Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Harish Kumar Singh vs Union Of India on 16 March, 2026
(Reserved on 26.02.2026)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench
Allahabad
****
Original Application No. 1186 of 2011
This the 16th day of March, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Harish Kumar Singh, S/o Late Sri Shri Niwas Singh, R/o Shiv Poojan
Kunj, Hero Honda Agency, Mohaddipur, District Gorakhpur.
Applicants
By Advocate: Sri Satyajeet Mukherjee
Versus
1. Union of India through its General Manager, North Eastern
Railway, Gorakhpur.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, North Eastern Railway,
Ashok Marg, Lucknow.
3. The Divisional Railway Manager (P0, North Eastern Railway,
Lucknow.
4. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North Eastern
Railway, Lucknow.
5. The Station Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur
Station, Gorakhpur.
Respondents
By Advocate: Sri Vidyapati Tripathi.
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J) The present original application has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with the following reliefs:-
"(a) to issue a suitable order or direction quashing the order dated 28.12.2010 passed by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North Eastern Railway, Lucknow (respondent NO. 4).
(b) to issue a suitable order or direction to concerned respondent authorities to absorb the applicant on the post of Office Superintendent Grade II in the operating department as it was earlier approved by the Additional MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 2 Divisional Manager, N.E. Railway, Lucknow by its order dated 24.10.2008 and pay him a regular salary as per grade pay scale.
(c) to issue an order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(d) to award costs in favour of the applicant".
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was medically decategorized and declared unfit for the post of Guard Mail Express and, despite the recommendation of the Medical Board for alternative posting, he was posted as Head Trains Clerk without pay protection, which was not commensurate with the post earlier held by him. His juniors, who were also medically decategorized, were granted superior posts with higher pay. Although the applicant's representation was rejected pursuant to the directions issued in OA No. 284/2009, his grievance regarding improper posting and denial of pay protection remained unredressed. Through the present original application, the applicant seeks parity and payment of pay difference along with quashing of the impugned order dated 28.12.2010 passed in compliance with the directions issued in OA No. 284/2009.
3. Per contra, respondents have filed counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that the applicant was appointed as Guard in Group 'C' on 05.11.1985. On 01.12.2006, he met with an accident at Lucknow Railway Station and received injuries to his left leg. He was treated in Railway hospitals and was discharged on 20.12.2006. The claim of the applicant that he remained under medical treatment till 03.07.2008 is denied. Due to physical disability, the applicant was medically decategorized from the post of Guard and declared unfit in A2 medical category. However, he was found fit in a lower medical category and was therefore eligible to be continued in service on a suitable alternative post. Keeping in view the requirement of the Railways and to protect the pay of the applicant, the competent authority posted him as Head Train Clerk at Gorakhpur in the same pay scale with applicable running allowance, vide order dated 12.05.2009. In compliance with the directions issued in OA No. 284/2009, the competent authority passed a detailed and reasoned order dated 28.12.2010. The respondents contend MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 3 that the said order is legal, justified, and in accordance with the rules, and therefore the present original application deserves to be dismissed.
5. The applicant has filed Rejoinder Affidavit to the Counter Affidavit as filed by the respondents refuting the contentions made by the respondents in his Counter Affidavit while reiterating the averments made in the O.A. and nothing new has been added.
