Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Bijay Kumar Swain vs East Coast Railway on 10 March, 2026
O.A. 107 OF 2022 1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH OA No. 107 OF 2022 Reserved on :27.02.2026 Pronounced on :10.03.2026 Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Member (J) Hon'ble Mr. Pramod Kumar Das, Member (A)
1. Sri Bijay Kumar Swain, aged about 55 years, Son of Pravakar Nagendra Swain, At - Delanga Charipadia, PO Jorakani, PS Kanas, Dist Puri at present working as Helper in Electrical TRD (RRD), E. Co Railway, Khurda Road, Khurda.
2. Shri Ajay Kumar Pradhan @ Champatiray, aged about 56 years, Son of Late Govinda Chandra Pradhan, AT Bottola, PO Mutari, Dist Puri, presently working as Helper in Electrical TRD, E. Co Railway, Sakhigopal, Puri.
......Applicants VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through the its General Manager, E. Co. Railway, Rail Vihar, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar, PIN 751023.
2. Director Finance (Estt.), Govt. of India (Bharat Sarkar), Ministry of Railways (Rail Mantralaya), Railway Board, New Delhi.
3. The Chief Personnel Officer, E. Co. Railway, Rail Vihar, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar, PIN 751023.
4. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, E Co Rly, Khurda Road, Khurda PIN 752050.
5. The Divisional Railway Manager (P), E Co Railway, Khurda Road, PO Jatni, Dist Khurda, PIN 752050.
......Respondents Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:12.03.2026 10:05 O.A. 107 OF 2022 2 For the applicant : Mr. J M Pattnaik, counsel Mr. Jyoti Ranjan Behera, counsel For the respondents: Mr. B N Swain, counsel O R D E R Hon'ble Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, J.M. The applicants aggrieved by order dated 09.02.2022 passed by the respondents wherein their prayer for coming under the purview of Old Pension Scheme has been rejected has filed this OA praying for following reliefs:
a) To declare/hold that as the applicants were entered to pensionable establishment of railway much prior to 1.1.2004 delay in regularization being not attributable to them they cannot be ousted from the purview of Old Pension Scheme merely because they were regularized after 1.1.2004 and accordingly be pleased to quash the order of rejection No. P/CC/4962/OA No. 560/2021/Elect. (TRD) dated 09.02.2022 (Annexure A/1).
b) And as a consequence be pleased to direct the respondents to bring the applicants within the purview of Old Pension System RS (Pension) Rules, 1993 as per the policy decision and rules of the Railway which has been extended to all similarly situated employees and grant them pension for their survival in old age;
c) And further be pleased to direct the respondents to regularize their services with effect from the date when his juniors were regularized vide order under Annx. A/8 for the purpose of bringing them within Old Pension Rules.
Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:12.03.2026 10:05 O.A. 107 OF 2022 3
d) And further be pleased to direct the respondents to grant the applicants consequential service and financial benefits retrospectively;
e) And be pleased to pass any other order/orders as deemed fit and proper.
2. The brief facts of the case as inter alia averred by the applicant in the OA is that the applicants were engaged as Casual Laborers in RRB/BBS or B/Peons rising from 04.02.1986 against essential safety category posts. Thereafter they were retrenched from service however after along battle in different Courts, and in compliance of the order of Hon'ble Court, the names were kept in the live casual labour register vide order dated 21.12.2000. It is submitted that on the recommendation of the committee, the applicants were appointed as substitute Group D employees in Railway vide order dated 15.10.2003 and 23.06.2005. It is submitted that for the purpose of regularization as a substitute Gr. D employee the respondents conducted screening test and published a panel dated 18.12.2006 and accordingly regularized the applicants vide order dated 13.02.2007. It is submitted that since the regularization of the applicants were made after the cut off date of 2004, ignoring their past service as Substitute Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:12.03.2026 10:05 O.A. 107 OF 2022 4 Gr. D they were brought within the purview of National Pension Scheme. It is submitted that Govt. of India, Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare issued OM dated 17.02.2020 and Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance issued notification making provision to bring the persons appointed after 1.1.2004 within the pensionable service in certain contingencies. It is submitted that the Railway issued letter dated 13.04.2020 stating therein that in terms of Railway Board Circular, RBE No. 28/2020 railway employees who were appointed in railway service on or after 01.01.2004 but were empanelled for appointment in such posts prior to 01.01.2004 against vacancies that existed before 01.01.2004 may exercise option to come over to Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.
It is submitted that similarly placed but juniors to applicants were regularized vide order dated 12.08.1993 after the respondents had agreed to do so before Hon'ble High Court of Orissa. It is submitted that the applicants submitted their option but since no action was taken they approached this Tribunal in OA No. 560/2021 which was disposed of on 29.11.2021. It is submitted that in compliance to order of this Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:12.03.2026 10:05 O.A. 107 OF 2022 5 Tribunal the applicants submitted exhaustive representation on 28.12.2021 but was rejected. Hence the OA.
