Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
B Eshwara Rao vs East Coast Railway on 23 September, 2025
OA/020/00321/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
CIRCUIT BENCH: AT VIJAYAWADA
OA/020/0321/2022
Reserved on : 24.07.2025
Pronounced on : 23.09.2025
Hon'ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Administrative Member
B. Eshwara Rao, aged about 67 years,
S/o B. S. Reddy,
Vehicle Driver (Retd), East Coat Railway,
Door No. 20-85/6, Adarsh Nagar,
Kothapalem Area, Gopala Pattanam,
Visakhapattanam-530027.
..... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. T. Koteswara Rao)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Represented by Its Secretary,
Chairman and CEO Railway Board,
Ministry of Railways, Government of India,
New Delhi.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager,
East Coast Railway, Waltair,
Visakhapatnam.
3. The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer/WAT,
O/o Divisional Railway Manager,
East Coast Railway, Waltair,
Visakhapatnam.
.... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. V. Venu Madhava Swamy, Sr. PC for CG)
Page 1
OA/020/00321/2022
ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member) By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following relief(s):-
"...a) to call for the records with respect to the Office Memorandum No. WPY/Engg/Grievance/MVD/BE Rao/Con dated 08-04-2022 issued by the 2nd Respondent, whereby the applicant was denied of the regularization of his services as Vehicle Driver Gr-Ill w.e.f. 26-05-1989 as granted in the case of Shri A. Kasachary who is junior to the applicant;
b) to declare the refusal of the Respondents in regularizing the services of the applicant as Vehicle Driver Gr-III w.e.f. 26-05-1989 as done in the case of his junior Shri A. Kasachary is capricious, manifestly, arbitrary, illegal, violative of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court/Kolkata dated 11-01-2005 in W.P.CT No. 287/2001 and Hon'ble CAT Kolkata Bench in O.A No. 182/94 and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
c) to direct the Respondents to regularize his services of the applicant herein as Vehicle Driver Gr-III w.e.f. 26-05-1989 with all consequential benefits as given in the case of his junior Shri A. Kaschary ......"
2. The case of the Applicant is that he was appointed as Dak Runner (Group-D) w.e.f. 01-01-1983 in Waltair Division of the then East Coast Railway Zone and he earned promotion to the post of Temporary Store Isuror in the scale of Rs.825-1200. Thereafter, he was promoted as Motor Vehicle Driver Gr-III (in short 'MV Driver Gr-III) in the scale of Rs.950-1500 w.e.f. 26-05-1989 and the said services of the applicant as MV Driver Gr-III were regularized w.e.f. 15-02-2005, vide letter dated:
15-02-2005, and subsequently, the competent authority, vide letter dated: 02-05- 2007, in obedience to the order of the Hon'ble High Court / Kolkata dated: 11-01- 2005 in W.PCT No. 287/2001 and Hon'ble CAT Kolkata Bench in OA No. 182/1994, has revised the date of regularization of the services of the applicant as MV Driver Gr.III w.e.f. 29-04-2004. Thereafter, he was promoted as MV Driver Gr-ll in the month of Feb. 2015 and retired on superannuation, w.e.f. 31-03-2015.
3. It is the further case of the applicant that after his retirement, he came to know that the services of his junior one Shri A. Kasachary as MV Driver Gr-III were regularized retrospectively w.e.f. 01-12-1989, vide letter dt.24-08-2015 and as a consequence, the said junior was accorded higher grade promotions retrospectively as Page 2 OA/020/00321/2022 MV-Driver Gr-II from 13-06-1998: MV Driver Gr-1 from 3-02-2002 and Sr. Technician MV Driver from 17-04-2007, whereas the applicant could progress only upto MV Driver Gr-II w.e.f. 28-02-2015 and retired from service on superannuation w.e.f. 31-03-2015. Therefore, the applicant made several representations to the higher authorities seeking regularization of his services as MV Driver Gr-III w.e.f. 26-05- 1989, being the date of initial appointment as MV Driver Gr-III with consequential benefits, as his junior Shri Kasachary was given the same benefit. One of the representations of the applicant dated: 05-12-2019 was forwarded with due recommendations by the 3rd Respondent to the Dy. Chief Personnel Officer/(Con)/BBS, who is under the 2nd Respondent, wherein the 3rd Respondent has categorically stated that the applicant was senior to Shri A Kasachary and both are construction staff, accorded seniority in open line and extended various benefits under assigned seniority. The 3rd Respondent has also highlighted the injustice caused to the applicant by explaining the carrier progression of Shri Kasachary upto the level of Sr. Technician-MV Driver vis-à-vis the progression of the applicant only upto the level of MV Driver Gr-ll on 28-02-2015 i.e. just one month before his retirement on 31-03-2015. Despite the same, the 2nd Respondent, vide Office Memorandum dated 08-04-2022 has rejected the request of the applicant on the ground that there is no entry available in the service record of the applicant to assign regularization and seniority w.e.f. 01-12-1989 as Vehicle Driver Gr-III or any date earlier than 29-04- 2004. It is further stated in the impugned order that Shri A. Kasachary along with 9 others was retrospectively regularized as MV Driver Gr-III w.e.f. 01-12-1989 in obedience to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court / Kolkata dated: 11-01-2005 in W.P.CT No. 287/2001 and Hon'ble CAT Kolkata Bench in O.A No. 182/94 and as the applicant is not a party to the said case, the benefits of the said judgment could not be made applicable to the applicant. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has filed this OA.
Page 3 OA/020/00321/2022
4. Upon notices, the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed a detailed reply. The respondents submit that the Applicant, who retired as MV Driver of S&T/Construction Organisation, was a lien-holder in MV Drivers common pool of Waltair Division. He along with 15 other Group D Construction staff had applied for Vehicle Driver post against the notification issued by CAO/Con./VSKP dtd.01.02.1989, having valid vehicle driving license light/heavy, as on 01.06.1988, against Construction requirement of Vehicle Drivers. The applicant, along with 9 other staff, who appeared for the test for appointment held on 25.03.1989 and along with 11 others Light/ Heavy license staffs, were directed to undergo necessary training. On successful completion of training and passing the requisite medical examination in class A3, he was posted as Ad-hoc Vehicle Driver with immediate effect i.e., 26.05.1989. Subsequently, he was promoted as Ad-hoc M V Driver Gr-II w.e.f.15.10.1991. It is stated by the respondents in terms of CAO (Con.)/BBS's letter dtd.12.10.2004, the Competent Authority has approved for regularisation/ absorption of the applicant, as ad-hoc MV Driver Gr.III against PCR post as MV Driver Gr.III in Scale of Rs. 3050-4590 under CAO/Con./BBS, subject to passing trade test and in terms of CAO/Con./BBS's orders dtd. 15.02.2005. He was regularised with 11 others as MV Driver Gr.III in Level-2 w.e.f. 15.02.2005 and in obedience to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court/Kolkata, dtd. 11.01.2005 in WPCT No. 287/2001 and Hon'ble CAT/Kolkata Bench in OA No.182/94, the date of regularization of the applicant and 4 others was modified from 15.02.2005 to 29.04.2004, vide orders dtd. 02.05.2007. It is further stated by the respondents that as per the policy implemented over East Coast Railway, the applicant was accorded lien in Open Line MV Drivers common pool and assigned seniority w.e.f. 29.04.2004 against MV Driver Tech-III post. Basing on the assigned seniority and on availability of vacancies, he was promoted as MV Driver Gr.II w.e.f. 28.02.2015 and allowed to continue to work in Construction Organization.
Page 4 OA/020/00321/2022
5. It is further stated by the respondents that Sri A. Kasachari was appointed as Group 'D' in S & C on 07.05.1989 and promoted as Ad-hoc Vehicle Driver Gr. III w.e.f. 14.06.1989 i.e. later to the applicant and he was initially accorded regularization as Vehicle Driver Gr.III in PCR post w.e.f. 28.07.2005 by the Construction Organization and absorbed into Open Line with seniority from the same date, thereby he was junior to the applicant. While so, Sri A. Kasachari, along with nine others were retrospectively regularized as M.V. Driver Gr.III w.e.f. 01.12.1989 vide orders dtd. 24.08.2015 and dtd. 24/25.08.15 in compliance with the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court/Kolkata, dtd. 11.01.2005 in WPCT No.287/2001 and Hon'ble CAT/Kolkata Bench in OA No.182/94. Consequent to his retrospective regularisation, Sri Kasachari has progressed as MV Driver Gr.II, I & Sr. Technician post in Open Line. The applicant is not a party to the said case and therefore, the benefits of the judgement could not be made applicable to him. The representations of the applicant regarding MACP and regularisation of his services as MV Driver Gr.III w.e.f. 26.05.1989 at par with juniors were disposed of by PCPO/BBS stating that his date of regularisation has already been decided as per orders of the Hon'ble High Court/ Kolkata, dtd.11.01.2005 in WPCT No.287/2001 and Hon'ble CAT/Kolkata Bench in OA No.182/94 and accordingly, the date of regularisation of the applicant as well as 4 others was modified from 15.02.2005 to 29.04.2004, vide order, dtd.02.05.2007, which attained finality and no further change can be made. The further representations of the applicant were examined and it was found that the lien & seniority of the applicant was correctly fixed in Open Line as MV Driver Gr.- III w.e.f. 29.04.2004 and he was extended the benefits under the assigned seniority and there is no entry available in the Service Record to assign his regularization & seniority w.e.f. 01.12.1989 as Vehicle Driver Gr.-III.
6. It is further stated by the respondents that the applicant had compared his case with his junior Sri A. Kasachari, who, along with nine others, was regularised as MV Page 5 OA/020/00321/2022 Driver Gr-III w.e.f. 01.12.1989 in compliance with the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court/ Kolkata, and CAT/ Kolkata Bench. The applicant is not eligible for any promotion retrospectively at par with Sri Kasachari for the reasons that the applicant has not raised a dispute and filed a case for antedated regularisation and the matter has attained finality on the verdict of Hon'ble High Court/Kolkata, which upheld the orders of the Hon'ble CAT/Kolkata and his regularisation has been antedated from 15.2.2005 to 29.4.2004. All along, the applicant worked in the Construction Organization and retired in the Construction Organization, whereas Sri Kasachari has been repatriated back to Open line before his retirement and got the promotion as per the lien maintained in Open line. The applicant failed to ventilate his grievance during the service and raising the grievance only after his retirement i.e., 31.03.2015 without shouldering higher responsibility is untenable. Therefore, the respondents prayed that the OA be dismissed.
7. The applicant filed rejoinder stating that, when the 3rd Respondent vide letter dated: 02-06-2020 certified that the applicant was appointed as MV Driver Gr-III w.e.f. 26-05-1989, the claim of the respondents that no such entry in the Service records, is not correct. It is submitted that the Respondents have admitted that Shri A. Kasachary was promoted as MV Driver on 26-05-1989, later to the promotion of the applicant. It is submitted by the applicant that similarly situated persons should be treated similarly in granting the benefits that flow from judgments of the Courts of law. The stand of the respondents that the applicant was not a party to the cases filed by his junior and therefore, he is not entitled for the benefit, is not correct. Though he was not a party to the said cases, he is eligible for the retrospective regularization of his services as MV Driver Gr-III being senior and similarly placed.
8. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.
Page 6 OA/020/00321/2022
9. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that when the Respondents have regularized the services of the juniors of the applicant as MV Driver, Group III respectively w.e.f. 01.12.1989, vide its order dt. 24.08.2015 and accorded the promotional benefits, the applicant is also entitled for the said benefit from that date. However, the applicant's case has not been considered. Even though he has submitted his request for regularization at par with his juniors w.e.f. 1989, the same has been rejected on flimsy grounds, thereby the benefit, for which the applicant is otherwise entitled and entitled to, has been denied. Despite the recommendations by the forwarding authority, the competent authority has not considered the same and without giving any reasons, has rejected his request for revision of seniority and date of regularization.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents vehemently opposed the relief on the ground that pursuant to the orders of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Kolkata in OA 182/2004 and the Hon'ble High Court, Kolkata in WPCT No.287/2001, the date of regularization of the services of the applicant was modified along with others w.e.f. 29.04.2004 instead of 15.02.2005, vide its order dt. 02.05.2007. Neither the applicant nor the other four employees have raised their grievance. Further, the applicant retired on superannuation on 31.03.2015 and after his retirement, he has accepted all the retiral benefits and submitted his representation for the first time on 05.12.2019 and the same has been processed and a communication has been made to that effect. However, the applicant has submitted his appeal on 03.01.2020 for revision of seniority and for ante-dating his regularization. The said appeal has also been considered by the competent authority and a detailed/speaking order was passed on 08.04.2022, rejecting the appeal of the applicant.
Page 7 OA/020/00321/2022
11. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the other employees, on par with whom the applicant is claiming the relief, have raised the dispute during their service before the CAT, Kolkata Bench vide OA 182/94 and the Tribunal passed orders in their favour and the said orders have been upheld the Hon'ble High Court, Kolkata in WPCT No.287/2001 and in obedience of the said orders, the applicants/ petitioners therein have been granted retrospective regularization. Sri Kasachari, who has raised his grievance timely, has progressed up to Sr. Technician post in Open Line and the applicant, who is claiming the benefit on par with them, is otherwise not eligible for any promotion retrospectively for the reason that the respondents granted the benefit to A. Kasachari on implementation of the court orders. The applicant all along worked in the Construction Organization and retired in the Construction Organization, whereas, Sri A. Kasachari was repatriated back to Open Line before his retirement and got the promotion as per the lien maintained in the Open Line. The applicant failed to ventilate his grievance during the service and raised the said grievance only after his retirement i.e. 31.03.2015 without shouldering higher responsibility. Therefore, claiming such benefit of ante-dated regularization after retirement is not permissible. More particularly, the applicant himself has accepted regularization, which was granted by the department in view of the orders passed in the case of other employees. However, the benefit which was granted to the other employees, in August 2015, i.e., after the retirement of the applicant in March 2015, cannot be granted in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that an employee cannot claim retrospective promotion and its associated benefits after retirement. Further, if the juniors were granted such benefit prior to the retirement of the applicant, the applicant also would have been considered. While the right to be considered for promotion is fundamental, the right to the promotion itself is not vested and it is not sufficient if promotion is actually granted, but the duties should also be assumed.
Page 8 OA/020/00321/2022 The applicant has not disputed the fact that he has retired from the Construction line and he was not repatriated to the Open line. However, the benefit sought by the applicant has been extended to other employees, who have been repatriated to the Open line considering their service/seniority and the direction of the court. Therefore, claims made after retirement are liable to be dismissed as 'stale', esspecially, if not addressed in timely manner.
12. It is to be noted that it is not in dispute that the applicant had ever raised the issue before his retirement. However, the other employees fought for their rightful claim by filing OA No. 182/94 before the Coordinate Bench of CAT, Kolkata Bench, which ordered in their favour and the said order has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in WPCT No.287/2001. Accordingly, the benefit, which was granted to the similar applicants, has also been granted to the applicant by revising the date of regularization from 15.02.2005 to 29.04.2004 vide orders dtd. 02.05.2007. It is to be noted that the other employees, with whom the applicant is comparing, were repatriated to Open Line and considering the vacancy, their seniority, they had progressed up to the post of Sr. Technician. However, the applicant and other four employees did not raise their grievance. Further, after retirement, the applicant requested for the benefits which were extended to other employees by virtue of the court orders. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, promotion becomes effective only upon assumption of duties and cannot be granted retrospectively. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while emphasizing that the right to promotion is not a vested right, held that retired employee seeking retrospective promotion and arrears is not a matter of right. Even in many of the cases filed by the retired employees for retrospective promotion, it is ruled that a stale claim for retrospective promotion made through a belated representation after retirement would not be entertained.
Page 9 OA/020/00321/2022
13. It is also to be noted that, while dealing with similar issues, in the matter of State of Kerala & Others v. V. Krishnan NV, Civil Appeal No.10898/2025, vide its order dt. 19.08.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Government employee cannot seek service benefits long after retirement. It is also emphasized that every employee, like any vigilant citizen, is expected to assert his/her rights before an appropriate forum within a reasonable time and cannot revive stale claims merely by submitting repeated representations. Further, repeated representations cannot justify delay in approaching a judicial forum and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reinforces the principle that service matters must be agitated without undue delay and the employees are to act with vigilance and diligence during their service tenure and repeated unaddressed representations cannot extend limitation or revive extinguished claims.
14. It is also to be noted that, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in various matters, as a general principle, notional promotion after retirement can be given retrospectively, only if a junior was granted any such relief before the retirement of such a senior employee. Admittedly, the applicant retired on 31.03.2015 and the benefit was extended to other employees, who are otherwise eligible and entitled to, by virtue of the court orders on 24.08.2015, i.e., much after the retirement of the applicant. As such, the applicant cannot compare his case with those persons, who had approached the Tribunal ventilating their grievance at the appropriate time. As such, he is not entitled for any relief in the OA.
15. In view of the above discussion, the OA is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI) (DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
/evr/
Page 10