Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Vinod Kumar Meena vs Western Railway on 17 December, 2025
::1 :: O.A.No.424/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH
O.A. No.424/2022
CORAM :
Hon'ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
Reserved On : 01.12.2025
Pronounced On :17.12.2025
Vinod Kumar Meena, Aged 46 years
S/o. Shri Girdhar Gopal Meena
Age 46 years, Adu lt,
Public Prosecutor, Ahmedabad Division (W.R.)
Ahmedabad
Bench 304/B-8, India Bulls Saraspur
Near Haribhai Godoni Hospital
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)- 380 018........................... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr.Vinodchandra C. Thakar)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Railway
256-A, Raisina Road,
Rajpath Area, Central Secretariat,
New Delhi 110 001.
2. Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pension
(Department of Personnel and Training)
Through its Secretary,
North Block, Central Secretariat,
New Delhi 110 001.
3. General Manager
Western Railway
Churchgate. Mumbai - 400 020.
4. Divisional Railway Manager
Western Railway
Chamunda Bridge. Naroda Road,
Ahmedabad - 380 002.......................... Respondents
(By Advocate : Ms.R.R.Patel for Respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4)
2025.12.19
P ANUKUMA
10:57:37+05'30'
::2 :: O.A.No.424/2022
ORDER
Per : Hon'ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)
1. The applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the A.T.Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"(A) The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 12.06.2019 vide which the new prosecution department for India Railway has been created.
(B) Be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant and to grant promotional benefits assuming that the prosecution department has been operationalised on 12.02.2013 itself when the applicant's Ahmedabad post was re-designated as public / Assistant Procedures with Bench all consequential benefits and interest @ 12% per annum on the dues payable to him, as per DoPT guidelines and equivalent of Central Agencies.
(C ) Be pleased to allow this petition with costs and be pleased to quantify the costs.
(D) Be pleased to direct the respondents to operationalise the prosecution department and frame recruitment rules for the prosecution department in the time bound manner.
(E) Be pleased to direct and command the respondents authorities to create separate cadre of prosecution by constituting a prosecution department having provision of benefiting career progression in terms of the judgment and order dated 29.09.2011 passed by the Apex Court in case of Sohan Singh Sheera and Another and also judgment dated 03/07/1997 passed by the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) as also judgment dated 18.03.2020 passed by the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.67718/ 2020 expeditiously within a period of three weeks. (F) Pending admission and final hearing the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to issue an appropriate order restraining the respondents from in any manner adversely affecting the conditions of service of the applicant and be further pleased to direct respondent authorities to form uniform policy for PPS at Zone to Division level within a period of three weeks.
(G) Be pleased to grant such other and further relies as may be deemed just and proper by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2025.12.19 P ANUKUMA 10:57:37+05'30' ::3 :: O.A.No.424/2022
2. The brief facts of the case is as under: -
2.1 The applicant herein was appointed as Public Prosecutors at Ahmedabad Division of Western Railway in Pay Band-II (9300-34800+4600/- (GP) vide order dated 12.01.2013 (Annexure A/1 refer).
2.2 It is stated that Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in the case of Sohan Singh Seera Vs Union of India, SB Civil Writ Petition No. 465/1999 and directed the respondents "....... to constitute a separate cadre of Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors etc. Either on divisional basis or zonal basis by creating a separate prosecution department for them Ahmedabad Bench and making the head of the department to be appointed for such department directly responsible to the higher authorities of the Railways for their conducting of all the prosecutions by them before teh Magistrates, Court and for free administrative and discipline control of the Railway Police Force and its officers.
It is further directed that no person belonging to the armed ring of the RPF shall be appointed as the head of the Departments of the prosecution agency".
2.3 In compliance to the direction issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in the case of Sohan Singh Seera Vs Union of India, (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 465/1999), decided on 03.07.1997 and during the pendency of the Contempt Petition No. 264/2012, the Railway Board issued Office Memorandum dated 16.07.2012 (Annexure A/2) decided that w.e.f. the date of issue of the said Memorandum all Public Prosecutors (PPs), APPs should function under the control of AGM/ADRM through DGM (Law), Sr. Law Officer/ Law Officer. Further, it is mentioned therein that in the Zones where there is no post of AGM, they will function under the administrative and disciplinary control of Senior Most law 2025.12.19 P ANUKUMA 10:57:37+05'30' ::4 :: O.A.No.424/2022 officer on zone and the officer who is controlling law unit in Zone (i.e., SDGM?CPO as the case may be) shall act as over all controlling officer for the cadre.
2.4 In the meantime, the respondents being aggrieved with the order passed by Single Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 465/1995 had filed appeal before the Division Bench being Civil Special Appeal No. 321/1999 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 26.03.2002. The Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in the said judgment held that the directions as has been given by the learned Single Judge are harmless, rather such directions would help to improve the Ahmedabad management of the prosecution cases. Bench Being aggrieved, the respondents had approached the Hon'ble Apex Court by way of filing Civil Appeal No. 5920/2006. With the following observation, the Hon'ble Apex Court disposed of the said appeal vide order 29.09.2011(Annexure A/3 colly. refer): -
ORDER (1) This is an appeal by Union of India and its functionary.
