Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
O P Sinha vs Union Of India on 24 March, 2026
1 (Reserved on 12.02.2026) Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad This the 24th day of __March, 2026 HON'BLE MR. RAJNISH KUMAR RAI, MEMBER-J. HON'BLE MS. MANJU PANDEY, MEMBER-A. Original Application No. 644 of 2015 (U/S 19, Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985)
1. O.P. Sinha aged about 53 yrs. S/o Late R.P. Sinha presently working as Hd. TTE/Dy. CIT- I RSTE Northern Railway, Varanasi, R/o 179-E A.E.N. Colony Northern Railway, Varanasi-221002.
2. Uma Nath Mishra, aged about 57 yrs, S/o Late Shiv Prasad Vyas, presently working as Hd. TTE/Dy. CIT- I RSTE Northern Railway, Varanasi, R/o-K-62/72, Sapt Sagar, Bulanala, Varanasi, U.P.
3. Ashok Kumar Pathak, aged about 54 yrs, S/o Avadh Narain Pathak, presently working as Hd. TTE/Dy. CIT-I RSTE Northern Railway, Varanasi, R/o-C/o Virendra Pandey, Village-Jamunipur, Post-Rajapur, Cholapur, Varanasi.
4. Ajit Kumar Singh, aged about 56 yrs, S/o Late Gorakh Nath Singh, presently working as Hd. TTE/Dy. CIT-I RSTE Northern Railway, Varanasi, R/o-H. No. 982, near Gauriya Math, Mughalsarai, Chandauli, U.P.
5. K.K. Gupta, aged about 48 yrs, S/o Late Ayodhya Prasad Gupta, presently working as Hd. TTE/Dy. CIT-I RSTE Northern Railway, Varanasi, R/o - H.No.-D- 37/59, Baradev, Varanasi, U.P.-221001.
6. Manoj Kumar Singh-2, aged about 54 yrs, S/o Late Abhimanyu Singh, presently working as Hd. TTE/Dy. CIT-I RSTE Northern Railway, Varanasi, R/o-C/o Promod Kumar, Ward No.-11, Sanjay Nagar Colony, Baburi Road Chandauli, U.P. 212104.
7. Om Prakash Dubey, aged about 51 yrs, S/o Late R. R. Dubey, presently working as Hd. TTE/Dy. CIT-I RSTE Shakuntala Singh 2 Northern Railway, Varanasi, R/o -Village-Kathari, P.O.- Khamaria, District-Bhadohi, U.P.
8. Surya Bhan Singh, aged about 55 yrs, S/o Bhagwan Prasad Singh, presently working as Hd. TTE/Dy. CIT-I, Northern Railway, Varanasi, R/o-H.No.-N-12/304, Shivraj Nagar, Mahmoorganj, Varanasi, U.P.
9. H.N. Ram, aged about 56 yrs, S/o Salik Ram, presently working as Hd. TTE/Dy. CIT-I, Northern Railway, Varanasi, R/o-Kakrahiya, Purana Kabir Math, Lahartara, Varanasi, U.P. ........... Applicants.
In Person: Mr. O.P. Sinha.
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, Northern Rly., Baroda House, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chief Personnel Officer/G.M. (P), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi-110001.
3. Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, DRM's Office, Hazratganj, Lucknow.
4. Senior Divisional Personnel Manager, Northern Railway, Lucknow.
5. Dy. CCM (Claims), Northern Railway, Varanasi Station Building, Varanasi.
........... Respondents By Advocate: Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh.
Order By Hon'ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (Judicial) The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking quashing of the impugned seniority orders and consequential directions for fixation of inter-se seniority, grant of promotional and financial benefits and other ancillary reliefs. The reliefs prayed for by the applicant are as under:-
"(i) The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned passed by DRM (P)/N.Rly.
Lucknow's letter dated 7.10.2013 (Annexure-A-1) issuing Shakuntala Singh 3 seniority of only 15 redeployed TTE's en block in Lucknow Division instead of 50 redeployed TTEs' declared surplus from CCM/Claims Varanasi and impugned order issued by DRM, Northern Railway, Lucknow vide letter dated 14.10.2014 (Annexure A-2) and impugned orders dated 19.12.2016 and 21.6.2016/19.12.2016 (Annexure A-2/A) including promotion orders done of junior persons on the basis of the vitiated seniority list and direct the respondents to assign and interpolate the inter se seniority of the applicants en block of 50 redeployed TTEs as (34 TTEs earlier deployed) following statutory provisions contained in Note (ii) of Para 313-A of IREM Vol. I and RBE No. 105/2004 dated 25-05-04) giving all consequential benefits.
