Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Rajendra Kumar Pandey vs M/O Railways on 26 November, 2025
CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00174/2024 R. K. Pandey Vs. UOI & Ors.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/00174 of 2024
Order reserved on: 06.11.2025
Order pronounced on: 26.11.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member- Judicial
Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
Rajendra Kumar Pandey, aged about 62 years, son of late Ram Pyare
Pandey, Permanent resident- 324, Turkmanpur, Gorakhpur, presently
residing at Flat No. 9, 3rd Floor, Arunanchal Apartment, Kabeer Marg,
5 Clay Square, Lucknow U.P. 226001.
.....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Veer Raghav Chaubey
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Railway,
Government of India, New Delhi.
2. CRB & CEO, Railway Board, New Delhi.
3. General Manager/General Manager (P), North Eastern Railway,
Gorakhpur.
4. PCPO, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Manik Mishra
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to promotion, the applicant has sought following reliefs:
"(i) To quash the order dated 12.06.2023 passed by the General Manager (Karmik), North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
(ii) To direct the opposite parties to grant all consequential benefit of the promotion and payment of arrear w.e.f. 13.07.2013 in pursuance of the similar judgment passed by CAT, Allahabad in O.A. No. 1382/2013 on 06.08.2015.
(iii) Issue such other suitable directions as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) Allow the original application with cost."Page 1 of 4
CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00174/2024 R. K. Pandey Vs. UOI & Ors.
2. The applicant was appointed as Senior Clerk on 03.04.1987 and he retired from service on 30.06.2022. The applicant's grievance is that though he was successful in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE, hereafter) for the Group 'B' post of Assistant Personnel Officer (APO, hereafter) conducted on 26.05.2013 in pursuance of notification dated 10.08.2012 and his medical examination was conducted on 02.07.2013, the respondents delayed the declaration of his qualifying the examination till 16.04.2015 and, therefore, his promotion should be reckoned with effect from 13.07.2013, i.e., 11 days after the medical examination as done in a similar examination conducted by the respondents in 2015. The applicant's representation dated 06.09.2022 having been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 12.06.2023, he has preferred this OA.
3. In support of his contention, the applicant cites the judgment and order dated 06.08.2015 rendered by the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 1382 of 2013 Gautam Sharma vs UOI & Ors.
4. Per contra, the respondents state that though the applicant qualified in the written test and was found medically fit, his viva voce could not be conducted due to investigation by the vigilance organization which was concluded vide letter dated 12.03.2015 with the finding that the "investigation has revealed that the lapses noticed in the case have not affected the final result of the examination, further action may be taken by the Administrative Department in light of the vigilance findings." It is stated that, accordingly, the selection procedure was continued and viva voce was fixed on 10.04.2015 and the applicant was empanelled to the post of APO vide letter dated 16.04.2015. The respondents contend that Gautam Sharma (supra) is not relevant to the applicant's case.
5. We have heard both the parties.
Page 2 of 4 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00174/2024 R. K. Pandey Vs. UOI & Ors. 6.1 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Government of West Bengal & Ors vs Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors 2024 INSC 906 observed as follows:
"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..."
(emphasis supplied) 6.2 In Gautam Sharma (supra) cited by the applicant, it is noted that following observations were made by the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal:
"8. The documents before us clearly indicate that the respondents did not take timely action to fill the vacancies in the rank of Master Crafts Man and ultimately the result of the seniority cum selection test could be pronounced only on 01.08.2011 even though vacancies continued to exist during 2008, 2009 and 2010 and some part of 2011. It is also clear therefore, that atleast some part of the loss in pension and pensionary benefit being claimed by the applicant occurred as a result of the delay in timely promotions. While the representations given by the applicant may be partly instrumental in causing this delay but as a model employer it was incumbent upon the respondents to fill the vacancies in the promotional posts in a timely manner so that the employees in Technician Gr.-I could avail the promotion as and when it was due to them."
(emphasis supplied) It is noted that the respondents in Gautam Sharma (supra) issued the notification dated 11.10.2010 for filling up the vacancies in the posts of Master Crafts Man through seniority cum suitability after the applicants therein submitted representation dated 18.09.2010 and even though the vacancies had been existing since 2007. In the present OA, it is not the case of the applicant that the notification dated 10.08.2012 for the lone vacancy of APO was issued belatedly by the respondents; rather his grievance is about the delay in declaration of the result of LDCE. In view of this position, we find that Gautam Sharma (supra) is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case. Page 3 of 4
CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00174/2024 R. K. Pandey Vs. UOI & Ors. 6.3 In the case at hand, it is noted that the selection process initiated through the notification dated 10.08.2012 was halted by the respondents pending investigation into alleged irregularities in the selection process and it is only after the investigation revealed that the lapses had not affected the final result of the examination that the respondents fixed the date for viva voce on 10.04.2015 which was an essential part of the selection process as per the notification dated 10.08.2012. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant had qualified in the selection process merely on being successful in the written test conducted on 26.05.2013 and being found medically fit in the medical examination conducted on 02.07.2013; rather, it is noted that the selection process was completed with the conduct of viva voce on 10.04.2015. It is also not the case of the applicant that any person junior to him was promoted ahead of him. In the given situation, the applicant's claim for promotion from a date prior to the completion of selection process has no legs to stand on, in our opinion. 7.1 In view of the foregoing, the applicant cannot be granted any relief. This OA is disposed of, accordingly.
7.2 Pending MAs, if any, are also disposed of.
7.3 The Parties shall bear their own costs.
(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member (A) Member (J)
vidya
Vidya Ben Digitally signed by
Vidya Ben Waghela Page 4 of 4
Waghela Date: 2025.11.26
16:35:33 +05'30'