The appeal arises from the order dated March, 26, 2002 passed by the Rajasthan High Court giving direction to them to constitute a separate cadre of Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors either on divisional basis or Zonal basis by creating a separate prosecution department.
(2) Mr. Harsh N Parekh, learned counsel for the appellant has placed before us a communication dated September, 28, 2011, intimating the concern additional Government advocate that the matter has been considered by the Railway Board and in pursuance of the direction given by the Rajasthan High Court, it has been decided to constitute a separate cadre of prosecutors. The Communication further mentions that drafting of Recruitment Rules and the structure of the new cadre will, accordingly, be taken up in consultation with the appropriate authorities.
(3) In view of the above, communication, Mr. Harsh N Parekh submits that the appellants are not desirous of prosecuting this appeal.
2025.12.19 P ANUKUMA 10:57:37+05'30' ::5 :: O.A.No.424/2022 (4) Civil Appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to cost.
2.5 It is stated that in the meantime, the Railway Board vide its order dated 09.03.2006, informed the General Managers, Central, Northeast Frontier South Central, South eastern & Western Railways and all the New Zones about restructuring of gazetted cadre of the Indian Railways for new zones and new Divisions legal department creation of two posts in JA Grade and six posts in Cr. Scale and upgradation of 11 posts of CLAs in Grade 7450-115000 to Group 'B' in Scale Rs. 7500-1200 (Annexure A/5 refer).
Ahmedabad 2.6 Thereafter, in response to the direction issued by the Hon'ble Bench Apex Court vide order dated 29.09.2011 in Civil Appeal No. 5920/2006, the South Central Railway, Office of the IG-RPF, Secunderabad by referring the Railway Board's letter dated 18.11.2011, had published a set of rules and guidelines vide order dated 28.12.2011 in respect to formation of separate and independent Prosecution Cadre in the Railway Protection Force (Annexure A/6 refer).
2.7 Subsequently, in exercise of power conferred by Section 21 of the Railway Protection Force Act 1957, the respondents published Gazzette notification vide G.S.R.719 (E) dated 31.10.2013 and amended the Railway Protection Force Rules. The said amended Rule are called as "Railway Protection Force (Amendment Rules), 2013" (Annexure A/7 refer).
2.8 Thereafter, the DoP&T, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions issued S.O. 2079 (E) dated 01.01.2014 (Annexure A/8 refer) whereby various guidelines has been laid down for classification of Group A, Group B, Group C and Group D as well for their respective pay band.
2025.12.19 P ANUKUMA 10:57:37+05'30' ::6 :: O.A.No.424/2022 2.9 It is stated that in compliance to the direction issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad vide order dated 05.10.2015 in CWP A No. 56394 of 2015 (Dinesh Kumar Chaturvedi & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.), the Railway Board vide order dated 30.11.2015 considered the representation/ claim of the railway employees for grant of promotion to the post of Assistant Security Commissioner Assistant Commandant and held that as Separation of Prosecution Cadre from RPF has been done on the basis of Court's Judgment and as on date the petitioners are not the member of the Force. Further, it is stated that the claim of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Assistant Security Commissioner (ASC)/Assistant Ahmedabad Bench Commandant (AC) in Railway Protection Force cannot be considered. Accordingly, the said representation was rejected (Annexure A/9 colly. Refer).
2.10 It is stated that Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, vide its letter dated 03.04.2018, revised the pay scale of Public Prosecutors working under Directorate of Prosecutions (DOP) of Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) by considering the decision passed by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 14166 of 2014 dated 25.10.2016 filed by all Haryana Attorneys Welfare Association of Prosecution Department, the Government of Haryana has constituted a committee and based on the recommendation of the said committee, decided to upgrade the pay scale applicable to the posts of ADA/DDA/DA of the Prosecution Department vide order dated 20.08.2018.
2.11 Since, the respondents herein had not complied with the directions issued by Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan and Hon'ble Apex Court for formation of a separate Prosecution Department, the applicant herein had submitted his detailed representation dated 15.10.2018 before the Chairman, Railway 2025.12.19 P ANUKUMA 10:57:37+05'30' ::7 :: O.A.No.424/2022 Board and by referring the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Rajasthan High Court, requested the Competent Authority for uniform administrative policy for Prosecution work and Public Prosecutors in Indian railway with immediate and proper formation of separate 'Prosecution Department' in terms of Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment and statutory mandate. To substantiate the claim, he has stated various grounds in his representation (Annexure A/10 refer).
2.12 During the pendency of the aforesaid representation of the applicant before the Competent Authority, the respondents vide Office Order No. 117/2018 dated 31.10.2018 (Annexure A/13) Ahmedabad re-designated the of post of AIG/Prosecution in Security Bench Directorate as AIG/Headquarters/Railway Board with immediate effect. According, to the applicant there was one post of Additional Inspector General Prosecution and in terms of the erstwhile system, he has opportunity to get atleast three promotions. However, as per the new structure one post of the AIG/Prosecution has been re-designated as Additional Inspector General Headquarter, Railway Board. The said decision of the respondents has as such reduced the promotional avenues for the applicant herein.