(ii) The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased further to direct the respondents to assign their seniority with earlier 34 redeployed TTEs from Claims Office Varanasi which was kept in separate en block as per rules and also fix up pay scales of applicants at par with their junior persons working in the separate block of 50 posts and also give proforma promotions allowing with its due arrears of pay with due dates with 9% interest.
(iii) The Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the DRM/NR/Lucknow to give proportionate prescribed percentage of promotional posts in each grade with regard to total strength and strength of redeployed block and also promote the applicants against share of promotional posts in RTTEs and further higher grades as per guidelines and prescribed percentage of cadre restructuring.
(iv) Any other order or direction which the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also kindly be issued in the interest of justice.
(v) Cost of the application may also be awarded."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the present Original Application has been filed by O.P. Sinha and other similarly situated employees of Northern Railway, who were initially appointed in the ministerial cadre in the Claims Office, Varanasi and were subsequently promoted as Senior Clerks. Upon being declared surplus, they were redeployed in Lucknow Division against newly created posts in the commercial cadre, namely TTEs/TCs. The dispute in the present case arises from the fixation of inter-se seniority of the redeployed employees, wherein, according to the Shakuntala Singh 4 applicants, the respondents issued a provisional seniority list placing certain junior employees above them, allegedly in contravention of the relevant Railway Board instructions and the provisions contained in Para 313-A of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. It is the contention of the applicants that such incorrect fixation of seniority has adversely affected their promotional prospects, pay fixation and other consequential service benefits, giving rise to the present cause of action before this Tribunal.
3. The applicant in person had submitted that he is pursuing the present Original Application on his own behalf as well as on behalf of other similarly situated co-applicants, who are aggrieved by the impugned action of the respondents. He had submitted that the dispute relates to incorrect fixation of inter-se seniority following their redeployment in Lucknow Division, which has adversely affected their promotional prospects and consequential service benefits. The applicant in person further submitted that despite repeated representations, the respondents failed to rectify the alleged anomaly, thereby compelling the applicants to approach this Tribunal for redressal of their grievance.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents had submitted that the impugned fixation of inter-se seniority of the redeployed employees has been carried out strictly in accordance with the relevant rules, Railway Board instructions and applicable provisions of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. It was contended that the applicants have been placed in the seniority list on the basis of the prescribed criteria governing redeployment of surplus staff Shakuntala Singh 5 and that no illegality, arbitrariness or discrimination has been committed by the respondents. Learned counsel further submitted that the grievance raised by the applicants is misconceived and devoid of merit, as their representations have already been duly considered in accordance with rules.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents had further submitted that a detailed counter reply as well as a supplementary counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of the official respondents, wherein the averments made in the Original Application have been specifically denied and the factual as well as legal position has been clarified. It was argued that the applicants were redeployed at a later stage and, therefore, their seniority has rightly been determined below those employees who had been earlier redeployed. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned action has been taken after due application of mind and by passing reasoned orders, and hence the present Original Application is liable to be dismissed.
6. The applicant in person had submitted that the averments made in the counter reply and supplementary counter reply filed by the respondents are factually incorrect and contrary to the statutory provisions governing fixation of inter-se seniority of redeployed surplus staff. It was contended that the applicants were redeployed pursuant to administrative decisions and not on the basis of individual options, and therefore their seniority ought to have been maintained in accordance with Para 313-A of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual and relevant Railway Board instructions. The applicant in person further submitted that despite similarly situated junior employees having been Shakuntala Singh 6 granted promotions and financial upgradations, the applicants have been arbitrarily deprived of such benefits, resulting in stagnation in service and financial loss. It was also urged that the impugned action of the respondents reflects discriminatory treatment and non-compliance with applicable rules.
7. The applicant in person had also filed written arguments, wherein he reiterated the submissions advanced earlier and assailed the stand taken by the respondents in their counter reply. It was contended that the fixation of inter- se seniority of redeployed staff has been carried out contrary to the applicable Railway Board instructions and the provisions contained in Para 313-A of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. The applicant further sought to demonstrate, by referring to various documents and instances, that similarly situated junior employees were granted promotions, financial upgradations and other service benefits, whereas the applicants have been deprived of such benefits on arbitrary and discriminatory grounds. Accordingly, the applicant prayed for grant of the reliefs sought in the Original Application.
