Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Vijender Kumar Verma vs General Manager N C Rly on 21 January, 2026
O.A./474/2023
(Reserved on 18.12.2025)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
****
Original Application No.474 of 2023
This the 21st Day of January, 2026.
Hon'ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Pandey, Member (A)
1. Vijender Kumar Verma aged about 61 years. S/0 Late R.K. Verma, R/o
507, Avas Vikas Colony, Hanshpura, Naubasta, Kanpur.
2. Rameshwar Singh, aged about 61 years, S/0 Raghuvir Singh R/o Village
& Post Utra, District-Aligarh, U.P.-202129
....Applicants
By Advocate: Mr. A D Singh
Versus
1. Union of India through its General Manager, North Central Railway
Allahabad.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway Allahabad.
3. Divisional Personal Officer, North Central Railway Allahabad.
4. Divisional Railway Manager (P), North Central Railway Allahabad.
....Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Ashish Kumar Srivastava
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Pandey, Member (A):-
Learned counsel for both the parties are present and heard.
2. The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for the following relief(s):-
"(i) Quash the impugned orders dated 22.10.2014 passed by respondent no.4 (Annexure A-1 to Compilation No.I) ARPITA SRIVASTAV Page 1 of 9 O.A./474/2023
(ii) Direct the respondents to promote the applicants on the post of Assistant Loco Pilot in the Pay Scale of Rs. 3050-4590 under which they have got successful in all respect before cancellation of the selection of 2005 being channel of promotion without applying the criteria of age bar.
(iii) Direct the respondents to revise the pay of the applicant and fixed the pension of the applicants according to the pay scale of Rs.
3050-4590 and to make the payment of pay and differences of differences of arrear of pension from the date of entitlement to the date of actual payment is being made applicants with all consequential benefits including the interest @ 18% per annum.
(iv) Grant such other relief as the applicant might be found entitled to, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(v) Allow the original application with cost of the the proceeding in favour of the applicant from the respondents."
3. The brief facts of the case, as narrated in the Original Application, are that the applicants are employees of the respondent Railways working as Cleaners and belong to the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot (ALP) in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590. The Railway Board, vide letter dated 16.07.1991, prescribed the mode of filling up the posts of Diesel Assistant/Assistant Loco Pilot, providing for promotion from Fireman categories and, in case of shortfall, from matriculate Cleaners having five years' continuous service. It is an admitted position that prior to issuance of the aforesaid Railway Board letter, the posts of First Fireman and Second Fireman had been abolished and, consequently, Cleaners remained the effective feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot. In accordance with the prevailing rules and instructions, the respondents issued a notification dated 02.03.2005 for filling up the posts of Assistant Loco Pilot through a departmental selection. The applicants, being eligible, participated in the written examination held on 09.07.2005 pursuant to a letter dated 10.06.2005 and were declared successful. Vide letter dated 08.08.2005, the applicants were declared eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot and their names appeared at Serial Nos. 16 and 40 in the list of successful candidates. Thereafter, the applicants appeared in the psycho test conducted on 13.09.2005 and were declared to have passed the same; however, the final result of the selection was not declared. Subsequently, the ARPITA SRIVASTAV Page 2 of 9 O.A./474/2023 respondents cancelled the entire selection process vide order dated 18.01.2006, without assigning any reason, which was communicated to the applicants vide letter dated 02.02.2007. Aggrieved by the cancellation of the selection, the applicants approached this Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 301 of 2007, which was allowed vide order dated 09.12.2010, whereby the cancellation was quashed and the respondents were directed to analyze the result of the examination and consider the successful candidates for promotion, subject to fulfillment of other conditions. Despite the aforesaid order, the applicants were not granted promotion. The respondents sought to deny promotion by applying the age limit prescribed under Railway Board Circular dated 02.12.2005, applicable to Group 'D' employees. The said order dated 09.12.2010 was challenged by the respondents by filing Writ-A No. 15088 of 2011 before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 22.10.2014, affirming the order passed by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the respondents treated the applicants as overage by applying the age criteria retrospectively and denied them promotion to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot. Contempt proceedings initiated by the applicants were disposed of on 01.07.2016, granting liberty to the applicants to assail the impugned orders on the original side. Subsequent execution and recall proceedings were dismissed on technical grounds, leading to further proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court, wherein the liberty granted earlier was upheld. Aggrieved thereby, the applicants have approached this Tribunal by filing the present Original Application.
4. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the applicants have subsequently retired from Railway service. During the period of their service, the applicants were entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot (ALP), provided they came within the zone of consideration and fulfilled all the conditions required for promotion. It is further stated that the applicants were earlier considered for promotion but were found not suitable. The ARPITA SRIVASTAV Page 3 of 9 O.A./474/2023 notification dated 02.03.2005 was issued for filling up the 50% promotee quota of Assistant Loco Pilot, in accordance with Railway Board Letter No. E/NC/1-280 PM/1/11 dated 15.05.2002 and E/NC/1-2001/PM/7/11 dated 15.05.2002. As per Railway Board Letter No. 90/PM-7/34/Part III dated 02.12.2005, the age limit for candidates was fixed as 35 to 40 years for SC/ST categories. The entire examination for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot under the 50% promotee quota, held on 09.07.2005, was treated as cancelled vide letter No. 727E/EM-1 Rly/Selection/05 dated 18.01.2006, on account of certain discrepancies. Pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 21.02.2014 in W.P. No. 15088 of 2011 (Union of India & Others vs. CAT Allahabad & Others), the candidature of the applicants was re-verified. It was found that the applicants were overage, and the respondents communicated the same to the applicants on 22.10.2014, stating that they were not entitled for promotion under the 50% promotee quota to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot.
5. In reply to the counter affidavit, a rejoinder has been filed, wherein it is stated that the applicants were employed as Electric Cleaners and formed part of the recognized channel of promotion to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590. They were fully eligible for promotion and had successfully qualified in the departmental selection held on 09.07.2005, including the psycho test conducted on 13.09.2005. Despite qualifying, the applicants were denied promotion as the selection process was cancelled. Other employees were promoted, while the applicants were treated as overage in violation of Railway Board instructions dated 16.07.1991, under which the age criteria apply only to Group 'D' employees and Khalasi, not Cleaners. The applicants had been performing the duties of Assistant Loco Pilot since 2002 but were not promoted despite eligibility. Prior to retirement, they had completed all conditions for promotion. Even after prevailing in previous litigation, including proceedings up to the Hon'ble High Court, promotion was still denied. The applicants are entitled to promotion, and their ARPITA SRIVASTAV Page 4 of 9 O.A./474/2023 pension and other consequential benefits should be fixed in the promotional pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 from the date of original entitlement. The respondents' contention regarding the age limit under Railway Board Circular dated 02.12.2005 is not applicable, as the applicants were considered through the recognized channel of promotion. The cancellation of the selection held on 09.07.2005 has been quashed by this Tribunal and upheld by the Hon'ble High Court. The applicants are thus entitled to promotion to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot along with all consequential benefits.
6. The respondents submit that the applicants had earlier challenged the order dated 01.11.2018 passed by this Tribunal in Execution Application No. 12 of 2016 by filing Writ-A No. 8801 of 2020 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The said execution application, filed for compliance of the order dated 09.12.2010 passed in O.A. No. 301 of 2007, was dismissed on the ground of limitation, having been filed beyond the period prescribed under Section 27 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 20.10.2020, dismissed the writ petition, noting that the applicants had earlier filed a contempt petition which was dismissed with liberty to file a fresh Original Application challenging the order dated 21.02.2014. Instead of availing the said liberty, the applicants filed an execution application, which was held to be not legally sustainable. The Hon'ble High Court accordingly affirmed the order of this Tribunal. It is further submitted that the applicants have since retired from Railway service. The selection process initiated vide notification dated 02.03.2005 for 50% promotional quota to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot was cancelled vide letter dated 18.01.2006. Upon re-verification, the applicants were found to be over-aged and were informed vide letter dated 22.10.2014 that they were not entitled to promotion under the said quota.
7. We have heard the counsels of the opposite parties and have also gone through the submissions made in details.
ARPITA SRIVASTAV Page 5 of 9 O.A./474/2023
8. The case of the applicants is that they are employees of the respondent Railways working as Cleaners and belong to the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot (ALP) in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590. The respondents issued a notification dated 02.03.2005 for filling up the posts of Assistant Loco Pilot through a departmental selection. The applicants appeared in the said exam, however, the respondents cancelled the entire selection process vide order dated 18.01.2006, without assigning any reason, which was communicated to the applicants vide letter dated 02.02.2007. Aggrieved by the cancellation of the selection, the applicants approached this Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 301 of 2007, which was allowed vide order dated 09.12.2010, whereby the cancellation was quashed and the respondents were directed to analyze the result of the examination and consider the successful candidates for promotion, subject to fulfillment of other conditions.
9. The said order dated 09.12.2010 was challenged by the respondents by filing Writ-A No. 15088 of 2011 before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 22.10.2014, affirming the order passed by the Tribunal. The Hon'be High Court in its judgment said the following:
"Having heard the counsels for the parties and examined the records of the present petition, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal is justified in directing the Railways to segregate the bad part from the good part from the selection process. Those candidates, who were ineligible to participate in the selection in accordance with the rules as were applicable on the last date of making of the application in terms of the selection process initiated in the year 2005 may be excluded from the zone of consideration while all other candidates, who were eligible on the relevant date in accordance with the rules applicable have to be considered for appointment on the basis of marks secured by them in the written examination as well as in the viva voce / ARPITA SRIVASTAV Page 6 of 9 O.A./474/2023 psycho test. The direction issued by the Tribunal in that regard cannot be faulted with. The Tribunal is also justified in recording a finding that the circular issued by the Railway Board after the initiation of the process of selection in the year 2005 will not control the selections and as it would apply prospectively in respect of subsequent selection only.
