumar Yadav, Riaz Babu, and Chhail Behari—completed their three-year compulsory apprenticeship training during the period from May 14, 1986, to May 15, 1989. In the examinations held at the end of their training, Ashok Kumar Yadav secured 445/700 marks, Riaz Babu secured 417/700 marks, and Chhail Bihari secured 413.5/700 marks. Another apprentice, Mohd. Niyaz, secured 391/700 marks. Despite securing lower marks, Mohd. Niyaz was appointed to the post of Khalasi (Group-D) on April 2, 1990, while the petitioners were denied similar benefit.
Learning of this, the petitioners approached the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, by filing O.A. No. 1215 of 2001 (Chhail Bihari and 2 others vs. GM Central Railway). The Original Application was allowed on June 3, 2002, in terms of the decision in O.A. No. 1021 of 2001 (Rama Shankar and 50 others vs. Union of India), directing the respondents to maintain a seniority list of trained apprentices according to their merit and batch, and to reconsider adjustment and appointment.
The Railway Authorities challenged the order before the Delhi High Court (W.P.(C) No. 197 of 2003), which was dismissed on May 24, 2012. A subsequent Special Leave Petition (SLP CC No. 2941/2013) filed before the Supreme Court was dismissed on March 18, 2013.
To enforce compliance, the petitioners initiated contempt proceedings (Contempt Petition No. 778 of 2012) before the Tribunal. Under the pressure of these proceedings, the respondents issued appointment orders to the petitioners on May 7, 2013. The contempt petition was closed on May 8, 2013, with the Tribunal recording that the applicants would be at liberty to seek remedy through appropriate proceedings if any grievance remained.
The petitioners were regularised on the post of Helper on March 3, 2014, with effect from February 3, 2014. On April 9, 2014, the respondents fixed their seniority by treating them as casual or substitute employees instead of ranking them by merit amongst trained apprentices. The formal seniority list was circulated on October 13, 2015.
The petitioners submitted a representation on March 14, 2014, and a final representation/appeal before the General Manager, North Central Railway, on September 15, 2015, which was rejected on October 27, 2015. The petitioners then filed O.A. No. 330/00624/2016 before the CAT, Allahabad, on February 25, 2016.
The Tribunal dismissed this Original Application on February 6, 2019, as barred by limitation and devoid of merit, holding that the cause of action arose in 1990 or 2002 and that the claim was delayed by 26 years. This dismissal was upheld by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court on May 16, 2019, in Writ-A No. 7653 of 2019. The petitioners subsequently filed Civil Misc. Review Application No. 03 of 2019.
Arguments of the Parties
Submissions on Behalf of the Applicants-Petitioners: Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned amicus curiae for the petitioners, submitted that the previous judgments of both the High Court and the Tribunal suffered from an apparent error on the face of the record. He argued that both courts incorrectly assumed the cause of action arose in 1990 or 2002. Since the petitioners were appointed only on May 7, 2013, and regularised on March 3, 2014, their grievance regarding the fixation of seniority could only arise after their regularisation and the subsequent preparation of the seniority list in 2014.
He further argued that the petitioners had diligently pursued their claim since 2001, culminating in orders that became final before the Supreme Court. The appointment in 2013 was secured only through contempt proceedings, which disproved any allegations of negligence, laches, or inaction. Additionally, he emphasized that the petitioners did not seek to disrupt the settled seniority of 1990 but merely sought the correct implementation of the binding directions to assign seniority to trained apprentices according to merit and batch.
Submissions on Behalf of the Respondents-Opposite Parties: Shri P.N. Rai, learned counsel for the respondents, argued that no error apparent on the face of the record existed to warrant the exercise of review jurisdiction. He contended that the review application was merely an attempt to seek a rehearing of the case on its merits, which is legally impermissible.
He supported the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court, asserting that the claim was hopelessly barred by time as the grievance dated back to 1990. Furthermore, he argued that separate seniority lists are maintained for different trades, and since Mohd. Niyaz belonged to the Wireman Trade while the petitioners belonged to the Fitter and Carpenter Trades, the claim of parity was not legally sustainable.
Court’s Analysis
The Division Bench consisting of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prakash Padia observed that the review application deserved to be allowed due to “glaring errors apparent on the face of record which have resulted in a gross miscarriage of justice.”
The Court found that both the Tribunal and the previous Division Bench had proceeded on a fundamentally erroneous appreciation of the factual matrix. On the question of when the cause of action arose, the Court held:
“A person who has not yet been appointed to service cannot possibly have a cause of action for grievance in respect of seniority inter se among members of that service. The concept of cause of action necessarily presupposes the existence of a right which has been violated. Until the petitioners were appointed and their seniority was fixed, no cause of action for a grievance qua seniority could have arisen against them.”
Examining the timeline of the litigation, the Court noted that the petitioners’ conduct was “wholly inconsistent with any finding of laches or inaction.” Highlighting that the appointments in 2013 were a direct result of contempt proceedings, the Court observed that the Tribunal, while closing the contempt petition, had expressly preserved the petitioners’ right to seek remedies for remaining grievances. The Court remarked:
“Calling such parties lazy or blaming them for delay would be completely opposite to what the record actually shows.”
On the scope of review jurisdiction, the Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka [1993 (Supp4) SCC 595], quoting:
“If the Court finds that the order was passed under a mistake and it would not have exercised the jurisdiction but for the erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in miscarriage of justice then it cannot on any principle be precluded from rectifying the error. Mistake is accepted as valid reason to recall an order. Difference lies in the nature of mistake and scope of rectification, depending on if it is of fact or law. But the root from which the power flows is the anxiety to avoid injustice.”
The Court noted that the judgment dated May 16, 2019, was passed under an erroneous assumption of fact regarding the cause of action, neglecting the undisputed record that the petitioners were appointed in 2013 and regularised in 2014. The Court stated that it is a “constitutional and legal obligation to set it right by recalling its order.”
Decision
The High Court allowed the review application and recalled the judgment and order dated May 16, 2019. Consequently, Writ-A No. 7653 of 2019 was restored and disposed of by setting aside the Tribunal’s order dated February 6, 2019.
The Court restored Original Application No. 330/00624/2016 to the file of the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on its merits in accordance with law and the binding directions issued in O.A. No. 1215 of 2001. The Tribunal was directed to decide the application expeditiously, preferably within three months.
The Court noted that the petitioners are trained apprentices of the 1986–1989 batch who have pursued their claims for over two decades and have likely superannuated. The Bench observed that the passage of time has effectively converted their dispute “into a dispute concerning monetary benefits, i.e. arrears of pay in the appropriate grade, promotional benefits, and pension computed on the basis of correct seniority.”
For the purpose of the remand, the Court declared that the following facts stand conclusively established and shall not be reopened:
- The petitioners completed their apprenticeship training in the 1986–1989 batch and secured higher marks than Mohd. Niyaz in the trade test.
- The Tribunal’s order dated June 3, 2002, in O.A. No. 1215 of 2001 directed that the seniority of trained apprentices be fixed according to merit and batch.
- The said directions attained finality up to the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal must confine its adjudication to the question of consequential relief admissible to the petitioners in accordance with law. The Court ordered no costs.
Case Details
- Case Title: Ashok Kumar Yadav and 2 others Versus Union of India and 2 others
- Case No.: Civil Misc. Review Application No.03 of 2019 in WRIT-A No. 7653 of 2019
- Bench: Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Justice Prakash Padia
- Date: May 21, 2026