8. Heard the rival submissions advanced by Mr. O.P. Sinha, applicant in person, and Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, and perused the pleadings and documents available on record.
9. The dispute in the present Original Application relates to interpolation and fixation of inter-se seniority of the applicants vis-à-vis 34 earlier redeployed TTEs from the Claims Office, Varanasi, in pursuance of Para 313-A of the Shakuntala Singh 7 Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Vol.-I, as amended vide RBE No. 105/2004 dated 25.05.2004. The record reveals that the applicants along with identically placed ministerial staff working in the Claims Office, Northern Railway, Varanasi were declared surplus and approval was granted by the office of the General Manager (Personnel) vide letter dated 23.07.2001 for adjustment of 50 posts in the Ticket Checking cadre at Lucknow Division. Out of the said sanctioned strength, 34 employees were absorbed earlier in the TTE cadre at Lucknow Division in the year 2001, whereas the remaining 16 employees, including the present applicants, were redeployed subsequently between the years 2001 and 2010. The earlier batch of 34 employees was granted benefits of cadre restructuring w.e.f. 01.11.2003, whereas the applicants contend that despite forming part of the same surplus block, their inter-se seniority has not been maintained. Accordingly, the applicants have approached this Tribunal seeking fixation of their seniority in accordance with Para 313-A of the IREM, which is quoted hereinbelow:-
"प ांक: 847ई /6-8/Redeployed/Claim/05 म डल कायालय दनांक 19/12/16 उ र रे लवे, लखनऊ ी ओ.पी. स हा, रडे लायड, व र ठ टकट पर क एवं अ य उ र रे लवे, वाराणसी ।
वषय: दावा कायालय, उ र रे लवे, वाराणसी के म न ट रयल कैडर से सर लस के प म कायमु त करके जून/जुलाई 2010 म लखनऊ म डल, उ र रे लवे के टकट च कग कडर म रडे लायड के प चात 16 कमचा रय क व र ठता सूची के स ब ध म ।
आपका व र ठ मंडल का मक महोदय से सा ा कार दनांक 22.11.16 के स ब ध म आपके मामले क गहनता से जांच करने के प चात व र ठ म डल का मक अ धकार के आदे शानुसार आपको यह Shakuntala Singh 8 अवगत कराना है क दनांक 23.07.2001 को महा ब धक/का मक, धान कायालय, बडौदा हाऊस, नई द ल के प सं० 918E/I-Misc/claims- BSB/EIC दनांक 23.07.2001 के मा यम से 50 पदो को वीकृत कया गया है िजसम 38 पद वेतनमान 4000-6000 एवं अनके ऊपर के वेतनमान तथा 12 पद वेतनमान 4000-6000 के लए वीकृत कया गया है।
CCM/claim/BSB के प सं० 752E/BSB/surrender/Pt-1/2000 dt. 13.08.2001 को 38 कमचा रय को Along with post लखनऊ म डल म टकट चे कं ग कैडर म Absorb करने हेतु कायमु कत कया गया िजसम केवल 34 कमचार ह लखनऊ म डल म कायभार हण करने हेतु उपि थत हुए थे। बाक चार कमचार आजतक इस कायालय म कायभार हण करने हेतु उपि थत नह ं हुए है।
2010 म CCM/Claim/BSB से िजन लोग के पुन 6 आपशन पर लखनऊ म डल म टकट च कग कैडर म काय करने के इ छुक थे उनको CCM/Claim/BSB के प सं0 116ई/1/BSBWS/Pt-III दनांक 21.06.2010 दवारा कायमु त होकर लखनऊ भ डल म टकट च कग कैडर म कायभार हण करने हे तु उपि थत हुए ह।
वष 2001 के बाद वष 2010 तक 34 के अलावा अ य कोई कमचार CCM/Claim office/BSB से लखनऊ म डल म उपि थत न होने के कारण वष 2001 म आये कमचा रय को िज ह 50 पदो क अलग वर टता म रखा गया था उ ह इस बीच ऊपर के ेड म र त पद के व द पदो न त दे द गयी है। आप लोग वष 2010 म इस कायालय म आये ह और आपको 50 पद के वीकृत लाक म शेष र त 16 पद के व ध समाया◌ेिजत कया गया। अत: आप इस लाक म पहले से कायरत कमचा रय के ऊपर क वर यता एवं अ य काम क मांग क ।
अतः IREM के para 313 A म न न ल खत नदश के अनुसार दे य नह ं बनता है।
313A:- Assignment of seniority to redeployed surplus staff: The surplus employees are not entitled for benefit of the past service rendered in the previous unit/department for the purpose of their seniority in the news unit/department. Such employees are to be treated as fresh entrants in the matter of their seniority, promotions etc. NOTE 1:- When two or more surplus employees of a particular grade in a unit/department are selected on different dates for absorption in a grade in another unit/department, their inter se seniority in the latter unit/department, will be same as in their previous unit/department provided.
Shakuntala Singh 9
(i) No Direct recruit has been selected for appointment to that grade in between these dates, and
(ii) No promote has been approved for appointment to that grade between these dates.
NOTE II: When two or more surplus employees of a particular grade in a unit/department are simultaneously selected for redeployment in another unit/department in a grade, their interse seniority in the particular grade, on redeployment in the latter unit/department, would be the same as in their previous unit/department.
इस स ब ध म आपको इस कायालय के समसं यक प ांक दनांक 21.06.2016 को भी पहले अवगत कराया जा चुका है जो क साथ म संल न है तथा IREM के para 313A के अनुसार Redeployed CTI, TTI, STE, एवं TE क वर टता सूची साथ म जार करते हुए साथ म संल न ह तथा इसी आधार पर पदो न त से स बि धत कायवाह क जा रह है इसके स ब ध म य द कोई आप हो तो सू चत कर।"
10. The applicant appearing in person has further placed reliance upon subsequent administrative order dated 18.09.2023 issued from the office of the General Manager, Baroda House, whereby the issue relating to inter-se seniority of redeployed staff has been revisited. It has been submitted that the principal relief sought in the Original Application regarding correction of seniority stands substantially addressed by the said administrative action and granted. However, the applicants have raised further grievances in the rejoinder affidavit with regard to consequential benefits, including payment of interest on delayed gratuity and correction of pay in respect of those applicants who have, in the meantime, attained the age of superannuation, whereas in the case of one applicant, namely Shri S.N. Rai Sharma, who is still in service, rectification of promotion orders is required in accordance with the revised seniority.
Shakuntala Singh 10
11. In view of the pleadings and reliefs claimed in the Original Application, it is evident that relief No. (i) relating to correction of inter-se seniority has already been substantially addressed by the respondents vide order dated 18.09.2023. However, with regard to relief No. (ii) concerning fixation of pay at par with juniors and grant of consequential service benefits, we are of the opinion that the same requires consideration by the respondents in the light of the revised seniority position. Since most of the applicants have already superannuated, the consequential exercise shall include grant of notional benefits and revision of pensionary dues, including issuance of revised Pension Payment Orders, wherever applicable.
12. It is further evident from the material placed on record that the applicants were redeployed at a later stage against the remaining vacancies of the sanctioned block of 50 posts, whereas the earlier batch of redeployed employees had already been granted promotional benefits in the meantime. The applicants have contended that delay in their redeployment occurred due to administrative reasons and, therefore, such delay ought not to operate to their disadvantage in the matter of fixation of inter-se seniority and consequential service benefits.
13. From the subsequent administrative action taken by the respondents, particularly the communication dated 18.09.2023 issued from the office of the General Manager, Baroda House, it appears that the issue relating to inter-se seniority of redeployed staff has been reconsidered. The said communication indicates that the principle of maintaining seniority within the sanctioned block of Shakuntala Singh 11 redeployed staff is required to be adhered to, thereby substantially addressing the primary grievance raised by the applicants.
14. However, the consequential issues relating to fixation of pay at par with juniors, grant of promotional benefits and revision of pensionary dues continue to survive for consideration. Since such claims are consequential in nature, the same are required to be examined by the competent authority after giving effect to the revised inter-se seniority position.
15. It also emerges from the record that most of the applicants have already superannuated and only one applicant is stated to be in service. Therefore, upon determination of the consequential benefits arising out of the corrected seniority position, the respondents would be required to undertake necessary exercise of pay re-fixation and revision of pensionary benefits, including issuance of revised Pension Payment Orders wherever applicable.
16. Accordingly, in view of the subsequent administrative action dated 18.09.2023 addressing the issue of inter-se seniority of redeployed staff, the Original Application stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents to give full effect to the revised inter-se seniority position of the applicants and to undertake consequential exercise in respect of pay fixation, grant of notional benefits and revision of pensionary dues, as the case may be, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case any monetary benefits are found payable, the Shakuntala Singh 12 same shall be released expeditiously in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
17. All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Manju Pandey) (Rajnish Kumar Rai)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Shakuntala/
Shakuntala Singh