Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Rajendra Prasad vs North Eastern Railway on 24 March, 2026
Reserved on 19th March, 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
*********
Misc. Application No. 1435 of 2026
In
Diary No. 1915 of 2026
Allahabad this the 24th day of March, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member-J
Hon'ble Ms. Manju Pandey, Member-A
Rajendra Prasad aged about 65 years son of Late Ram Ashrey Lal, resident of 8-
A, Railway Colony, Rudrapur City, District Rampur.
Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Vinod Kumar
Vs.
1. Union of India through General Manager, (Commercial) North Eastern
Railway Gorakhpur.
2. The Chief Commercial Manager Office of the General Manager
(Commercial) North Eastern, Gorakhpur.
3. The Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial) North Eastern Railway,
Izzat Nagar, Bareilly.
4. Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, North Eastern Railway, Izzat
Nagar.
Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Anil Kumar
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J) Shri Vinod Kumar, counsel for the applicant is present. Shri Anil Kumar, counsel for the respondents is present.
2. By way of this O.A. (Diary No. 1915/2026), the applicant has sought the following relief(s): -
I. To issue an order of direction in the suitable nature quashing the impugned wrong calculation pay sheet dated 01.09.2015 dated no. 2 as MANISH MEHROTRA well as order 30.01.2020 passed by respondent denying the benefit of 3rd MACP. (Annexure No. A-1) to this OA with compilation no. I. 2 II. To issue an order of direction in the suitable nature directing the respondents authorities make the correct pay fixation of the applicant and accordingly pass the correct calculation sheet, while providing the promotional grade w.e.f. 01.10.2003 instead of 01.01.2013 with all consequential benefits.
III. To issue an order of direction in the suitable nature directing the respondents to allow the benefit of 3rd MACP to the applicant after completion of 30 years of his qualifying services on 30.09.2022, with payment of arrears along with market rate of interest.
IV. To issue any order or direction, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
V. To award the cost of the application to the applicant."
3. The applicant has also filed the Delay Condonation Application No. 1435/2026. From the perusal of impugned order No. 1845 dated 01.09.2015, it appears that the same was passed in pursuance to the Judgment and Order dated 07.07.2014 passed in O.A. No. 1127 of 2008. It appears that the aforesaid O.A. was filed for quashing the impugned orders dated 15.03.2005, 26/27.07.2005 and 24.04.2008, which was related to disciplinary proceeding. From the Order dated 07.07.2014, it appears that the impugned orders were quashed and set aside and pay of the applicant was directed to be restored to the level at which it was before passing of the impugned orders.
4. The respondents' department in pursuance to the aforesaid Order has passed the impugned order dated 01.09.2015 where a tabulation has been made with regard to pay fixation of applicant prior to imposing the punishment and after quashing of punishment order and on 01.07.2015 the corresponding pay of Rs.10910/- in the grade pay of Rs.2800/- was corrected and modified to Rs.11360/- in the grade pay of Rs.2800/-. Now, the applicant has challenged the aforesaid impugned order after 11 MANISH MEHROTRA years on the ground that recurring cause of action alive. He further challenged one order dated 30.01.2020 which has been addressed to Mandal Mantri, N.E. Railway Mazdoor Union, Izzatnagar wherein the relief with regard to grade pay of Rs.4200/- (Level-6) to grade pay of Rs.4600/- 3 was considered vide which the respondents' authority has observed that three financial up-gradation was granted to the applicant and accordingly, he was not entitled for financial up gradation 3rd MACP in the grade pay of Rs.4600/-. From the record, it appears that the applicant is a retired person and declared himself as aged about '65' years at the time of filing of this O.A. (Diary No. 1915/2026) and while seeking the relief(s), he has taken the grounds mentioned in the affidavit, filed in support of Delay Condonation Application. His first ground is that he is seeking financial up-gradation as well proper pay fixation under the relevant rule 1313 of IREM in compliance of the judgment and order dated 07.06.2013 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA no. 1127/2008 and as such claim of the applicant about proper pay of his pay and fixation calculation of the financial benefit are under the purview of recurring cause of Action, hence law of limitation does not attract in the present case. His second ground is that apart from the aforesaid, the last impugned order was passed on 30.01.2020 during the spread of effect of pandemic Covid-19, and since then almost 2 years, entire Government services remain paralyzed and the Hon'ble Apex Court has also exempted the period of 2 years from the month of March 2020 to month of February 2022 from the law of limitation and as such the applicant has rightly approached before this Hon'ble Tribunal well within time, with diary no. while filing the OA 7109/2023, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.01.2026, having certain defects with liberty specific liberty to file a to fresh OA, therefore on this ground also there is no delay on the part of applicant in filing the present O.A. Moreover, the said application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
