Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ram Chander Yadav vs General Manager N C Rly on 29 May, 2025
Reserved on 26.05.2025
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
This the 29th day of May, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Original Application No. 787 of 2014
Ram Chander Yadav, S/o Late Meva Lal Yadav, R/o 34/10 George
Town, C.Y. Chintamani Road, Allahabad.
........... APPLICANT
By Advocate: Shri Ravi Sharma and Shri S. S. Sharma
Versus
1. Union of India through the General Manager North Central Railway
Head Quarter Office, Subedarganj, Allahabad.
2. The General Manager, North Central Railway, Headquarter Office,
Subedarganj, Allahabad.
3. The Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, DRM
Office, Allahabad.
..........RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri Arvind Singh
ORDER
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J) Shri Ravi Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Arvind Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.
2. The instant original application has been filed seeking following relief:
"(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to set aside / quashed the impugned order dated 24.07.2013 passed by the DRM/NCR/Allahabad rejecting the request of the applicant for promotion on the post of Mason Grade II and Mason Grade I at par with his juniors before his retirement from railway service on 31.5.2003, after quashing the charge - sheet dated 27.2.1991 and all the disciplinary proceedings in pursuance thereof vide order dated 30.04.2003 of this RITU RAJ SINGH
1|Page Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No 1481 of 2002 R.C. Yadav Vs UOI and Others with all the consequential benefits.
(ii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the DRM/NCR/Allahabad, Respondent No. 3 to issue promotion order of the post of Technician II (Mason) in Gr. Rs. 40020-600 w.e.f. 17.4.2000 and on the post of Technician - I (Mason) Gr. Rs. 4500-7000 w.e.f. 31.3.2001 at par with his juniors.
(iii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the DRM/NCR/Allahabad, Respondent no. 3 to fixed the pay of the applicant first in Technician - II (Mason) Grade Rs. 4000-6000 w.e.f. 17.4.2000 and hereafter on the post of technician - I (Mason) in Grade Rs. 4500-
7000 w.e.f. 31.3.2001 well before the retirement and payment of all the pensionary benefits and retiral dues with arrears of pay and arrears of dues to the applicant with interest @ 12% per annum. The respondents may also be directed to make payment of arrear of pay on promotion in Mason Gr. III Gr. Rs. 3050-4590/- from 21.2.1991 to 27.5.2003 with interest as prayed for.
(iv) That the Hon'ble tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the DRM/NCR/Allahabad to revise / make payment of pension& retiral dues on the basis of 36 years of qualifying service of the applicant instead of 30 years service as per para 4.9 of the AO with payment of all consequential benefits.
(v) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to allow heavy cost in favour of the applicant.
(vi) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass any order or direction as may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. The compendium of the facts narrated in the instant original application is that the applicant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24.07.2013 passed by the DRM/NCR/Allahabad through which the applicant's request for promotion on the post of Technician - Mason Grade Rs. 4000-6000/- w.e.f. 17.4.2000 and on the post of Technician I (Mason) 4500-7000 w.e.f. 01.4.2001 at par with his juniors which he claims to have been promoted by the DRM/Allahabad before his retirement from Railway service. Applicant has contended discriminatory treatment against him by the respondents alleging that he was not promoted by the respondents despite clear instructions from the Tribunal in several cases preferred by the applicant. The applicant has also contended that the impugned order is against the statutory rules and in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Respondents have denied the allegation of the applicant and further contended that the applicant is RITU RAJ SINGH
2|Page seeking promotion(s) from back date which is not possible as the applicant has already attained the age of superannuation and got retired way back. By way of the present OA, the applicant seeks the quashing of the impugned order along with the relief of granting him promotion to the post of Technician Grade - II and Technician Grade
- I from the back date along with all consequential benefits.
