Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Santosh Kumar Biswal vs M/O Railways on 9 February, 2026
1 O.A.No. 260/00012 of 2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00012 of 2021
Reserved on 03.02.2026 Pronounced on 09.02.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
1. Shri Santosh Kumar Biswal, aged about 50
years, Son of Syanasi Biswal, At/Po.
Hinjilikot, Dist. Ganjam, at present
working as Junior Engineer under Senior
Section Engineer, Over Head Equipment,
ECoRly, Khorda. [Gr.B/NG]
2. Shri Kanhu Charan Jena, aged about 43
years, Son of Jayakrushna Jena, At/Po.
Sakhigopal, Puri presently working as
Junior Engineer, under Senior Section
Engineer, Over Head Equipment, ECoRly.
Cuttack. [Gr.B/NG]
3. Shri S. A. Basudev Rao, aged about 40
years, Son of S.Ramanaiah, working as
Junior Engineer, under Senior Section
Engineer, Over Head Equipments, ECoRly,
Ichhapur. [Gr.B/NG]
4. Shri R.Jeevan Kumar, aged about 49 years,
Son of R.Jogi Babu, working as Junior
Engineer under Senior Section Engineer,
Overhead Equipments, ECoRly,
Chhatrapur. [Gr.B/NG]
RAVI KUMAR
2026.02.09
09:51:40 +05'30'
2 O.A.No. 260/00012 of 2021
5. Shri Krushna Chandra Badatya, aged
about 50 years, Son of Gadadhar Badatya,
At/Po. Pandiya Pathar, Via. Bhetnai, Dist.
Ganjam at present working as Junior
Engineer under Senior Section Engineer,
Overhead Equipments, East Coast Railway,
Balugaon. [Gr.B/NG]
6. Shri Arun Kumar Kundu, aged about 48
years, Son of Jagannath Kundu at present
working as Junior Engineer, under Senior
Section Engineer, Overhead Equipments,
ECoRly Raja Athagarh. [Gr.B/NG]
7. Shri N.V.K.Reddy, aged about 49 years, Son
of N.N.Reddy working as Junior Engineer,
under Additional Divisional Engineer,
ECoRly, Talcher. Gr.B/NG].
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India service through its General
Manager, E.Co.Railway, Rail Vihar,
Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar, PIN-751
023.
2. The Chief Personnel Officer, E.Co. Railway,
Rail Vihar, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar,
PIN -751 023.
3. Divisional Railway Manager, E.Co. Railway,
Khurda Road, P,O. Jatni, Dist. Khurda, PIN-
752050.
4. The Divisional Railway Manager (P), E.Co.
Railway, Khurda Road, P.O. Jatni, Dist.
Khurda, PIN-752 050.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. J.M.Patnaik, Counsel
For the respondents : Dr. C.R.Mishra, Counsel
RAVI KUMAR
2026.02.09
09:51:40 +05'30'
3 O.A.No. 260/00012 of 2021
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
There are seven applicants in this OA and all of them are working as Jr. Engineer under the Respondents. Their case in nutshell is that they initially joined in Railways as Trainee Skilled Artisan Gr.III, subsequently, promoted to Technician Gr.II and Technician-I. The Respondent-Railways issued notification inviting applications on 11.06.2008 for holding departmental examination for filling up of 50% of posts of Jr. Engineer-II in Electrical Department of which 25% from Intermediate Apprentices/Skilled Grades [in short "IA/SG"] and 25% from DPQ. Respondents held the examination for both the Grades and applicants applied and appeared against 25% of posts meant for Intermediate Apprentices/Skilled Grades [IA/SG]. Respondents published the panel of names of seven qualified employees on 03.02.2012 and 19.06.2013 for filling up of the vacancies out of 25% quota meant for DPQ and the written test conducted on 18.04.2010 and result was published on 21.06.2010 was cancelled on 27.09.2010 for IA/SG. Such cancellation of RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.09 09:51:40 +05'30' 4 O.A.No. 260/00012 of 2021 selection insofar as "IA/SG" is concerned was challenged by the applicants before this Bench in OA Nos. 721, 755, 760, 761, 762, 772, 773 and 774 of 2010. This Bench vide common order dated 19.02.2018 while quashing the order of cancellation dated 17.09.2010 and validating the result of the written test published on 21.06.2010 directing as under:
"9. The O.A. is allowed in part. The cancellation of the entire selection process notified vide letter dated 27.09.2010 being arbitrary, the same is quashed. The result of the written test published on 21.06.2010 is found to be valid and binding on the Department. However, it is made clear that if, according to the Department, some eligible employees could not apply due to non-mention of the eligibility criteria of six months training given to the Matriculate with ITI and Act Apprentice, they may be allowed to appear in the written test specially conducted for them. However, after publication of the result of their written test the final panel may be published and the entire selection process may be concluded preferably within a period of three months as has already been delayed by more than 9 years. It is further made clear that if no- one will apply as per the new notification, the department should proceed with the earlier result at once. Further, it is made clear that the candidates, who had earlier appeared in the written examination and had failed shall not be permitted to appear as it is not a supplementary examination for them and the persons applying should not be more than 45 years of age as on RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.09 09:51:40 +05'30' 5 O.A.No. 260/00012 of 2021 11.06.2008, which was the original criteria in the notification. No costs."
