Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shiv Shankar Singh Through Lrs Prem ... vs M/O Railways on 18 February, 2026
1 O.A No. 4305/2015
Item 47 (C-3)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 4305/2015
Reserved on : 11.02.2026
Pronounced on : 18.02.2026
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
1. Prem Narain Srivastava
S/o Late Shri Sita Ram
Deputy Chief Controller
Railway Board (MIL Railway)
Office of Railway Board Ministry of Railways
Rail Bhawan, New Delhi
2. Dori Lal Yadav
S/o late Anokha Lal
Under Divisional Railway Manager
North Central Railway Agra
3. D.K. Sharma
S/o Sri Krishan Sharma
Chief Controller Under Divisional Railway Manager
North Central Railway Jhansi
4. Smt. Gomti Singh
W/O Lt. Sh. Shiv Shankar Singh
Aged About 62 Years
R/O 1470/3, Shivaji Nagar, Awas Vikas,
Jhansi Khas, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh -284128.
5. Sh. Chandra Mohan Singh
S/o. Lt. Sh. Shiv Shankar Singh
Aged About 34 Years,
R/O 1470/3, Shivaji Nagar, Awas Vikas,
Jhansi Khas, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh-284128 ...Applicants
(By Advocate : Ms. Meenu Mainee with Mr. Dheeraj Sharma)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA: Through
1. Secretary
Railway Board
MAYA BAHADUR SINGH
MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI
TARAGI
2026.02.19 17:21:54+05'30'
2 O.A No. 4305/2015
Item 47 (C-3)
Ministry of Railway
Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. General manager
North Central Railway
Allahabad
3. Divisional Railway Manager
North Central Railway
Agra
4. A.K. Tiwari
S/o Sh. Shiv Dutt
Assistant operating Manager
North Central Railway
Allahabad
5. N.C. Paul
Assistant Operating Manager
North Central Railway
Allahabad. ......Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. N. D. Kaushik)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) :
The instant OA has been filed by the applicants under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
"8.1 That this Hon'ble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to allow this O.A. and direct the respondents to consider the case of the Applicants and interpolate their names in the panel of AOM dt. 7-3- 2012 held in year 2011-12.
8.2 That the Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the respondents to given all consequential benefits.
8.3 That the Tribunal may also be pleased to pass any other or further order as may be deemed fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case.
8.4 That the cost of the proceedings may kindly be granted in favour of the Applicant."
MAYA BAHADUR SINGH MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI TARAGI 2026.02.19 17:21:54+05'30' 3 O.A No. 4305/2015 Item 47 (C-3)
2. The factual matrix of the case as per the counsel of the applicants is that although the applicants were initially appointed on different grades on different dates however, they are working in the higher grade of Rs. 7450- 11500/- in the same cadre and have been assailing the action of the respondents in holding selection for the post of Assistant Operating Manager (AOM) by considering only candidates working in the lower grade of Rs. 6500-10500, thereby ignoring them despite their higher placement in the cadre. It is contended that several juniors to the applicants including private respondent Nos. 4 and 5 who were still in the lower grade were considered and empanelled ignoring the applicants. The counsel for the applicants highlighted Para 203.5 of IREM Vol. I (1989 Edition), which provides that where employees from different streams are eligible for selection, integrated seniority is to be determined on the basis of the total length of non-fortuitous service rendered in the relevant grade and above. She contended that the respondents wrongly interpreted the said provision and treated employees in the lower grade as senior to those in the higher grade, which resulted in denial of due consideration to the applicants. Further, the aforesaid interpretation of the rule continued to be followed until it was set aside by the Tribunal in a judgment dated 05.12.2008. Despite the said clarification, the respondents continued to follow the incorrect interpretation and failed to extend the benefit of the said judgment to the applicants. Representations submitted by the applicants in this regard before and after the said judgment also remained unaddressed. Aggrieved by non consideration of their case and excluding their names from the panel for the post of AOM dated 07.03.2012, while their juniors were MAYA BAHADUR SINGH MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI TARAGI 2026.02.19 17:21:54+05'30' 4 O.A No. 4305/2015 Item 47 (C-3) empanelled, the applicants have approached this Tribunal seeking interpolation of their names in the said panel in accordance with their seniority and consequential benefits.