4. Wehave heard the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
5. Initiating his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was appointed as Khalasi on daily wages. He was allowed temporary status and was regularized thereafter and then was promoted in the year 1976 as Helper Khalasi. He passed the Trade test for the post of Mason Grade III (Skilled Artisan) on 21.09.1990 but was not promoted under the pretext of issuance of charge sheet dated 27.02.1991. On conclusion of inquiry, the applicant was removed from service vide penalty order dated 10.11.1994. Penalty was revised by the Appellate Authority and it was modified and the applicant was directed to be reinstated in the lower grade of Rs. 750-940/- at the minimum pay scale of Rs. 750/- permanently. The applicant approached before this Tribunal through OA No. 751 of 1996 which was allowed on 21.06.1999 and penalty imposed upon the applicant was set aside with liberty to the respondents to proceed with the disciplinary action if they so decide from the stage of nomination of Enquiry Officer. The inquiry officer was nominated afresh and the inquiry was conducted. Again, the applicant filed OA No. 676 of 2002 before this Bench in which on 07.6.2002, the direction was issued to the respondents to complete the inquiry within a period of three months failing which it shall be deemed that the respondents have waived the inquiry and the applicant shall be granted promotion. Since the respondents did not complete the inquiry within the time allowed by the Tribunal, the applicant again approached the Tribunal through OA No. 1481 of 2002 and the Tribunal vide order dated 30.04.2003 allowed the OA RITU RAJ SINGH
3|Page and quashed the charge sheet and direction was issued to give all consequential benefits including the promotion to the applicant. Learned counsel further argued that subsequent to the above direction dated 30.04.2003, the applicant was promoted on 20.08.2003 on the post of Mason Grade III w.e.f. 21.2.1991 and pay was fixed accordingly. The applicant retired from service on 30.06.2003 and thereafter the present OA has been filed. Thus, referring to the aforesaid facts learned counsel for the applicant argued that since the hurdle on which basis the applicant was not promoted earlier had been abolished, thereafter, the respondents ought to have promoted the applicant on the post of Mason Grade II and Grade I also as the applicant was eligible but he was not promoted due to inaction on the part of the respondents. Thus, in view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the applicant argued that the OA is liable to be allowed and respondents be directed to grant promotion to the applicant on the post of Mason Grade II and Mason Grade I and to extend the consequential benefits.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the claim of the learned counsel for the applicant and by way of his counter affidavit, he submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were quashed by the Tribunal and the applicant was granted promotion to the post of Mason Grade III. Since he retired on 30.06.2003 and had not appeared in the Trade Test which was must for promotion to the post of Mason Grade II and Mason Grade I, thus, he is not entitled for any relief. To substantiate his claim, learned counsel for the respondents also placed reliance upon the judgment dated 27.11.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Government of West Bengal & Ors. Vs Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors. reported in 2024 INSC 906. Referring to the aforesaid case law, it was further argued that after retirement of the applicant, he cannot be extended notional promotion to the post of Mason Grade II and Mason Grade I and thus prayed that the instant original application be dismissed being devoid of merits.
RITU RAJ SINGH
4|Page
7. Rejoinder has also been filed by the applicant reiterating the same facts and pleadings as have been made through the OA.
8. We have considered the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents on record and also carefully perused the case law cited upon.
9. As the facts of the case have already been recorded above in detail, the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. The applicant, who has already been retired upon attaining the age of superannuation, is seeking the benefit of promotion to the post of Mason Grade II and Mason Grade I and consequential benefits which accrue claiming that the same was not granted to him earlier due to inaction on the part of the respondents' authorities. He has also contended that respondents kept on blatantly ignoring the statutory rule position and decisions rendered by the Tribunal in the cases which were allowed in favour of the applicant and wherein respondents were directed to grant promotion to the applicant. Although, as is evident from the records, vide order dated 20.08.2003, the applicant was granted the benefit of promotion to the post of Mason Grade III w.e.f. 21.2.1991. This was done by the respondents in compliance of the direction given by the Tribunal in its judgment dated 30.04.2003 passed in OA No. 1481 of 2002.
10. It is also evident from the records that the applicant was granted promotion to the post of Mason Grade III only because he was fulfilling all the requisite eligibility criteria prescribed for promotion to the said post. One of those prerequisite criteria is passing the trade test. The applicant had passed the trade test for the post of Mason Grade II. However, as has been established from the pleadings exchanged across the Bar, the applicant did not appear and qualify the trade test for the post of Mason Grade II and Mason Grade I, on which he seeks promotion. Therefore, the applicant's case is not liable to be acceded to on this pivotal ground itself. Furthermore, the applicant has also contended that he was not given the desired promotion on account of the inaction on the part of the RITU RAJ SINGH
5|Page respondents and therefore he may be given the same even after he has attained superannuation. This claim of the applicant is also highly uncalled for. Furthermore, in this regard, it would be in the fitness of things to refer to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra) as has been cited earlier. In the said case, similar issue as is prevailing in the instant case of the applicant, was adjudicated upon by the Apex Court. In that case also, the primary controversy before the Hon'ble Court for was that whether the candidate therein who was recommended for promotion before his retirement but did not receive actual promotion to the higher post due to administrative delays, was entitled for notional financial benefits of the promotional post after retirement. For the sake of clarity, the relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is quoted herein below:
19. It is a well settled principle that promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted, rather than from the date a vacancy arises or the post is created.
While the Courts have recognized the right to be considered for promotion as not only a statutory right but also a fundamental right, there is no fundamental right to the promotion itself. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to a recent decision of this Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board and Others v. Dharamdeo Das9 , wherein it was observed as follows:
"18. It is no longer res integra that a promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created. No doubt, a right to be considered for promotion has been treated by courts not just as a statutory right but as a fundamental right, at the same time, there is no fundamental right to promotion itself. In this context, we may profitably cite a recent decision in Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai10 where, citing earlier precedents in Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty 11and Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab12, a three- Judge Bench observed thus:
41. This Court, time and again, has laid emphasis on right to be considered for promotion to be a fundamental right, as was held by K. Ramaswamy, J., in Director, Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty in para 4 of the report which is reproduced below:
'4....... There is no fundamental right to promotion, but an employee has only right to be considered for promotion, when it arises, in accordance with relevant rules. From this perspective in our view the conclusion of the High Court that the gradation list prepared by the corporation is in violation of the right of respondent-writ petitioner to equality enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution, and the respondent-writ petitioner was unjustly denied of the same is obviously unjustified.'