2.13 Further, it is stated that vide Officer Memorandum dated 12.06.2019 (Annexure A/14), the Railway Board consequent upon the verdict delivered on 29.09.2011 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in compliance of the judgment dated 03.07.1997 of Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in S.B. CWP No. 465/1995 decided in principle to separate the Prosecution Cadre from Railway Protection Force on the Railways. Accordingly, the Ministry of railway free from the administrative control of the Railway Protection Force and to make the head of separate cadre directly responsible to the higher authorities of the railway for their discipline and 2025.12.19 P ANUKUMA 10:57:37+05'30' ::8 :: O.A.No.424/2022 control. In this regard, sanction of the president accorded for Cadre structure of the separate Prosecution Department (Annexure A/14 refer).
2.14 Since, the representation of the application was not considered, the applicant had approached Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat by way of filing SCA No. 6718 of 2020 seeking formation of uniform administration for prosecution work and Public Prosecution in Indian Railway with immediate effect as per the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as also sought relief for issuance of a direction upon the Railways to create a separate cadre of prosecution in accordance with the direction Ahmedabad issued by the Single Bench of Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Bench Writ Petition No. 465/1995 as also in compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 29.09.2011. Considering the pendency of the representation of the applicant, the said representation filed by the applicant was disposed of vide order dated 18.03.2020 (Annexure A/15 refer) whereby without entering into the merits of the case, was relegated to the concerned authority with direction that they shall decided the representation 15.10.2018 within stipulated time limit.
2.15 Further, it is stated that since the respondents have not complied with the direction issued by the Hon'ble High Court, the applicant through his counsel issued notice to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents.
2.16 Thereafter, the Railway Board vide their letter dated 23.10.2020 (Annexure A/17 refer) informed the General Manager, Western Railway and copy of the same was sent to the applicant herein whereby it was conveyed that representation of the applicant was considered and notification for the formation of separate Prosecution Cadre had been issued on 12.06.2019. The said 2025.12.19 P ANUKUMA 10:57:37+05'30' ::9 :: O.A.No.424/2022 notification was issued with due advice and correspondence with Ministry of Finance and DoPT. It is stated therein that the issue of career progression has been aptly dealt in the notification and the new Recruitment Rules, are under finalization, in IRPFS also promotion Group- 'A' will take place from Group - 'B'. Further, in terms of Para 201.1 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) Vol.1 all promotion to Group 'B' are to be carried out through a positive act a selection involving written examination and viva -voce including assessment of record of service. Inspite of the said provisions, instructions have been issued vide Board's letter dated 21.10.2019, whereby one time exemption has been Ahmedabad Bench granted for promotion to Group 'B' post of Sr. PP from amongst senior most PPs on the basis of seniority cum suitability. Therefore, as far framing of Recruitment Rules (RRs) are concerned, it was mentioned by the Board that draft Recruitment Rules of Prosecution Cadre examined by Directorates concerned and vetted by Finance (Estt.) Dte, were uploaded on official website of M/o Railways for 30 days for seeking comments of the stakeholders. The suggestion /comments received from stakeholders are under examination. After the said process completed, the draft RRs for Gazetted post of Prosecution Cadre will be put up to Competent Authority for approval and thereafter it will be sent to UPSC for their approval.
Further, it was conveyed that administrative uniform policy related with Ration Money, Dress allowance and No. of Casual leaves are mentioned in Para 3.5 of the said letter dated 23.10.2020 and thereby Railway Board conveyed that no inconsistency or discrepancy exists at present between Prosecution Cadre and RPF Vis-a-Vis Dress Allowance. Accordingly, the representation of the applicant was decided.
2025.12.19 P ANUKUMA 10:57:37+05'30' ::10 :: O.A.No.424/2022 2.17 Applicant being aggrieved with the office memorandum dated 12.06.2019, had approached the Hon'ble Apex Court by way of filing Writ Petition(s) (civil) No (s). 405/2021, on the ground that earlier direction issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan has not been complied with by the respondents. The said Writ Petition of the applicant has been dismissed by Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 09.04.2021 (Annexure A/3 refer) wherein in the concluding para it has been observed as under: -
".....We are of the view that the remedy of the petitioners (s) would be filling of appropriate petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Bench Ahmedabad concerned, and not by staightaway approaching this Bench Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Needless to say that priority will be given to this matter considering that one way or the other, the dispute has dragged on for almost two decades.
The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations."
2.18 Further, it is pleaded that the Railway Board published the provisional seniority list of Public Prosecutors as on 01.03.2022 vide Office Memorandum dated 10.03.2022 (Annexure a/18 refer).
2.19 It is stated that one Shri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava had sought information from Railway Board that under which provision of code of Criminal Provision, 1973, the Prosecution Cadre or Department on the Railways has been formed or is being formed? In this regard, response was supplied that under provision of Section - 25A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the cadre was formed (Annexure A/19 refer). 2.20 It is stated that the Ministry of Railway notified the Indian Railway Prosecution Cadre (Group A and Group B Gazetted post) Recruitment Rules, 2022 vide notification dated 04.07.2022 (Annexure A/20 refer). The said Recruitment Rules, regulating the method of recruitment to the post of Assistant 2025.12.19 P ANUKUMA 10:57:37+05'30' ::11 :: O.A.No.424/2022 Legal Officer (Prosecution) and Senior Public Prosecutor (Group A and B Gazetted) in Prosecution Cadre of the Indian Railway. The method of recruitment, age-limit, qualification and other matters relating thereto were specified in columns (5) to (13) of the Schedule enclosed to the said Rules. 2.21 Subsequently, O/o the General Manager (E) Headquarter, Western Railway, Mumbai vide letter dated 05.09.2022, circulated a copy of the Railway board's Letter dated 24.08.2022 alongwith the Railway Board's letter dated 22.08.2022 in respect to admissible allowances to Public Prosecutors (Annexure A/21 colly. Refer).
Based on aforesaid pleadings, the applicant has filed the Ahmedabad Bench present OA, seeking relief as mentioned and reproduced at para-1 hereinabove.
3. The applicant pleaded in para - 5 of the OA under the heading 'Grounds for relief with legal provision' as under:-
3.1 The applicant submits that the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 09.04.2021 (Annexure A/3) is erroneous. That is because of passing without testing on touch stone of merit of the case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court could not have gone through the material produced on record before it. In other words the Supreme Court is materially erred in passing such order. It is ambiguous or vague, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. It is well settled by law that the people of India has got fundamental rights under the Constitution of India and the infringement of these rights can be challenged before Supreme Court under article 32 but under article 13, the Supreme Court's order is applicable to whole country. Hence, looking to the present case circumstances if the Supreme Court could have passed order in that angle, the disputes could not have dragged on or lingering for almost two decades (para - 5.1 of the OA at page no. 34 refer).
2025.12.19 P ANUKUMA 10:57:37+05'30' ::12 :: O.A.No.424/2022 3.2 As per para 16 of the judgment and order passed in Sohan Singh case (supra) only the head of prosecution, department is to be directly responsible to higher authorities. In railways, higher authorities are either Railway Board or Chairman of railways. Therefore, making the PPS and APPS to function under AGM/ADRM through DGM (Law)/ Assistant Legal Officer (Prosecution) is against the mandate of the Hon'ble High Court. The PPS and APPS can be made responsible only to their senior legal officer in the hierarchy of prosecution department and not to any officer of railways. Hence, the impugned order dated 12.06.2019 is not sustainable in law and has to be set-aside.
Ahmedabad Bench 3.3 Learned counsel for the applicant would argue that the decision of the respondents as per the order dated 12.06.2019 discriminates the applicant by denying him equal pay for equal work, as the prosecutors are doing the same work as done by the prosecutors in other departments who are getting higher pay scale. By referring the pay structure of the prosecution department in Delhi Police on introduction of 6 th CPC, the respondents in the case of the applicant had not extended the benefit of higher pay scale.
3.4 It is the grievance of the applicant that the applicant's post was re-designated as Public Prosecutor and Assistant Public Prosecutor in accordance with the directions of Rajasthan High Court. But, the applicant has neither got promotional benefits by virtue of being Public/Assistant Prosecutor and as such the prosecution department has not yet operationalised nor he has got any financial benefits of RPF. In this regard, it is also argued that vide Office Memorandum dated 23.10.2020, the respondents more particularly in para 3(5)(2) admitted that the applicant was integral part of RPF prior to the notification dated 12.06.2019 and were entitled to ration money allowance, uniform allowance, cash compensation in lieu of holidays, 2025.12.19 P ANUKUMA 10:57:37+05'30' ::13 :: O.A.No.424/2022 transport allowance etc. However, the applicant has not been given ration money since 2013.
3.5 It is submitted that the respondents have wrongly removed the post of APP in the new prosecution department/s structure. The post of APP is envisaged in the Cr. P.C. Section 25. The post of APP is also envisaged in Rule 231-2 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1937. The functions of post of PPS and APPs are well defined under the provisions of Section 24 and 25 of the Cr. P.C. and the posts are Statutory posts within the meaning of these sections. The statutory nature of posts of PPS and APPs has been discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deepak Aggarwal Vs Keshav Kaushik & Ors (2013) 5 SCC Ahmedabad Bench
277. Therefore, the post of APP cannot be taken away by the impugned order dated 12.06.2019 which is an administrative order, hence, the same is not sustainable in law. 3.6 It is stated that as per the new structure one post of Additional Inspector General Prosecution i.e., the post of Additional Inspector General (Prosecution) has been re-designated as Additional Inspector General Headquarters Railway board vide Office Order dated 31.10.2018. The said decision of the respondents infact reduced the promotional avenues for the applicant herein. The respondents have not complied with the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan as well as Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. The claim of the respondents that they have followed the directions and issued the instructions thereon, does not serve any purpose and right of the applicant has been affected. In this regard, neither the Union of India has framed the rules for prosecution cadre nor the period of six months for compliance and the period three weeks for compliance is maintained by the respondents and thereby applicant's has been deprived of his status and further caused irreparable harm to his service career.
2025.12.19 P ANUKUMA 10:57:37+05'30' ::14 :: O.A.No.424/2022
4. On receipt of the notice issued by this Tribunal, respondents have filed their reply and denied the claim of the applicant. By referring the averments made in the said reply, Ms. R R Patel, learned counsel for the respondents mainly submitted as under:
-
4.1 Pursuant to the compliance of the direction issued by the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court, a separate Prosecution Cadre free from the Administrative Control of the Railway Protection Force has been constituted in terms of the Railway Board's letter dated 12.06.2019 (Annexure R/1 refer).
Further, it is stated that the approved Cadre Structure of the prosecution Cadre, Posts of different Grades are being filled up Ahmedabad Bench in a phased manner. Accordingly, consequent upon empanelment to Group 'B' post of Senior Public Prosecutor in level - 8 of Pay Matrix, 67 Public Prosecutors including the applicant here were promoted and posted as Senior Public Prosecutors in various zones vide Railway Board's order dated 13.01.2023 (Annexure R/2 refer). Thus, the applicant herein has already been given promotional avenues as well as financial benefits.
4.2 Further, it is submitted that the Recruitment Rules (Annexure R/3) both for gazetted and non gazetted have already been framed and are available in public domain. Therefore, the applicant has projected incorrect fact in the present OA and on such grounds the OA, is required to be dismissed. 4.3 It is stated that the RPF Rules, 1987, were amended a necessitated vide G.S.R 719 (E) dated 31.10.2013 and all relevant provisions regarding "Public Prosecutors" were omitted from RPF Rules, 1987. The instructions contained in Railway Board letter dated 11.11.2013, provides that the PPS & APPs are no longer member of Railway Protection Force. 4.4 Further, it is required to mention here that since prosecution department is operational at Zonal and Divisional Levels, 2025.12.19 P ANUKUMA 10:57:37+05'30' ::15 :: O.A.No.424/2022 Assistant Legal Officer (Prosecution) is the Head of Prosecution Department in the Zone, through whom prosecution cadre functions under the control of AGM/ADRM. Further, the Administrative control of Railway Prosecution Force over prosecution cadre has also been done away with. Thus, the Prosecution cadre has been constituted in due and full compliance of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan. 4.5 In respect to the grievance of the applicant about abolition of the post of APP in GP - 4200 is concerned, it can be seen that as per the recommendation of 6th CPC, all Law Graduates should be placed in the pay band PB-2 with GP-4600/-. Since, the educational qualification required for filling up the post of Ahmedabad Bench APP was bachelor's degree in law, entrance grade of public prosecutor in prosecution cadre is GP-4600/-. Therefore, the applicant's submission regarding Pay grades and promotional avenues are baseless. To justify the said submission, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the following details: -
S.No. Previous Cadre Structure Present Cadre Structure Designation Pay Scale Designation Pay Scale
1. Assistant GP- Assistant GP-
Security Legal Officer 6600/L11
5400/L10
Commissioner (Prosecutor)
(Prosecution)
2. Inspector GP- Senior Public GP-
(Prosecution) Prosecutor 4800/L08
4600/L07
3. Sub Inspector GP- Public GP-
(Prosecution) Prosecutor 4600/L07
4200/L06
By referring the aforesaid, learned counsel for the respondents would argue that it is evident from the above table, the issue of career progression has already been aptly dealt with in separate 2025.12.19 P ANUKUMA 10:57:37+05'30' ::16 :: O.A.No.424/2022 cadre structure of prosecution Cadre through introduction of enhanced Grades.
4.6 It is submitted that the applicant conveniently has ignored the fact that, total 17 L-11 posts of Assistant Legal Officer (Prosecution) have been introduced in the new cadre structure which are equivalent to the post of AIG (Prosecution). 4.7 Further, it is submitted that as per the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court there is no adverse comment or finding recorded against the existing cadre structure of prosecution cadre. Still, a cadre structure having provision of enhanced and befitting career progression has been worked out for prosecution cadre by the respondents.
Ahmedabad Bench 4.8 Learned counsel for the respondents by referring the observation and recommendation of the committee setup for to prepare draft set of rules towards formation of a separate and independent prosecution cadre in the Railway Protection Force (RPF) in compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in order dated 29.09.2011, would argue that the duties and responsibilities of RPF prosecutors are different from their counter parts in other departments and accordingly denied the claim of the applicant for parity. Learned counsel in support of aforesaid submission emphasised the following observation of the committee which reads as under: -
"The main function of the PPs and APPS in RPF is to prosecute cases under the Railway Property (Unlawful possession) Act 1966 which is a special Acts created solely for the purpose of prosecuting property offences pertaining to Railways. Most of these cases are tried and argued in 1st class Magistrate courts. The gist of arguments revolves around unlawful possession and also the ownership of the stolen Railway property. The scope for arguments beyond the limited area indicated above is almost non-existent. Onus of proof, in Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act cases, lies with the accused persons unlike in together IPC offences. It is due to these factors that the conviction rate is high in Railway property offences and not due to any undue influence on the prosecution cadre as such. A recent addition to this brief of the 2025.12.19 P ANUKUMA 10:57:37+05'30' ::17 :: O.A.No.424/2022 PPs and APPs is the prosecution in RA cases to a limited extent.
4.9 Further, it is stated that the 7th C.P.C. by considering the cadre structure of prosecution cadre on Indian Railways had also refrained from making any recommendations stating to the effect that: "Since the modalities of a separate prosecution Department are already under finalization in consultation with DOPT and Ministry of Finance, therefore no recommendations are required at this stage."
4.10 Further, while considering the cadre structure of legal cadre, 7th C.P.C. had made following observation:-
"The Commission appreciates the need to strengthen the legal Ahmedabad cadre at the Divisional level, in view of the trend of increasing Bench litigation. However, changes required in the cadre structure to meet this objective are the prerogative of the Ministry of Railways. Accordingly, no specific recommendations are made in this regard."
Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the above remarks made by the 7th C.P.C. are general in nature and hence, similarly relevant to the prosecution cadre. 4.11 It is submitted that in pursuance to verdict of the Hon'ble High Court, a separate Prosecution Cadre was constituted vide OM dated 16.07.2012 and thereby administrative and Disciplinary Control of Public Prosecutors were separated from RPF. Accordingly, RPF Rule, 1987 amended vide GSR dated 31.10.2013 and resultantly, all relevant provisions regarding "Public Prosecutors" were omitted from RPF. 4.12 It is stated that Railway Board vide letter dated 11.11.2013, issued the terms and conditions of Recruitment, seniority and promotion which would be applicable to non-RPF Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors. Further, in terms of Para - 5 of the OM dated 16.07.2012, PPs and APPs are no longer members of RPF. In view of this, the representation submitted by one Shri Dineshkumar Chaturvedi in connection 2025.12.19 P ANUKUMA 10:57:37+05'30' ::18 :: O.A.No.424/2022 with the claim for promotion in the rank of ASC/AC-RPF /RPSF was rejected by the then DG/RPF vide office letter dated 30.11.2015.
4.13 Learned counsel submits that the process of formation of structure of Prosecution Cadre, number of formalities like obtaining approval from DoPT, Ministry of Finance and UPSC was involved, which was piloted by Establishment Directorate/Railway Board and hence, the same took additional time, but, eventually vide Railway Board's letter dated 12.06.2019, the Cadre Structure was specified.
It can be seen that the Recruitment Rules for Prosecution Cadre for the post of Assistant Legal Officer (Prosecution) and Ahmedabad Bench Senior Public Prosecutor (Group-A Gazzeted & Group-B Gazzeted) have also been issued vide GSR 518(E) dated 04.07.2022 (Annexure-R/4 refer). The promotion avenue of Public Prosecutors has been notified as per the structure and accordingly, promotion of PPs in the rank of Senior PPs have been effected vide Railway Board's letter dated 13/01/2023. 4.14 It is also to be submitted that, it was not necessary for an Officer who have the knowledge of Prosecution related work for the purpose of posting as AIG/Prosecution (Currently AIG/HQ/RB), since, matters related to Prosecution of Criminal cases are not handled by AIG/HQ/RB. Hence, the post of AIG/Prosecution was never reserved for Prosecution Wing. The Inspectors inducted in the prosecution Wing had also held the responsibility as ASCs/ACs in Jr. Scale in RPF/RPSF and also Divisional In-charges, but, the same was only when the Prosecution Cadre had not been separated. However, after the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, posting of Public Prosecutors as ASCS/ACs cannot be considered. Therefore, the challenge made by the applicant to the OM dated 12.06.2019 is baseless and not tenable.
2025.12.19 P ANUKUMA 10:57:37+05'30' ::19 :: O.A.No.424/2022 4.15 The respondents have considered the representation of the applicant and the same has been answered to applicant vide communication dated 21.10.2020 by way of speaking order. 4.16 Further, it is submitted that as per the Railway Board's letter dated 11.11.2023, the PPs and APPs are no longer members of RPF.
5. Further, learned counsel for the respondents by referring para 14 of the reply in context of averment made in para 5 and 5-1 in the OA would argue that the contention of the applicant is highly contemptuous in nature.
Further, it is stated that the Manchanda Committee was constituted to look into the issues of Cadre structure of Legal Ahmedabad Bench Cadre. It is submitted that, recommendations of Manchanda Committee have no direct bearing on Prosecution Cadre. The submission of the applicant seems to be meant for to confuse and distract this Tribunal from the facts and material on record. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for any relief as sought for.
6. The applicant has filed rejoinder and reiterated the submission made in the OA. Additionally, it is stated that as per the Railway Board's office memorandum dated 12.06.2019 newly formed prosecution department are not in consonance with the spirit of various judgements of the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court. The respondents have also tried to violate Sections 141 and 174 of the Railways Act, 1989 which provides in details the legislative provisions regarding railway zones, construction and maintenance of works, passenger and employee services.
6.1 Further, it is submitted that vide communication dated 12.01.2024 (Annexure AR/1) revised pay scale of Assistant Public Prosecutor is PB-2 Rs. 4800/- GP. The applicant herein is getting pay scale of Rs. GP-4800/- at present even though he is promoted to the post of Senior Public Prosecutor which is the 2025.12.19 P ANUKUMA 10:57:37+05'30' ::20 :: O.A.No.424/2022 pay scale of Assistant Public Prosecutor whereas in Delhi Secretariat, the Senior Public Prosecutors are getting pay scale of Rs. GP - 5400/-
6.2 Though the respondents vide notification dated 04.07.2022, resolved the method of recruitment to the post of Assistant legal office (prosecution) and senior public prosecutor (Group A and B Gazetted) in prosecution cadre of Indian railway, nothing is complied of earlier order of various courts.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material on record.
8. At the outset, it is required to mention that the language used by the applicant in the OA more particularly in para-5.1 of the OA Ahmedabad Bench (page no. 34 of the OA) commenting on the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court is neither appreciable nor acceptable and the same is contemptuous. However, considering the request of the learned counsel for the applicant, we leave the said issue at this stage with a caution to the applicant not to use such language in future.
9. It emerges from the record that in compliance of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 465 of 1995 in the matter of Sohan Singh Sihra Vs Union of India & Ors. to be read with judgment passed by Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Civil Appeal No. 321/1999 dated 26.03.2002 and the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5920/2006 dated 29.09.2011 as well as the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in CCP No. 264/2012, the respondents i.e., Railway Board vide Office Memorandum dated 16.07.2012 (Annexure A/2) while constituting a separate cadre of Public Prosecutors (PP) and Assistant Public Prosecutors (APPs) on Divisional or Zonal basis had decided that all Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors should function under the control of AGM/ADRM through DGM (Law)/Sr. Law Officer/ Law 2025.12.19 P ANUKUMA 10:57:37+05'30' ::21 :: O.A.No.424/2022 Officer. In Zones where there is no post of AGM, they will function under the Administrative and Disciplinary control of senior most Law Officer on Zone and the officer who is controlling law unit in Zone (i.e., SDGM/CPO as the case may be) shall act as over all controlling officer for the cadre. 9.1 Thereafter, the respondents in exercise of the power conferred by Section 21 of Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 had amended the Railway Protection Force Rules and same has been called as Railway Protection Force (Amendment) Rules, 2013 whereby the word "Prosecution" mentioned in the Rule - 38 has been omitted. As also in Schedule - 4 of the said Rules, the heading "Inspector (Prosecution)" and "Sub-Inspector Ahmedabad Bench (Prosecution)" and the corresponding entries thereunder has been omitted.
9.2 According to the applicant after separation from RPF, he felt great prejudice with regard to his career progression as also with regard to provisions of Administrative Policy related with Ration Money, Dress Allowances and number of Casual Leaves and transfer of PPs, as there is no "Uniform Policy" formed by the Railway Board. Since there is no promotion avenues for PPs and other existing Prosecution Agencies/ Directorates/ Departments of the Central Government, the post of PP and APP has been considered as "Group -A, Gazetted" and "Group
- B Gazetted" officers but the applicant has not been treated equally, therefore, had submitted detailed representation before the Chairman, Railway Board requesting that the Uniform Policy be framed and proper formation of separate Prosecution Department having provision of befitting career progression be provided.
9.3 The said representation of the applicant was subsequently considered and decided by the respondents vide their communication dated 23.10.2020 (Annexure A/17 refer) whereby while dealing with grievances of the applicant, the 2025.12.19 P ANUKUMA 10:57:37+05'30' ::22 :: O.A.No.424/2022 Railway Board conveyed the applicant that the notification for the formation of separate prosecution cadre has been issued on 12.06.2019 (Annexure A/14 refer). The issue of career progression has been aptly dealt in the notification as per the guidelines of MoF and DoP&T. Further, it has been stated therein that new Recruitment Rules are under finalization in IRPFS also promotion to Group -'A' will take place from Group-'B'. Inspite of all promotion to Group -'B' are to be carried out by way of a selection involving written examination and viva-voce was including assessment of records of service in terms of para 201.1 of IREM Vol.I, the Railway Board vide its letter dated 21.10.2019 granted one time exemption for Ahmedabad Bench promotion to Group-'B' post to Sr. PP from amongst senior most PPs on the basis of Seniority-cum-Suitability.
