Authority: Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)

Order Date: 16 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Kartik Sarkar, Chief Commercial Clerk (Coaching), residing at Lane No. 6, Gopal Niwas, Kamakhya Nagar, Adabari Tiniali, Guwahati – 781012.
  • Respondents: The Union of India and four officials of N.F. Railway (General Manager, Divisional Railway Managers of Lumding Division – Personnel, Commercial, and Additional Divisional Railway Manager).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ petition (WP(C)/3107/2018) under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the award dated 20 September 2017 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal‑cum‑Labour Court (CGIT), Guwahati, in Reference Case No. 22/2019.
  • Background: The petitioner alleged that, despite seniority, his juniors were promoted ahead of him. He claimed supersession when Shri Subodh Ch. Bhattacharjee (Senior Goods Clerk) was promoted on 28 September 2005. The dispute was referred to CGIT, which held the Divisional Railway Manager’s action was neither unjustified nor invalid and denied any relief to the petitioner.
  • Key Evidence Presented:
  • Seniority List (Provisional) dated 01 April 1994 placed the petitioner at Sl. No. 31 and Shri Bhattacharjee at Sl. No. 37 in the Junior Commercial Clerk category.
  • Testimony of Witness No. 2 (Union office‑bearer) confirming that Goods, Coaching and Transshipment streams were separate until amalgamated on 1 January 2007.
  • Petitioner’s service record: appointed 01 September 1987 as Junior Commercial Clerk; promoted 22 May 1997 to Senior Commercial Clerk (Goods) under the 5th Central Pay Commission (Rs 4,000‑6,000).
  • Promotion orders post‑dispute: HCC (Goods) order dated 14 February 2011 (not effected due to vigilance case), promotion order dated 12 December 2013 (not joined), and promotion to CCC (G) order dated 01 May 2015 (joined on 07 May 2015).
  • Legal Submissions:
  • Petitioner's counsel argued hostile discrimination and entitlement to notional promotional benefits, citing the Coordinate Bench decision in Dipali Pathak vs. State of Assam (WP(C) No. 26/2021).
  • Respondent’s counsel contended that the petitioner belonged to the Goods stream while the promoted employee belonged to the Coaching stream, which were distinct before 2007, thus no supersession occurred.

Final Outcome

  • The Court found no manifest error or jurisdictional infirmity in the CGIT’s award and affirmed that the Tribunal correctly applied the evidence, particularly the witness testimony on cadre separation.
  • The petition for certiorari was dismissed; the petitioner was not entitled to any relief, including notional promotional benefits.
  • No order as to costs was made.

Topics: Promotion Dispute, Railway Personnel