42. A Constitution Bench in Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, laying emphasis on Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India held that if a person who satisfies the eligibility and the criteria for RITU RAJ SINGH
6|Page promotion but still is not considered for promotion, then there will be clear violation of his/her's fundamental right. Jagannadha Rao, J.
speaking for himself and Anand, C.J., Venkataswami, Pattanaik, Kurdukar, JJ., observed the same as follows in paras 22 and 27:
'Articles 14 and 16(1) : is right to be considered for promotion a fundamental right
22. Article 14 and Article 16(1) are closely connected. They deal with individual rights of the person. Article 14 demands that the 'State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws'. Article 16(1) issues a positive command that:
'there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State'. It has been held repeatedly by this Court that clause (1) of Article 16 is a facet of Article 14 and that it takes its roots from Article 14. The said clause particularises the generality in Article 14 and identifies, in a constitutional sense "equality of opportunity" in matters of employment and appointment to any office under the State. The word "employment" being wider, there is no dispute that it takes within its fold, the aspect of promotions to posts above the stage of initial level of recruitment. Article 16 (1) provides to every employee otherwise eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone of consideration, a fundamental right to be "considered" for promotion. Equal opportunity here means the right to be "considered" for promotion. If a person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be "considered" for promotion, which is his personal right. "Promotion" based on equal opportunity and seniority attached to such promotion are facets of fundamental right under Article 16(1). ***
27. In our opinion, the above view expressed in Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.13, and followed in Jagdish Lal [Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana14, and other cases, if it is intended to lay down that the right guaranteed to employees for being "considered"
for promotion according to relevant rules of recruitment by promotion (i.e. whether on the basis of seniority or merit) is only a statutory right and not a fundamental right, we cannot accept the proposition. We have already stated earlier that the right to equal opportunity in the matter of promotion in the sense of a right to be "considered" for promotion is indeed a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(1) and this has never been doubted in any other case before Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.], right from 1950.' "20. In State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath15, it was held that retrospective seniority cannot be given to an employee from a date when he was not even borne in the cadre, nor can seniority be given with retrospective effect as that might adversely affect others. The same view was reiterated in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India16, where it was held that when a quota is provided for, then the seniority of the employee would be reckoned from the date when the vacancy arises in the quota and not from any anterior date of promotion or subsequent date of confirmation. The said view was restated in Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' Assn. (Direct Recruit) v. State of U.P17, in the following words:
'37. We are also of the view that no retrospective promotion or seniority can be granted from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre so as to adversely affect the direct recruits appointed RITU RAJ SINGH
7|Page validly in the meantime, as decided by this Court in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India held that when promotion is outside the quota, seniority would be reckoned from the date of the vacancy within the quota rendering the previous service fortuitous. The previous promotion would be regular only from the date of the vacancy within the quota and seniority shall be counted from that date and not from the date of his earlier promotion or subsequent confirmation. In order to do justice to the promotes, it would not be proper to do injustice to the direct recruits......
38. This Court has consistently held that no retrospective promotion can be granted nor can any seniority be given on retrospective basis from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre particularly when this would adversely affect the direct recruits who have been appointed validity in the meantime."
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."
11. A perusal of the above quotation makes it abundantly clear that the Apex Court has explicitly discussed the scope of granting notional benefits of the promotional post to the candidate subsequent to his retirement upon which he, for some reason or other, could not be adjusted during the course of his service. The Hon'ble Court emphasized that while a candidate's right to be considered for promotion is recognizable, it does not guarantee him or her an absolute right to the promotion itself. The promotion upon a certain post 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. The Hon'ble Court also recorded that since the candidate therein got superannuated before his promotion was effectuated, he is not entitled to retrospective financial benefits associated to the promotion post as he did not serve in that capacity.
Similarly, in the instant case, since the applicant has already been retired from service, he cannot be extended the benefit of promotion RITU RAJ SINGH
8|Page to the post of Mason Grade II and Mason Grade I from the backdate since he never worked on such post in official capacity. Furthermore, as has already been discussed above, the claim of the applicant is also highly misconceived and uncalled for primarily because of the fact that he did not qualify the respective trade test which is a necessary condition for promotion to the aforesaid posts.
12. Therefore, in view of the above deliberations and analysis, we are of the considered view that the applicant, who stands retired as on date, cannot be extended the benefit of backdate promotion for the two strong reasons that firstly, he did not qualify trade test which is a necessary condition for promotion to the post of Mason Grade II and I and secondly, since he has already been retired, the promotion cannot be extended to him for a post upon which he has never discharged his duties in the official capacity. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dr Amal Satpathi (supra) which has already been discussed above, the case of the applicant is not fit for consideration. Thus, the instant original application is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merits.
13. All associated MAs stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (Administrative) Member (Judicial)
(Ritu Raj)
RITU RAJ
SINGH
9|Page