1(a) According to the applicants, in compliance of the order of this Bench, the respondents invited applications on 24.04.2018 and out of the nine applications received pursuant to the said notification, three candidates were found eligible and they appeared the examination but could not come out successful. Hence, the authorities concerned published the final panel of seven candidates [UR-6 SC-1] vide office order dated 03.04.2019, who are the applicants herein. Thereafter, on 08.04.2019, they were sent for in service training and having come out successful, they were promoted to JE on 26.06.2020.
1(b) It is the case of the applicants that after joining they submitted representations claiming their promotion and seniority from the date the other seven candidates were appointed from DPQ. Alleging no consideration of their representation, they approached this Bench in OA No. 384/2020, which was disposed of on 25.09.2020 with direction to the respondents to consider their representations. It is state that the RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.09 09:51:40 +05'30' 6 O.A.No. 260/00012 of 2021 respondents without considering the fact that this Bench declared the cancellation of the entire selection process notified vide letter dated 27.09.2010 as illegal and arbitrary and upheld the result of the written test published on 21.06.2010 out of the said result, they were promoted to JE and, that the delay was not attributable to them rejected their claim, which is challenged in this OA being illegal and arbitrary.
1(c) According to Ld. Counsel for the applicant, the vacancies were prior to the notifications. Notification was issued for filling up of the vacancies out of both the Grades. Results were published for both the Grades and, for DPQ, four persons were selected and joined the post of JE by the order published on 03.02.2012 and three persons on 19.06.2013 whereas insofar as result of the IA/SG was cancelled, which was declared illegal and arbitrary by this Bench vide order dated 19.02.2018. The respondents taken action in compliance to the order of this Bench and, finally, the applicants were selected and sent for training on 08.04.2019. The delay thus, being not attributable to the applicants and the action taken by the respondents having RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.09 09:51:40 +05'30' 7 O.A.No. 260/00012 of 2021 been declared illegal and arbitrary by this Bench, the applicants are entitled to all consequential benefits w.e.f. the dates the seven DPQ candidates were promoted to JE. It is stated that when an employee is not at all at fault or any contribution for the delay in promotion after qualifying in the examination, whether entitled to benefit of promotion retrospectively came up for consideration in the cases of Narayan Menon Vs State of Kerala, 1978 KLT 29; Rajappan Nair Vs State of Kerala (1984 KLT141) and Philomina Vs State of Kerala, 1984 KLT 59, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala was pleased to hold that in such en event the employee is entitled to be paid salary, which he would have been entitled to but for the wrong delay in promotion or delay in ordering such promotion he was deprived of the same. According to Learned Counsel for the Applicants, the present case being same and similar to that of the above cases, by applying the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the Applicants is entitled to the relief. Further to bolster his submission, Ld. Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Pritilata RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.09 09:51:40 +05'30' 8 O.A.No. 260/00012 of 2021 Nanda, AIR 2010 SC 2821, Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case of Laxmipriya Mishra Vs State of Odisha in W.P(C) No. 7473/2023, and placing reliance on the above two decisions, the decision rendered by this Bench in OA No. 393/2021 (Rajesh Kumar Mohapatra Vs UOI & Ors) disposed of on 22.08.2025. Accordingly, he prayed for granting the relief sought in this OA as under:
"...to quash the order of rejection No. Sr. DPO/Staff A/OA-384/20/SKB/Elect (TRD) dated 15/12/2020 (Annexure-A/3) and consequently be pleased to direct the respondents to fix the pay an seniority in the grad of Junior engineer notionally retrospectively at least if not earlier from the dates other 07 candidates were promoted to the post of JE as stated in the order of rejection."