3. The counsel of the applicants argued assiduously on the following grounds :-
"5.3 Ultimately, the provision of Rule 203.5 of IREM Vol.I on the basis of which the aforesaid illegal and discriminatory action was being taken by the respondents came up for hearing in case of Sarvar All in OA No. 723/2008 in which this Hon'ble Tribunal having considered the whole Issue has given the proper and correct interpretation of the rule and has quashed the action of the respondents in terms of which those working in Rs. 2375- 3750/7450-11500 were acknowledged and the Hon'ble Tribunal had directed the respondents that such staff are senior to those who were in grade Rs.2300/6600/10500 and therefore, had to be considered in accordance with the correct seniority.
5.4 After the aforesaid judgment the applicants have submitted several representations to the General Manager (North Central Railway), Divisional Railway Manager (North Central Railway) as well as Secretary Railway Board but unfortunately, there was no response from any quarter."
4. The counsel of the applicants relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amrit Lal Beri SLR 1975 (1) 153 wherein the Apex Court has laid down the law that "when a citizen has obtained a declaration from the Court of law, others placed in similar situation can depend upon the responsibility of the respondents to extend the benefit of the judgment to them also without they being forced to go to the Court of law". He further relied upon the case of Girdhari Lal wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that "if similarly placed persons are not given the benefit of the judgment, they will be forced to go to the Court of law in which even the Government has to spend a lot of money in the Court".
MAYA BAHADUR SINGH MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI TARAGI 2026.02.19 17:21:54+05'30' 5 O.A No. 4305/2015 Item 47 (C-3)
5. The counsel of the applicants handed across the Bar decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 10011/ 2009 dated 18.07.2011 in Union of India vs. Sarwar Ali. Paras 21 to 23 of which are quoted below -
"21. What's apparent from the facts on the record that prior to 5th Pay Commission the grade of group 'B' was Rs.2000-3500 and the grade of Junior Supervisor was Rs.2000-3200. Thus keeping in view the beginning of the grade of these two posts as the same at the initial stage, the provision of eligibility for the selection of AOM was arranged.
After 5 Pay Commission the circumstances changed and now the grade of Group B post is Rs 7500 12000 for promotee officer and senior supervisor grade is Rs.7450-11500 and Junior Supervisor grade Rs. 6500-10500. In the circumstances, para 2035 could not be applied mechanically so as to eliminate the seniority of Senior Supervisor having grade 7450-11500. The seniority for consideration for post of AOM (Group B) has to be based on the seniority of grade 7450-11500 and not on the basis of grade of Rs.6500-10500. Thus the para 203.5 Vol. I could not be interpreted and construed in a manner that it leads to anomalies, injustices or absurdities.
22. In the circumstances, direction by the Tribunal to consider the claim of the respondent for consideration for promotion to post of AOM (Group B) cannot be termed to be illegal or suffering from such manifest illegality or irregularity so as to require any interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
23. In the totality of the facts and circumstances the pleas and contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners are rejected and the interim stay granted by this Court on 30 July, 2009 staying the operation of the order dated 5% December, 2008 passed in OA No.723 of 2008 vacated and all the pending applications are disposed of. The petitioners shall comply with the direction given by the Tribunal by order dated 5th December, 2008 within three months. After consideration of the respondents for the post of AOM (Group B) in the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000/- if the respondent shall be found fit, he will be given an appropriate place in the seniority list in terms of the direction of the Tribunal. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Considering the facts and circumstances, the parties are however, left to bear their own costs."