5. Counsel for the respondents vehemently objected that in pursuance MANISH MEHROTRA to any relief, granting to the applicant in the O.A. No. 1127/2008, he has to move appropriate forum within stipulated time or if, he was not satisfied, he has right to file the Contempt/Execution proceeding. He further submitted that the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is a 4 specified Act governing the procedure before this Tribunal and Section 21 provides power for moving a Delay Condonation Application as well as for condonation of the same. However, instant Delay Condonation Application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. He objected that the delay has not been properly explained and there is no recurring cause of action as the first impugned order dated 01.09.2015 was passed in pursuance to the direction passed by this Tribunal. The applicant's pay was rightly corrected and fixed as Rs.11,360/- in the grade pay of Rs.2800/-. Moreover, his second relief for directing the respondents' authorities for correcting the calculation provided in the impugned order dated 01.09.2015 while providing the promotional grade w.e.f. 01.10.2003 instead of 01.01.2013 with all consequential benefits, is not maintainable at this belated stage as the grievance related to promotion cannot be agitated after 23 years and the applicant has also retired from service.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record. We have also perused the Written Argument filed by counsel for the applicant on 20.03.2026.
7. The contention of applicant's counsel is that due to wrong fixation of pay, the applicant is receiving less pension and it causes recurring cause of action and relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "M.R. Gupta V. Union of India and others 1995 5 SCC 648". However, from careful perusal of relief claimed by applicant, it appears that the relief claimed regarding correct pay fixation is arising out of second relief i.e. promotion w.e.f. 01.10.2003 instead of 01.10.2013, claiming after five years of retirement.
MANISH MEHROTRA 8. From submission of the counsel for parties and the relief(s) claimed by the applicant, it appears that the first relief is consequential to the second relief seeking promotion w.e.f. 01.10.2003 instead of 01.01.2013.which has been sought for quashing of the order dated 5 01.09.2015 passed in pursuance to the direction issued by this Tribunal on 07.07.2014 in O.A. No. 1127/2008, the calculation chart of modified pay was given and same cannot be considered as a recurring cause of action on the ground that the promotion which he sought w.e.f. 01.10.2003 instead of 01.01.2013 and thereafter correcting the order dated 01.09.2015, is misconceived and suffered from delay and laches. If, applicant is aggrieved by non-granting of any promotion in the year 2003, he had remedy to approach this Tribunal earlier. From the Order passed in O.A. No. 1127/2008, it appears that the O.A. was initiated against the disciplinary proceeding arising out of charge sheet dated 26.05.2004, therefore, at this stage he is seeking promotion w.e.f. 01.10.2003 instead of 01.01.2013 and thereafter re-calculate the calculation sheet dated 01.09.2015 and to grant him 3rd MACP along with arrears, is not maintainable. Moreover, this Tribunal has exclusive power to condone the delay under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and not under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, therefore, we are not in opinion to condone the delay on the ground stated in the accompanying Affidavit in support of Delay condonation Application as well as from merit.
9. It is well settled that the claim of backdated promotion, after retirement, that too after the delay of 23 years, is generally not maintainable due to laches, delay and acquiescence. The applicant sleeps over his right, if any, for two decades, cannot claim back dated promotion i.e. w.e.f. 01.10.2003 and thereafter correction in calculation sheet, re- fixation of promotional date and consequential benefits like pension arrears etc. The case law relied upon by the counsel for applicant is also not applicable in the facts of this case.
MANISH MEHROTRA
8. Hence, in our view, there is no merit in the case of applicant as well as the case is highly time barred. Accordingly, the delay condonation 6 application (MA No. 1435/2026 as well as O.A. bearing Diary No. 1915/2026 both are dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Manju Pandey) (Rajnish Kumar Rai)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judicial)
/M.M/
MANISH MEHROTRA