6. We have heard Shri Satyajeet Mukherjee, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Vidyapati Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
7. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was medically decategorized and was declared unfit for duty for the post of Guard Mail Express. A Medical Board was constituted and the applicant was examined, which recommended posting of the applicant on another post. It is also argued that the applicant was posted as Head Trains Clerk, which was not commensurate with the post earlier held by the applicant. The applicant moved a representation, but no heed was paid, thus, it is argued that the applicant was reverted, pay protection was also not granted. It is further argued that juniors to the applicant, who were also medically decategorized, were appointed to superior posts and were drawing higher pay than the applicant, therefore, the applicant was entitled to protection under the Rules prescribed for this purpose. The applicant approached this Tribunal through OA No. 284/2009, which was decided on 25.06.2009, and a direction was given to decide the representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The representation of the applicant was decided vide order dated 15.07.2009. A contempt petition was filed, but the same was closed with the observation that the required compliance had been made. In that situation, the present original application was filed by the applicant. It was further argued that although the applicant has retired from service, the posting of the applicant after medical decategorization was against the Rules, therefore, it is argued that the original application be allowed and the respondents be directed to pay the difference of pay, which was allowed to the juniors of the applicant after medical decategorization. MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 4
8. Learned counsel for the respondents states that since the applicant has retired from service on 30.06.2022, the relief regarding posting to an inferior post after medical decategorization has become infructuous. Learned counsel for the respondents also referred to the counter affidavit and further argued that pay protection has been given to the applicant. It is also argued that no monetary loss was caused to the applicant by posting him on the post of Head Trains Clerk. Since the applicant has retired, the original application has no merit and is not liable to be allowed.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant, referring to the supplementary rejoinder affidavit filed on 26.02.2026 in the Court, argued that the applicant was entitled to higher pay at par with those juniors who were paid higher pay than the applicant after medical decategorization. It is also argued that if the reliefs claimed in the matter are allowed, the pension payable to the applicant would also increase. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the following case laws:
"(i) Union of India and others vs. Munshi Ram, decided in Civil Appeal No. 2811 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 6526/2022 & Diary No. 27620/2020) on 31.10.2022;
(ii) Nyadar Singh vs. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1979".
10. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
11. In this matter, as is evident from the record, the applicant initially claimed relief by seeking quashing of the order dated 28.12.2010. A perusal of the impugned order dated 28.12.2010 reveals that it contains two parts. The first part relates to the posting of the applicant as Head Trains Clerk after medical decategorization. Since the applicant has retired, the first part of the impugned order in respect of the posting of the applicant cannot be allowed.
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 5
12. As far as the second part relating to pay protection is concerned, it is stated in the impugned order itself that the pay drawn by the applicant at the time of medical decategorization was protected. The applicant was posted as Head Trains Clerk in the pay band of Rs. 9,300-34,800 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- and the benefit of 30% running allowance was also allowed.
13. From the perusal of the contents disclosed in the OA, counter affidavit, and rejoinder affidavit, it is clear that the applicant has not made it clear that what actual amount he was drawing at the time of medical decategorization or at the time of posting. It has been clearly stated in the impugned order as well as in the counter affidavit that pay protection was given to the applicant irrespective of the fact that he was posted as Head Trains Clerk. Since no specific evidence showing a difference in pay on the date of medical decategorization or on the date of posting has been furnished by the applicant, the second part of the impugned order is also not liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the prayer made by the applicant to this extent is not liable to be allowed.
14. As far as the argument regarding parity of pay with junior employees who were also medically decategorized and posted on different posts is concerned, no specific relief to this effect has been sought in the present matter. It is also not clear from the record that whether those junior employees were actually drawing higher pay than the applicant after medical decategorization or not. This fact could have been established only if the applicant had furnished details of the pay drawn by him before medical decategorization as well as the pay drawn by the junior employees who are alleged to have been granted higher pay. In such circumstances, the relief claimed on this ground is also not liable to be accepted.
15. As regards the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, no benefit can be extended to the applicant, as he has retired from service, pay protection has been granted to him and no specific details regarding the pay drawn by the junior employees have been furnished.
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 6
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the relief relating to the applicant's posting after medical decategorization has become infructuous on account of his retirement. As regards pay protection and parity with juniors, the applicant has failed to place any specific material on record to establish loss of pay or discrimination. The impugned order dated 28.12.2010 discloses that due pay protection was granted to the applicant, thus, OA is liable to be dismissed.
17. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. All associated MAs are disposed of.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash-VII)
Member (A) Member (J)
Manish/-
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA