Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Anil Kumar Pal vs Northern Railway on 12 August, 2025
CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00185/2022 Anil Kumar Pal Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/00185 of 2022
Order reserved on: 24.07.2025
Order pronounced on:12.08.2025
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member- Judicial
Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
Anil Kumar Pal, aged about 44 years, S/o Shri Ram Asrey Pal, R/o
Village-Sahodarpur East, Post-Sadar, Pratapgargh.
.....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Praveen Kumar
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through the General Manager, Northern Railway,
Baroda House, New Delhi.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Hazratganj,
Lucknow.
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway,
Hazratganj, Lucknow.
4. The Senior Divisional Operating Manager, Northern Railway
Hazratganj, Lucknow.
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to promotion, the applicant has sought following reliefs:
"1. To quash the impugned order dated 23.03.2022 (contained as Annexure No. A-1 to this OA) with all consequential benefits.
2. To treat the applicant to have been promoted on the post of Assistant Loco Pilot with effect from the date when his counterparts of panel dated 16.11.2015 have been promoted alongwith fixation of pay and arrears of salary.Page 1 of 7
CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00185/2022 Anil Kumar Pal Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
3. To grant promotion on the post of Senior Assistant Loco Pilot in grade pay Rs. 2400/- with effect from the date when his counterparts have been given.
4. To fix the pay of the applicant accordingly, in terms of aforesaid relief and release arrears of pay alongwith interest @ 12 from the date of due till the actual date of payment.
5. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case, may also be passed.
6. Cost of the present case."
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant, who was initially appointed on the post of Helper on 18.08.2005, appeared in examination notified by the respondents in 2015 for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot (ALP, hereafter) against promotion quota. In the meantime, the applicant was implicated in a criminal case no. 70 of 2015 registered under sections 332, 504 and 506 of IPC by GRP PS of Aligarh, U.P. The applicant's name was kept in sealed cover due to pendency of criminal proceedings as indicated in the panel published on 16.11.2015. The applicant was acquitted vide judgment and order dated 22.01.2019 and he applied on 06.02.2019 for being sent for training followed by reminder dated 12.04.2019. The respondents issued order dated 14.11.2019 incorporating the applicant's name in the panel dated 16.11.2015. The applicant was relieved for training on 16.07.2021 and he was allowed to join as ALP on 28.10.2021. In the meanwhile, the applicant's co-panelists had been promoted to the post of Senior ALP. When the applicant represented for promotion at par with his co-panelists, the respondents rejected his claim vide the impugned order dated 23.03.2022 on the ground that he had not completed the two year residency period on the post of ALP. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.
3. The applicant contends that in terms of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India etc. vs K V Jankiraman etc. (1991) 4 SCC 109, once criminal proceedings end in complete Page 2 of 7 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00185/2022 Anil Kumar Pal Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. exoneration, the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC, hereafter) are to be acted upon as if the officer could have been promoted earlier. It is further contended that the residency period also loses relevance if the benefit has to be granted on notional basis.
4. The respondents, on the other hand, contend that as the applicant was appointed on the post of ALP on 28.01.2021, he is required to complete the minimum residency period of two years to be promoted to the post of Sr. ALP in terms of RBE No. 34/2015. It is further contended that there is non-joinder of persons whose seniority rights would be affected. It is stated by the respondents that in all non- selection posts, selection is done on the basis of seniority-cum- suitability on the basis of record of service and/or departmental experience, including the residency period, for promotion from ALP to Sr. ALP as per RBE 34/2015. It is also stated that the applicant was promoted to ALP and assigned seniority as par with other candidates of the same selection results on notional basis.
5. In the rejoinder affidavit, the applicant contends that RBE 34/2015 has no application in his case which is covered by the ratio in K V Jankiraman (supra) and that if the criteria of residency period is applied, the applicant would never be able to catch up with his juniors.
6. We have heard both the parties.
7.1 The following observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in K V Jankiraman (supra) are relevant to the controversy at hand:
"We are, therefore, broadly in agreement with the finding of the Tribunal that when an employee is completely exonerated meaning thereby that he is not found blameworthy in the least and is not visited with the penalty even of censure, he has to be given the benefit of the salary of the higher post along with the other benefits from the date on which he would have normally been promoted but for the disciplinary/criminal proceedings. However, Page 3 of 7 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00185/2022 Anil Kumar Pal Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
there may be cases where the proceedings,whether disciplinary or criminal, are, for example, delayed at the instance of the employee or theclearance in the disciplinary proceedings or acquittal in the criminal proceedings is with benefit of doubt or on account of non-availability of evidence due to the acts attributable to the employee etc. In such circumstances, the concerned authorities must be vested with the power to decide whether the employee at all deserves any salary for the intervening period and if he does, the extent to whichhe deserves it. Life being complex, it is not possible to anticipate and enumerate exhaustively all the circumstances under which such consideration may become necessary. To ignore however, such circumstances when they exist and lay down an inflexible rule that in every case when an employeeis exonerated in disciplinary/criminal proceedings he should be entitled to all salary for the intervening period is to undermine discipline in the administration and jeopardise public interests. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the Tribunal that to deny the salary to an employee would inall circumstances be illegal. While, therefore, we do not approve of the said last sentence in the firstsub-paragraph after clause (iii) of paragraph 3 of the said Memorandum, viz.. "but no arrears of payshall be payable to him for the period of notional promotion preceding the date of actual promotion", we direct that in place of the said sentence the following sentence be read in the Memorandum:
"However, whether the officer concerned will be entitled to any arrears of pay for the period of notional promotion preceding the date of actual promotion, and if so to what extent, will be decided by the concerned authority by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the disciplinary proceeding/criminal prosecution.Where the authority denies arrears of salary or part of it, it will record its reasons for doing so."
(emphasis supplied) 7.2 The respondents, vide affidavit dated 14.05.2025, have submitted copy of RBE No. 13/1993 titled 'Promotion - Sealed Cover Procedure - Group 'D' & Group 'C' Railway Servants', paragraph 3.5 of which reads as follows:
"3.5 Action after completion of disciplinary case/criminal prosecution: - If the disciplinary proceedings against the person under suspension etc. for whom a vacancy has been reserved, in the case of promotion to selection posts, is finalized within a period of two years of the approval of the provisional panel, and, in the case of promotion to non- selection posts, is finalized at any point of time, and if the person is fully exonerated or his suspension is held to be wholly unjustified, he may be empaneled enlisted and promoted in his turn. In case his junior in the selection panel/suitability list gets promoted before the disciplinary proceedings/court proceedings are finalized, he should be promoted by reverting the junior-most person if necessary, and his pay on promotion should be fixed by allowing the intervening period during which he could not be promoted due to suspension etc. to be counted for increment in the higher grade. Such benefit of proforma fixation of pay in the higher grade should also be given to such a person if he is junior most and it could be certified that but for his suspension etc. he would have been promoted to the higher grade. However, whether the Railway Page 4 of 7 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00185/2022 Anil Kumar Pal Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
servant concerned will be entitled to any arrears of pay for the period of notional promotion preceding the date of actual promotion, and if so to what extent, will be decided by the promoting authority by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the disciplinary proceedings/criminal prosecution. Where the authority denies arrears of salary or part of it, it will record its reasons for doing so..."
(emphasis supplied) 7.3 Learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn our attention to RBE No. 126/1997 dated 01.10.1997 titled 'Promotion - On Exoneration of Charges', paragraph 4 of which is extracted below:
"4 With reference to the points raised in the JCM (DC) meeting, the Board desire to clarify that the above instruction do not make any distinction between cases of exoneration before or after retirement. An employee whose promotion was withheld on account of pending disciplinary/judicial proceedings and who has subsequently been exonerated has to be given notional promotion from the date he becomes due for such promotion, even if the employee has retired from service. For the period of notional promotion, his case for grant of arrears has also to be considered. While in the case of a serving employee that period will be the intervening period from the date of effect of notional promotion, for a retired employee, this intervening period will be from the date of effect of notional promotion to the date of his retirement. The arrears of pay, whichever granted and the extent thereof, will also count for calculation of pensionary benefits of the employee concerned."
(emphasis supplied) 7.4 It is evident from K V Jankiraman (supra) as well as the Sealed Cover Procedure (RBE No. 13/1993) and the clarification (RBE No. 126/1997) of the respondents that on exoneration, an employee is required to be granted notional promotion from the date due while the admissibility of arrears of pay is required to be decided on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case. It is also evident that these stipulations do not refer to residency period prescribed vide RBE No. 34/2015. A perusal of RBE No. 34/2015 reveals that it is general instruction issued in the context of different Railways observing different procedure for granting promotion and it states that 'to ensure uniformity, it has been decided that two years' residency period may be followed for promotion to all grades as mentioned above, provided a longer length of residency has not been provided for any post.' Page 5 of 7 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00185/2022 Anil Kumar Pal Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. 8.1 A perusal of the judgment and order of acquittal dated 22.01.2019 in the criminal case reveals that the applicant was acquitted as the prosecution side completely failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Admittedly, the respondents have promoted the applicant as ALP on notional basis with his seniority at par with his co-panelists, but it is noted that they delayed sending of the applicant for training for about two and half years after his acquittal. The respondents' insistence on completion of two year residency period in the post of ALP before the applicant is promoted as Sr. ALP (as per RBE No. 34/2015) is not in conformity with the letter and spirit of K V Jankiraman (supra) as well as the respondents' own instructions issued vide RBE No. 13/1993 and RBE No. 126/1997, in our opinion, for the insistence on completion of the residency period places the applicant at a disadvantage vis a vis his juniors after his acquittal in criminal proceedings. In our opinion, RBE No. 13/1993 and RBE No. 126/1997 would prevail in case of a conflict with RBE No. 34/2015, keeping in view the ratio in KV Jankiraman (supra). 8.2 Before parting, it is necessary to deal with the issue of non- joinder of parties raised by the respondents. It is noted that the basis of promotion from ALP to Sr. ALP is seniority-cum-suitability and not selection on merit. Further, it is noted that the respondents have assigned the applicant seniority at par with other candidates of the same panel of ALP. This being the position, the applicant's promotion to Sr. ALP has no bearing on his co-panelists' promotion as all those who are found fit as per the criteria of seniority-cum-suitability in the panel are entitled for promotion to Sr. ALP. Therefore, we see no justification for joining of other parties in this OA.
9.1 In view of the foregoing, the order dated 23.03.2022 is quashed and set aside.
Page 6 of 7 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00185/2022 Anil Kumar Pal Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. 9.2 The respondents are directed to consider grant of promotion to the applicant to the post of Sr. ALP from the date his juniors have been promoted to the said post based on the criteria for promotion to non- selection posts and ignoring the requirement of residency period with consequential benefits, without payment of interest, within three months of receipt of certified copy of this order.
9.3 Pending MAs, if any, are also disposed of.
9.4 The Parties shall bear their own costs.
(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member (A) Member (J)
vidya
Vidya Ben Digitally signed by
Vidya Ben Waghela
Waghela Date: 2025.08.12
13:52:43 +05'30'
Page 7 of 7