Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
B M Ajith Kumar vs M/O Railways on 8 January, 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No. 180/00568/2016
Thursday, this the 8th day of January, 2026.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mrs. V. RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
B.M. Ajithkumar, aged 46 years,
S/o. K. Bhaskara Pillai,
Manager, Catering Service, Indian Railway Catering and
Tourism Corporation Limited, Regional Office,
Convent Road, Ernakulam. Residing at Alunkal Apartments,
Kadavanthara, Ernakulam, Kochi - 682 020. - Applicant
[By Advocates: Mr. P. Ramakrishnan]
Versus
1. The Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited,
9th Floor, Bank of Baroda Building, 16 Parliament Street,
New Delhi - 110 001. Represented by its Managing Director.
2. Railway Board, Ministry of Railways,
Rail Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001 represented by its Chairman
3. Union of India, represented by the Secretary,
Ministry of Railways,
Rail Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001. - Respondents
[By Advocates : Ms. Asha Cherian (R-1)
Ms. Sanjana R. Nair (R-2&3)]
The Original Application having been heard on 30.06.2025, the
Tribunal on 08.01.2026 delivered the following:
A X Sherin2026.01.09
09:33:36+05'30'
2
O.A No. 180/00568/2016
O R D E R:-
Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member The applicant joined the Central Railway on 10.06.1992 as Booking Clerk. Thereafter, he was appointed as Catering Inspector and on promotion he became the Senior Catering Inspector and thereafter, Train Superintendent. In 1999, the Government constituted the 1 st respondent, Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited (IRCTC, for brevity) All group C and D staff in various catering and vending department in the Railways were transferred with post to the 1 st respondent. They were given an option for permanent absorption in IRCTC by Annexure A-1 or to revert to Railways within 3 years of handing over the catering activities to IRCTC. The applicant continued in the same post after exercising option for permanent absorption.
2. While so, 1st respondent IRCTC invited applications from employees of catering cadre in Railway and deemed deputationist in Railway to the post of Assistant Manager Catering in Railway. The applicant applied, selected after an interview and appointed as Assistant Manager by Annexure A-2 order dated 06.10.2005. He joined as Assistant Manager Catering at A X Sherin2026.01.09 09:33:36+05'30' 3 O.A No. 180/00568/2016 Mumbai on 30.11.2005. Since the applicant found that various benefits were not extended to him, he sought repatriation back to Railways in terms of para 1404 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM). His request was rejected by letter dated 30.05.2007 on the ground that employees absorbed in IRCTC on option basis were treated as permanently absorbed.
3. While so, the 1st respondent issued a circular dated 10.07.2007 seeking option from deemed deputationists, who have opted for absorption in IRCTC or reversion back to the Railways. On coming to know about it, the applicant submitted an option for reversion to the Railways. It was also rejected stating that, since he was absorbed in IRCTC through special selection conducted by the railway employees, he cannot be repatriated. He again submitted detailed representation which was rejected by Annexure A- 3 reiterating the earlier stand. Thereafter, he was served with a notice dated 28.05.2010, transferring him to Corporate Office, New Delhi. That was challenged before this Tribunal in O.A No. 486 of 2010. Though it was contended that the Original Application was not sustainable before the IRCTC in the light of catering policy adopted by the 3 rd respondent in 2010 as per which catering activities were to be taken over by the Railways. This A X Sherin2026.01.09 09:33:36+05'30' 4 O.A No. 180/00568/2016 Tribunal by Annexure A-8 order held that since there is a change of policy and subsequent development during the pendency of the O.A, if the right is extended to the persons like applicant based on the railway letter, the A-8 order will stand in the way of his case being considered in accordance with law.
4. Meanwhile, by Annexure A-6 letter dated 12.07.2011, the applicant was directed to submit an option as envisaged in Annexure A-5. He submitted Annexure A-6 representation, Annexure A-7 option dated 12.07.2011 and 14.07.2011 respectively. However, Tribunal disposed of by Annexure A-8.
5. Since there was delay in considering A-7 option, the applicant filed another representation Annexure A-9 dated 13.09.2011. Since there was delay in considering that also, he approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing W.P(C) 2572 of 2012. It was contended by the 1 st respondent that whether the employees who have come forward to IRCTC through special selection are covered by Annexure A-5 was pending consideration before the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, by Annexure A-7 judgment, the Hon'ble A X Sherin2026.01.09 09:33:36+05'30' 5 O.A No. 180/00568/2016 High Court directed the 1st respondent to forward Annexure A-7 option to the 2nd respondent and directed the 2 nd respondent to pass appropriate orders on the same in accordance with law within the stipulated time. Consequently, his request was considered and rejected by Annexure A-11. Though Annexure A-11 was challenged in WP(C) 24413/2012 and later in Writ Appeal No. 82/2015, the Division Bench did not interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and held that the applicant is entitled to challenge Annexure A-11 by moving this Tribunal, which was competent to decide the issue. Accordingly, this OA has been filed challenging Annexure A-11 and sought the following reliefs:-
"a) Issue an order quashing and setting aside Annexure A-11 order.
b) Hold that Annexure A-7 option submitted by the applicant is liable to be allowed and that he is entitled to be repatriated back with Central Railways.
c) Issue an order directing the respondents to repatriate the applicant back to Central Railways."
6. The 1 st respondent filed a separate reply statement. According to them, 1st respondent had invited applications from all deputationists and deemed deputationists working in IRCTC and catering staff of Indian Railway to the post of Assistant Managers/Catering on all India basis. The applicant applied, appeared in the written test for special selection to the said post and A X Sherin2026.01.09 09:33:36+05'30' 6 O.A No. 180/00568/2016 after viva-voce, he was selected. He was appointed by Annexure A-2 order. He submitted option for permanent absorption in IRCTC by Annexure R-1(a). Thus, he became the employee of IRCTC. By Annexure R-1(b), the applicant and such other employees were informed that they have become the employees of IRCTC and cannot go back to the Railways. This was fully accepted by the applicant and exercised Annexure R-1(a) option and accepted the appointment order as per Annexure R-1(b). The applicant is thus estopped from raising a claim for repatriation to Railways. He accepted the appointment order with all terms and conditions for the said post. Hence, the applicant has ceased to be a railway employee on joining IRCTC through special selection. It was further contended that since the applicant had joined through a special selection process, he cannot be reverted back. It is also noted that the claim based on para 1404 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM), is not applicable, it being a case of permanent absorption to CPSU from the concerned Railway and applicant has become employee of IRCTC for all the intent and purpose. Though he thereafter submitted several applications seeking repatriation, all were considered and declined on merits. It was further contended that as per Rules of absorption in public sector undertakings, no lien/quasi-permanent A X Sherin2026.01.09 09:33:36+05'30' 7 O.A No. 180/00568/2016 status of Government Servant concerned are retained in his parent cadre on their absorption in CPSU. All his ties with the Government were severed his release for appointment in a PSU and will not be allowed to revert back to his parent cadre. Hence, the request of the applicant for repatriation was rightly rejected.
7. It was admitted that though an option was sought from the applicant as per IRCTC circular dated 10.07.2007 regarding the revision of options of reversion back to the Railways is applicable only to the deemed deputationists and not the staff who have became IRCTC employees through selection process. Hence, Annexure A-6 letter was happened to be issued in view of Annexure A-5 letter dated 27.06.2011 of Railway Board. IRCTC included persons like applicant also on the basis that Annexure A-5 would cover him and similar others also. Later, on verification, it was found that applicant had joined IRCTC through special selection and not a deemed deputationist nor an absorbee. Hence, Annexure A-7 option exercised by the applicant was not forwarded to Railway Board for further action.
A X Sherin2026.01.09 09:33:36+05'30' 8 O.A No. 180/00568/2016
8. Separate detailed reply statement was filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, almost in terms of the reply statement filed by the 1st respondent.
9. A rejoinder was filed by the applicant contending that one Satyanarayana who was selected and appointed at sl. No. 17 at Annexure R- 2(b) along with the applicant was offered the benefit of para 1404 of IREM by Annexure A-14. It was also stated that about 188 employees of Railways who were absorbed in IRCTC had submitted options identical to Annexure R-2(d) and repatriated to Railways accepting their options. It was further stated that in the case of one A. Ravikumar and K. Ravikumar who had submitted technical resignation only after their promotion as Deputy General Manager. To substantiate it the applicant relied on Annexure A-17 and A-18.
10. An additional reply statement was filed by the 1 st respondent disputing the contentions. It was contended that Satyanarayana had sought technical resignation which was accepted by the Railways and not by the IRCTC. In the case of A Ravikumar and K Ravikumar, they were selected as Deputy General Manager with effect from 28.12.2006, in direct quota of 2006, after A X Sherin2026.01.09 09:33:36+05'30' 9 O.A No. 180/00568/2016 technical resignation from Railways.
11. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant, the learned Standing Counsel for the IRCTC and the learned Standing Counsel for the Railways. Examined the records.
12. The preliminary contention raised by the learned Counsel for the IRCTC was that the OA is not sustainable in this Tribunal. It was contended that IRCTC is not an establishment notified under the CAT Rules and hence, not amenable to this Tribunal's jurisdiction. This contention is not sustainable in the light of the judgment in Writ Appeal 82/2015, wherein at paragraph 10, it was specifically found that the applicant had sought reliefs against the Railway Board. The OA discloses that the applicant is challenging Annexure A-11 order issued by the Railway Board, which was communicated to the applicant by Annexure A-11 by IRCTC. Thus, virtually, the order under challenge is the order of the Railway Board, which is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. To that extent, it is held that the OA is sustainable. It is an admitted fact that the applicant is claiming the relief to quash Annexure A-11 order, by which his request to repatriate A X Sherin2026.01.09 09:33:36+05'30' 10 O.A No. 180/00568/2016 to Railways was rejected. In fact, he was claiming the benefit under Annexure A-5 of the Railway Board letter dated 27.06.2011 which granted benefits to staff of Railways who have sought absorption in IRCTC to come back to Railways with the seniority as existed on 31.03.2003 before their absorption in IRCTC. Annexure A-7 option was given by him pursuant to Annexure A-5. In the reliefs sought in the OA also it stated that Annexure A-7 option submitted by the applicant was liable to be allowed and he is entitled to be repatriated to Southern Railways.
13. The representation submitted by the applicant for repatriation was disposed of and communicated by IRCTC. The order in CRP which is quoted in Annexure A-11 shows that the applicant had on his own volition and fully being aware of the situation, voluntarily opted for deputation with IRCTC. He went through the selection held by IRCTC and accepted the terms and conditions of absorption. Thereafter he was relieved from the parent department to join IRCTC which he did on absorption basis. He also enjoyed the perks and privileges of the salary particularly of the absorbed employee of IRCTC, which was higher than the deputationist. It was stated that he is the regular employee of IRCTC and will continue to remain with A X Sherin2026.01.09 09:33:36+05'30' 11 O.A No. 180/00568/2016 company.
14. The learned Counsel for the respondents invited our attention to Annexure R-1(b) dated 22.11.2005 by which the applicant was appointed in IRCTC. One Clause specifically mentioned therein was that the Railway employees after joining the post of Assistant Manager of IRCTC employees from the date of their taking over the post and cannot go back to Railways. Fully knowing this provision and after having accepted it with the open eyes, the applicant cannot now turn round and seek for early repatriation. This is evident from the Railways other documents relied on by the applicant.
15. Though the applicant was seeking benefit under Annexure A-5, it applies only in the case of catering staff who had sought absorption in IRCTC but have not been paid any retirement benefits to come back to Railways within the seniority as it existed. It is also stated that it applies to those catering staff who had sought absorption in IRCTC, but due to administrative reasons, they could not be paid any pension or retirement benefits. Evidently, the applicant does not fall within that category and he A X Sherin2026.01.09 09:33:36+05'30' 12 O.A No. 180/00568/2016 cannot seek benefit under it. Para 240 of IREC Vol. I provides for retention of him it states that a railway servant who has acquired lien on the post retain certain lien to that post. Though the learned Counsel has placed reliance on the case of Sathyanarayana and two Ravikumars' seems to have submitted technical resignation which was approved by the Railway and thereafter they were relieved. Such persons cannot alone have lien on the post. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that the applicant is entitled to that benefit.