6. Per contra, the counsel of the respondents vehemently opposed the arguments of the counsel of the applicants from his counter affidavit MAYA BAHADUR SINGH MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI TARAGI 2026.02.19 17:21:54+05'30' 6 O.A No. 4305/2015 Item 47 (C-3) both on technical grounds as well as on merits and stated that prima facie the reliefs prayed for are highly belated and not maintainable. The selection of 2012 cannot be challenged in the year 2015. No concrete reason is there with the applicants to show as to why they filed this belated application. The counsel admitted that the eligibility list for promotion to the post of Asst. Operating Manager (AOM) was prepared vide circular dated 07.09.2011 wherein the applicant nos. 1 to 4 were placed at Sl. No. 21, 26, 31 and 32 respectively. Further the applicants without raising any objection accepted the eligibility position and participated in the 70% written examination process. Having consciously taken part in the selection process, the applicants are now estopped from challenging the preparation of the eligibility list or alleging any irregularity therein after being unsuccessful in the said selection. He added that the applicants cannot be allowed to file OA jointly since except applicant No.1, other applicants belong to Agra and Jhansi Divisions. Moreover. the alleged selections were also been conducted by General Managers office located at NCR at Allahabad. Thus, since the applicants are not similarly situated and as this Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction for other candidates except applicant no. 1, this OA is liable to be dismissed. The counsel also highlighted paras 4.14--4.32 of his counter which is reproduced below :-
"4.14-4.15. That it is denied that the juniors to the Applicants have been promoted to the higher grades since the eligibility lists are prepared on the rules and regulations on the subject. It is denied that the Applicants are victims of circumstances. In promotions made through selections the concept of junior and seniors does not arise.
4.16-4.32.That the Applicants are totally relying on the orders passed in the case of Sarwar Ali. In this connection it is stated MAYA BAHADUR SINGH MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI TARAGI 2026.02.19 17:21:54+05'30' 7 O.A No. 4305/2015 Item 47 (C-3) that the orders passed in the case of Sarwar Ali stand distinguished by this Ld. Tribunal in the case of M.Y. Quereshi vs. Union of India, OA No. 1100/2015 decided on 21.11.2017."
7. The counsel of the respondents handed across the Bar the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Govt. of West Bengal & ors. vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors. dated 27.11.2024 which inter alia states that- :-
"20. In the instant case, it is evident that while respondent No. 1 was recommended for promotion before his retirement, he could not assume the duties of the Chief Scientific Officer. Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules, clearly stipulates that an employee must assume the responsibilities of a higher post to draw the corresponding pay, thus, preventing posthumous or retrospective promotions in the absence of an enabling provision.
21. While we recognize respondent No.1's right to be considered for promotion, which is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, he does not hold an absolute right to the promotion itself. The legal precedents discussed above establish that promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation. Considering that respondent No. 1 superannuated before his promotion was effectuated, he is not entitled to retrospective financial benefits associated to the promotional post of Chief Scientific Officer, as he did not serve in that capacity.
22. As a result of the above discussion, the judgment dated 1 February, 2023 passed by the High Court of Calcutta and the judgment dated 26th June, 2019 passed by the Tribunal are unsustainable in the eyes of law and are hereby reversed and set aside."
This ratio clearly states that the applicants now cannot stake their claims to the promotion post of Assistant Operating Manager (AOM) as now the applicants are retired and promotion becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendations.
MAYA BAHADUR SINGH MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI TARAGI 2026.02.19 17:21:54+05'30' 8 O.A No. 4305/2015 Item 47 (C-3)
8. The counsel of the applicants has also filed the rejoinder and reiterated the facts of the case therein.
9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions; examined the documents on record and perused the relevant judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court; High Courts and Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal. We have observed that the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 10011/2009 dated 18.07.2011 and relied upon by the counsel of the applicants in Union of India vs. Sarwar Ali (supra) does not reflect the facts and circumstances in the instant OA and has also been distinguished by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M. Y. Qureshi vs. UOI in OA No. 1100/2015 dated 21.11.2017 (supra). Further, as per the ratio given in the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Govt. of West Bengal & Others vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Others (supra), it is now a settled principle in administrative law and service jurisprudence that while a Government servant has the right to be considered for promotion, which is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India; he/she does not hold an absolute right to get the promotion itself. Promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendations. Since the applicants are now retired, they have now no opportunity to hold the promotional post of Assistant Operating Manager (AoM) and hence their claim now has no force or substance.
MAYA BAHADUR SINGH MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI TARAGI 2026.02.19 17:21:54+05'30' 9 O.A No. 4305/2015 Item 47 (C-3)
10. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the instant OA is devoid of merit; deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. MAs if any are also disposed of in similar fashion. However, there will be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Mbt/
MAYA BAHADUR SINGH
MAYA BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI
TARAGI
2026.02.19 17:21:54+05'30'