2. The respondents in their counter did not dispute the factual aspects of the matter noted above. However, it is stated that there is no link between the selection of candidates out of DPQ and IA/SG. No employee promoted to JE out of DPQ quota were/are junior to the applicants. Promotion is effected after a candidate is qualified and found fit in the process of selection conducted by the department. In the instant case, the result was published on 21.06.2010, which was cancelled before giving final RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.09 09:51:40 +05'30' 9 O.A.No. 260/00012 of 2021 shape to the result. Thereafter, no further step was taken since the matter was subjudice before this Bench and Hon'ble High Court of Orissa. However, after the conclusion of the court cases, final panel was published on 03.04.2019 and the applicants were selected and, on completion of prerequisite training they also joined the promoted post. Thus, the delay as raised by the applicants is not attributable to them. No seniority can be predated unless the panel is published mentioning the suitability of staff in all respect. No such provision exists that seniority can be given to an employee either from the date of notification or from the date of publication of the result. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Respondents, besides reiterating the above facts, has submitted that since the facts and issues involved in this case is different from the facts and issues involved in the decisions relied on by the applicants, they cannot get the benefits as claimed in this OA. Accordingly, Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondents has submitted that this OA being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed and has also prayed for dismissal of the OA.
RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.09 09:51:40 +05'30' 10 O.A.No. 260/00012 of 2021
3. After giving due consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties, we have perused the pleadings made in the OA, counter, rejoinder and reply to rejoinder. We have also gone through the decisions referred to above.
4. Admittedly, the cancellation of the selection notified vide letter dated 27.09.2010 was held by this Tribunal as illegal and arbitrary and quashed the same vide order dated 19.02.2018 thereby upholding the result of the written test published on 21.06.2010 wherein the names of the applicants were included, with further observation that if, according to the Department, some eligible employees could not apply due to non-mention of the eligibility criteria of six months training given to the Matriculate with ITI and Act Apprentice, they may be allowed to appear in the written test specially conducted for them. Accordingly, respondents conducted the examination but no candidate, who appeared in the examination pursuant to the subsequent notification issued in compliance with the order of this Bench, qualified and, ultimately, the applicants were selected and promoted. There was no such direction of this Bench that RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.09 09:51:40 +05'30' 11 O.A.No. 260/00012 of 2021 after the final selection, already qualified candidates in the written test pursuant to notification dated 11.06.2008, including the applicants, shall be appointed/promoted retrospectively since the delay was not attributable to them. Trite is the position of law that an employee is entitled to get the pay and seniority from the date he/she joined in the post and, since, admittedly, the applicants were promoted to the post of JE on 26.06.2020 after their empanelment and completion of in service training and, that, the persons, who were promoted to JE under DPQ were all senior to them, the claim of the applicants made in this OA is found to be unjustified. Under the circumstances and taking into the facts of the present case vis a vis the cases relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the applicants, we find that those cases are of no help to the applicants.
5. For the discussions made above, we find no merit in this OA, which is accordingly dismissed by making the costs easy.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)
RK/PS
RAVI KUMAR
2026.02.09
09:51:40 +05'30'