Railway authorities challenged a CAT direction to reconsider retrospective promotion of a retired employee by upgrading his 2008-2010 adverse gradings. The High Court held the OA was barred by limitation under Section 21 and that uncommunicated remarks aside, the Tribunal could not rewrite service records; it set aside the Tribunal order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.10697 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.12.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.P.No.10697 of 2023 and WMP.No.10643 of 2023
1.The General Manager Southern Railway Park Town, Chennai – 3.
2.The Chief Workshop Manager Central Workshops, Personnel Branch Ponmalai, Trichy – 4.
... Petitioners
Vs.
1.Mr.A.Mohan
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to order dated 12.07.2022 passed in OA.No.681 of 2018 on the file of the 2 nd respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.R.Sakthivel, SPC
Page 1 of 8
W.P.No.10697 of 2023
For Respondents : No appearance – R1. R2 - Tribunal
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. )
The writ petition on hand has been instituted challenging the order dated 12.07.2022 passed in OA.No.681 of 2018.
W.P.No.10697 of 2023
seeking retrospective promotion on par with the junior and the monetary benefits. The Tribunal disposed of the Original Application with a direction to the writ petitioners herein to reconsider the request of the first respondent dated 07.03.2015 for retrospective promotion as Technician Gr.I from the date of promotion of his immediate junior by modifying the gradings for the years 2008, 2009 and 2010 as “Good” and pass appropriate orders.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 8
W.P.No.10697 of 2023
limitation. Accordingly, the application ought to have been filed within a period of one year. In the present case, the adverse remarks were made for the year 2008, 2009 and 2010. Overlooking the name of the first respondent, promotion was granted to his immediate junior in the year 2011. Therefore, the first respondent ought to have approached the authority within a period of six months and thereafter filed OA before the Tribunal within a period of one year. However, the Original Application itself was filed after a lapse of about seven years from the date of promotion of immediate junior. Therefore, hit by the period of limitation set out under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 8
W.P.No.10697 of 2023
W.P.No.10697 of 2023
upon for the purpose of denying promotion to the employees. However, in the present case, the first respondent has not challenged the promotion of his junior nor made any representation seeking retrospective promotion on par with his immediate junior, during the relevant point of time. Thus, the findings by the Central Administrative Tribunal that the adverse remarks made by the authorities is to be converted as good by replacing the adverse remarks of below average, is beyond the scope of power of judicial review and therefore unsustainable.
is concerned, it will not do any service to the cause of justice, since the first respondent had already retired from service in the year 2019 and the initiation of the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal itself was belated and hit by Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act. Consequently, the order impugned passed by the Tribunal in OA.No.681 of 2018 dated 12.07.2022 is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.M.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.] 12.12.2024
Page 6 of 8
W.P.No.10697 of 2023
Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order tsh
To 1. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 8
W.P.No.10697 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
tsh
W.P.No.10697 of 2023
12.12.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the OA filed about seven years after the junior's 2011 promotion was barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985?
Whether the Tribunal could direct conversion of 'below average' gradings for 2008-2010 into 'Good' and grant retrospective promotion?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The General Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai
The Chief Workshop Manager, Central Workshops (Personnel Branch), Ponmalai, Trichy
Mr.A.Mohan
The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai
S.M.Subramaniam
M.Jothiraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