Further, it has also been mentioned that the draft Recruitment Rules of prosecution cadre had been waited by Finance (Estt.) were uploaded on official website of M/o Railways for 30 days for seeking comments of the stakeholders. The suggestions/comments received are under examination and thereafter, draft RRs for Gazetted post of "Prosecution Cadre"
will be put up to competent authority for approval and thereafter it will be sent to UPSC for their approval. So far, the claim of the applicant to frame the Administrative Uniform Policy related with Ration Money, Dress Allowances etc., the respondents by referring the provision of Para 1425 of IREC Vol. II, the non-gazetted personal of RPF/RPSF upto the rank of Inspector Grade-I are entitled to Ration Money Allowance at a rate fixed by the M/o Railway from time to time and the rates of RMA are fixed/revise on the basis of instructions issued by the M/o Home Affairs in the case of non-gazetted personal of Central Military Para Force, IB and Delhi Police Personal those who require 2900 calories.
2025.12.19 P ANUKUMA 10:57:37+05'30' ::23 :: O.A.No.424/2022 Further, it is stated that prior to notification dated 14.06.2019, Prosecution cadre was an integral part of RPF/RPSF personal. Accordingly, they were also entitled for Ration Money Allowance.
However, since a separate Prosecution Cadre has been formed and now it is not a part of RPF/RPSF cadre, therefore, they are not entitled for Ration Money Allowance.
On the same line, it has been conveyed that as per the RBE No. 199/2018 dated 20-21/12/2018, whereby Public Prosecutor were granted Dress Allowances at the rate 10,000/- per annum in terms of conditions contained in RBE No. 141/2017.
Ahmedabad Bench With the said reply, the respondents conveyed to the applicant that no inconsistency or discrepancy exists at present between Prosecution Cadre and RPF vice versa Dress Allowances (Annexure A/17 refer).
9.4 Further, as noted hereinabove, in terms of Railway Board's letter 12.06.2019, a separate Prosecution cadre free from the Administrative Control of the Railway Protection Force has already been constituted on line with directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan.
9.5 It can be seen that in Prosecution Cadre of Railways, now, the Indian Railways Prosecution Cadre (Group -'A' and 'B' Gazetted Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2022 notified on 04 th July, 2022, regulates the method of Recruitment to the posts of Assistant Legal Officer (Prosecution) and Sr. Public Prosecutor (Group -'A' and Group -'B' Gazetted). Therefore, it is not correct on the part of the applicant to state that no proper Rules have been framed in respect to "Prosecution Cadre" in the Railways.
9.6 It is apt to mention that the respondents in the reply has demonstrated the pay grades and promotional avenues available to the Prosecution Cadre which is referred hereinabove in para 2025.12.19 P ANUKUMA 10:57:37+05'30' ::24 :: O.A.No.424/2022 4.5. Thus, the grievance of the applicant that there is discrepancy in providing the pay grade has no promotion avenue available to him is contrary to the material on record. 9.7 It is noticed that as per the approved Cadre structure of the Prosecution Cadre post of different grades are being filled up by the respondents in phase manner. Consequent upon empanelment of Group -'B' post of Sr. Public Prosecutor in Level-8 of Pay Matrix, the Public Prosecutors have been posted/transferred to the Zones vide Railway Board's letter dated 13.01.2023 including the applicant herein (his name has been placed at Sr. No. 66 in the said letter). Therefore, it cannot be said that respondents have not followed the Uniform Policy. Ahmedabad Bench 9.8 So far as submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the respondents have taken more time to comply with the direction issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan and the promotion avenues of the applicant has restricted which has caused serious prejudice to him in his career progression. In our considered view, the said submission is not acceptable for the reason that the respondents have followed the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan and accordingly separated the prosecution cadre from Railway Protection Force on the Railways. M/o Railways free from the Administrative control of the Railway Protection Force and accordingly new cadre structure of separate Prosecution Department has been introduced vide OM dated 12.06.2019. As noted herein above, the applicant has been promoted as per the extant rules and has been granted higher pay scale accordingly. Not only that, it also emerges from the record that as per the present cadre structure prescribed, the promotional avenues attached with higher pay scale in comparison to previous cadre structure. The respondents have sufficiently explained for the delay caused in 2025.12.19 P ANUKUMA 10:57:37+05'30' ::25 :: O.A.No.424/2022 notifying the new cadre structure. Thus, we do not find any legal infirmities in the impugned OM dated 12.06.2019.
The other prayer sought by the applicant to direct the respondents to operationalise the Prosecution Department and framed Recruitment Rules for the Prosecution Department is concerned, the same is as such redressed and settled by the respondents.
9.9 Thus, we do not find any other ground or any material to accept the submission of the applicant. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the applicant in our considered view, in the facts and circumstances made hereinabove, same is also not helpful.
In sum, the grievance of the applicant as raised in the Ahmedabad Bench OA, in our considered view, has been settled and we decline to interfere with the implementation of decision of the respondents dated 12.06.2019 whereby cadre structure of the separate prosecution department has been framed.
10. In view of the above discussion, OA stands dismissed. No order as to costs. MA if any, pending also stands disposed of.
(Dr. Hukum Singh Meena) (Jayesh V.Bhairavia)
Member (A) Member (J)
PA
2025.12.19
P ANUKUMA
10:57:37+05'30'