16. The applicant claim benefits under para 1404 of IREM. Sub para (i) deals with the retention of lien for a period of two years. It was stated that if the employee concerned is not permanently absorbed within the period of two years from the date of his appointment to the new post, he should immediately on expiry of a period of two years either resigned from regular service or revert to his parent cadre. In the case at hand, the applicant was selected and offered appointment on a specific condition that he will not be entitled to go back. He accepted it with open eyes and was absorbed permanently. In the above circumstance, para 1404 of IREM also cannot apply.
A X Sherin2026.01.09 09:33:36+05'30' 13 O.A No. 180/00568/2016
17. In the above circumstance, none of the claims set up by the applicant is sustainable. Annexure A-11 is beyond challenge. Hence, the Original Application fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(Dated, 8th January, 2026)
V. RAMA MATHEW JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
ax
A X Sherin2026.01.09
09:33:36+05'30'
14
O.A No. 180/00568/2016
List of Annexures in OA180/568/2016
Annexure A-1- True Copy of order dated 31.03.2003 issued by the 3 rd respondent.
Annexure A-2- True copy of order dated 06.10.2005 issued by the Deputy General Manager (HRD) of the 1st respondent.
Annexure A-3- True copy of letter dated 18.02.2010 of the 1st respondent. Annexure A-4- True copy of letter dated 22.12.2010 written by the 2 nd respondent to the Chief Commercial Manager of Zonal Railways. Annexure A-5- True copy of letter dated 27.06.2011 issued by the 2 nd respondent.
Annexure A-6- True copy of letter dated 12.07.2011 issued by the 1 st respondent.
Annexure A-7- True copy of option submitted by the petitioner on 14.07.2011.
Annexure A-8- True copy of order dated 22.08.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam in OA/486/2010. Annexure A-9- True copy of representation dated 13.09.2011 before the 2 nd respondent.
Annexure A-10-True copy of judgment dated 14.03.2012 in WP(C) 2572/2012.
Annexure A-11- True copy of letter dated 28.09.2012 issued by the 1 st respondent to the petitioner.
Annexure A-12- True copy of judgment dated 03.08.2015 in W.A No. 82/2015.
A X Sherin2026.01.09 09:33:36+05'30' 15 O.A No. 180/00568/2016 Annexure A-13- True copy of the latest representation dated 06.06.2016 submitted by the Trade Union before the 2nd respondent. Annexure A-14- True copy of letter dated 24.11.2005 issued by the Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway. Annexure A-15- True copy of letter dated 09.02.2007 issued to Sri Douglas Menezes.
Annexure A-16- True copy of letter dated 19.03.2005 issued by the 1 st respondent.
Annexure A-17- True copy of letter dated 11.01.2007 written by the 1 st respondent to the General Manager, Southern Railway. Annexure A-18- True copy of letter dated 01.03.2010 from the 1 st respondent to the Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Chennai. Annexure R1(A)- True copy of option form dated 07.10.2005 submitted by the applicant to IRCTC.
Annexure R1(B): True copy of notice dated 22.11.2005 of IRCTC Annexure R1(C)- True copy of office order dated 30.11.2005. Annexure R1(D)- True copy of order/letter dated 30.05.2007 of Chief Personnel Officer, Central Railway to IRCTC.
Annexure R2(a)- True copy of the order dated 31.03.2005. Annexure R2(b)- True copy of the notice No. 2004/IRCTC/HRD/Spl. Selection dated 05.10.2005.
Annexure R2(c)- True copy of the Notice No. 2004/IRCTC/HRD/Spl. Selection dated 22.11.2005.
Annexure R2(d)- True copy of option form dated 07.10.2005 submitted by the applicant.
A X Sherin2026.01.09 09:33:36+05'30' 16 O.A No. 180/00568/2016 Annexure R2(e)- True copy of letter No. IRCTC/WZ/HRD/BMA-2518 dated 16.11.2006 issued by the Manager (HRD) IRCTC Annexure R2(f)- True copy of the Office Order No. 27/2005 dated 30.11.2005 showing that the applicant had resumed duty on 31.11.2005. Annexure R2(g)- A copy of the letter dated 30.05.2007. Annexure R2(h)- A true extract of para 240 of IREC. Annexure R2(i)- True copy of order dated 13.10.2014 passed by the Hon'ble High Court/Kerala in W.P(C) 24413/12.
****** A X Sherin2026.01.09 09:33:36+05'30'