For the aforesaid reasons, we find no good ground to interfere with the order impugned. However, it is clarified that if any candidate is found ineligible for whatever reasons it may be, being overage on the relevant date or. ineligible in accordance with the rules applicable on the relevant date as per the terms of selection of the year 2005 for promotion on the post of Assistant Loco Pilot then such a person will not be entitled of appointment only because of the order of the Tribunal or the order of this Court. On qualified eligible applicants may be given appointment.".
10. The Applicants are again in the Tribunal in this OA as the Respondents, as per directions of the HC issued letters to the applicants indicating that on re-verification of their candidature, they were found ineligible as they were found to be overage on the date of the notification of the said exam. As per the applicants, the Railway Board, vide letter dated 16.07.1991, prescribed the mode of filling up the posts of Diesel Assistant/Assistant Loco Pilot, providing for promotion from Fireman categories and, in case of shortfall, from matriculate Cleaners having five years' continuous service. It is their contention that in the notification dt 02.03.2005, the age limit prescribed is for Group D staff and is not applicable to the applicants as they were cleaners and their channel of promotion was to the post of Assistant Loco pilot.
11. As per the Respondents, the notification dt 02.03.2005 was issued for 50% promotion quota selection of Astt Driver as per Railway Board letter no E/NC/1-280 PM/11 dt 15.05.2002. . Pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 21.02.2014 in W.P. No. 15088 of 2011 (Union of India & Others vs. CAT Allahabad ARPITA SRIVASTAV Page 7 of 9 O.A./474/2023 & Others), the candidature of the applicants was re-verified. It was found that the applicants were overage, and the respondents communicated the same to the applicants on 22.10.2014, stating that they were not entitled for promotion under the 50% promotee quota to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot.
12. The notification for the exam of Astt Loco Pilot was issued on 02.03.2005. As eligibility criteria as per the said notification is as follows:
"(1) डी./बिजली लोको शेडों के तीन वर्ष की सेवा वाले स्वैच्छिक डीज़ल/बिजली फिटर, जिनके न होने पर न्यन ू तम योग्यता परं तु छः वर्ष की कुल सेवा वाले डी./बिजली फिटर तथा डी./बिजली लोको में छः वर्ष की कुल सेवा वाले जी./बिजली लोको ग्रप ु -'डी' के उन कर्मचारियों, जिन्होंने यांत्रिक बिजली/इलेक्ट्रॉनिक इंजीनियरिंग ट्रे ड में प्रशिक्षण पाठ्यक्रम परू ा किया है अथवा अतिरिक्त वांछित योग्यता के रूप में आर.टी.आई. के साथ मैट्रिकुलेशन किया है , से भरा जाएगा। इसके लिए ऊपरी आयु सीमा 35 वर्ष है । अनस ु चि ू त जाति/अनस ु चि ू त जनजाति के मामलों में 40 वर्ष है ।
(2) रे ल मंत्रालय के प.सं. ई./एनसी/1-2001/ पी.एम/7/11 दिनांक 15.05.2002 के अनस ु ार सवारी एवं माल डिब्बो के डिपो/बिजली/टीआरडी / बिजली / सामान्य के ग्रप ु सी तथा डी के तकनीकी कर्मचारी जो की पैरा /1/ के अनस ु ार वांछित योग्यता एवं आयस ु ीमा के अंतर्गत आते हैं वे अपना आवेदनपत्र संलग्न प्रोफार्मा में भरकर उस कार्यालय में दिनांक 01.04.2005 तक अवश्य भेजे।"
13. As per the said criteria, the age limit has clearly been indicated as 35 years and 40 years for SC/ST candidates. In the letters dt 22.10.2014, which the applicants have asked for quashing, the Respondents have, as per the directions of the High Court looked into the eligibility criteria and have clearly indicated that the applicants were over-aged on the date of the issue of notification of the exam ie. 02.03.2005. Reliance is also placed upon a Railway Board letter dt 16.07.1991 issued for filling the vacancies of Diesel Astt where Matriculate cleaners with minimum 5 years service have also been made eligible. The letter annexed is actually a letter showing Railway Board decision on staff matters where the category of cleaners have also been included in the failing which criteria.
14. Considering the submission of counsel and above facts discussed, we are in considered opinion that eligibility of the applicant is to ARPITA SRIVASTAV Page 8 of 9 O.A./474/2023 be seen in response to letter vide which the exam has been notified (quoted above) wherein the age criteria has been specifically mentioned and the Respondents have accordingly taken action as per the High Court direction and rejected the candidature of the applicants as being overage.
15. In view of the above, we find no merit in this case and the OA is therefore, liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, instant Original Application stands dismissed.
16. All pending MAs stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
(Manju Pandey) (Rajnish Kumar Rai)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Arpita/
ARPITA
SRIVASTAV Page 9 of 9