3. The respondents have filed counter wherein it is inter alia averred that both the applicants were appointed as Casual Staff and retrenched on 04.02.1986 of Chairman Railway Recruitment Board Bhubaneswar due to non-availability of sanctioned post. It is submitted that the names of applicants were incorporated in live casual register of Engg. Dept vice office letter dtd. 21.12.200. It is submitted that applicant no. 1 i.e. Sri Bijaya Kumar Swain was engaged as substitute in Group D vide letter dated 28.12.2005 and appointed as substitute on 29.12.2005 and given temporary status w.e.f.
28.04.2006 and finally regularized as Substitute Khalasi on 13.02.2007. It is submitted that similarly applicant no. 2 i.e. Sri Ajay Kumar Pradhan @ Champtiray was re-engaged as substitute in Group D vide letter dated 29.12.2005 and appointed as substitute on 04.01.2006, accorded temporary status w.e.f. 04.05.2006 and regularized as Substitute Khalasi on 13.02.2007. It is submitted that both applicant no. 2 and applicant no. 2 have been re-engaged as substitute on Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:12.03.2026 10:05 O.A. 107 OF 2022 6 29.12.2005 and 04.01.2006 i.e. long after the cut of date of 01.01.2004 for consideration for eligibility/ineligibility for coming under the purview of old pension scheme and since they did not come under the ambit of RBE 28/2020 their prayer was rejected vide speaking order dated 09.02.2022. It is submitted that engagement as substitutes followed by retrenchment cannot be considered as regular appointment which is reckoned from the date of temporary status. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the OA.
4. The applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating the stand taken by them in the OA.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records.
6. In a similar case of the employee of respondents department, this Tribunal in OA No. 161/2017 (Subodha Kumar Nayak vrs UOI) vide order dated 25.04.2024 had held as follows:
5. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the persons those who were regularized vide order dated 12.08.1993 (A/3) all were engaged as casual labourers in the year 1991, 1992 and 1993 whereas engagement of the applicant on such casual basis was in 1986. On perusal of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in OJC No. 17025/1998 dated 11.09.2000, it is established that the Hon'ble High Court disposed of the Writ Petition holding that in view of the letter dated 06.01.1992 (A/2) no further direction is necessary, therefore, when the cases of other casual laborers, who were engaged in 1991, 1992 and 1993 and retrenched, were considered and regularized, the respondents ought to have considered the case of the applicant since his engagement and retrenchment were much prior to 1991.
Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:12.03.2026 10:05 O.A. 107 OF 2022 7 Further, when the case of the applicant was taken to live casual register and subsequently, he was engaged as substitute, conferred with temporary status and regularization, the respondents ought to have taken note of the order dated 12.08.1993 (A/3) wherein the juniors of applicant were regularized. Thus, there was miscarriage of justice caused to the applicant in the decision making process of the matter is tell tale on the face of the record. The respondents did not utter a single word in respect of the above aspects in their counter and have only raised technical objection of limitation etc. This Tribunal is not impressed on such technical grounds when the injustice is palpable.
6. The corollary of the discussions made above, it is held that the grievance of the applicant needs favourable consideration at the hands of the respondent-authorities. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.08.2016 under Annexure-A/16 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for regularization from the date when others were regularized vide order dated 12.08.1993 (A/3), however, without any backwages, and consequential order be issued to the above effect within a period of 120 days of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. In the result, the OA stands allowed to the extent stated above, however, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
6. The said order was challenged before Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble High Court of Orissa vide order dated 15.12.2025 had held as follows:
Considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusing the impugned order, we ind no illegality in the direction of the learned Tribunal to consider the case of the opposite party from the date when others were regularized as per order dated 12.08.1993 more particularly when the learned Tribunal has directed so without any direction for payment of back wages. Thus, the approach of the petitioners to this Court against the impugned order is not at all acceptable. It seems that when the impugned order was passed on 25.04.2024, only 120 days time was granted to take steps in that regard and admittedly, the said period has expired. However, since we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, we direct that the petitioners shall comply with the order of the learned Tribunal passed in the aforesaid Original Application within a Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:12.03.2026 10:05 O.A. 107 OF 2022 8 period of sixty days from today, failing which opposite party is at liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.
7. Again in a similar matter, this Tribunal in OA No. 109/2022 (Kudrat Ali and others vrs UOI) vide order dated 09.05.2025 had held as follows:
2 The two applicants have iled this O.A. praying inter alia to regularize them w.e.f. the date when the other persons engaged on such casual basis were regularized even after completion of total number of days of 33. 61. 160, 101. 188, 190. 200 and 2024 days of casual service without considering their cases who had completed 210 and 831 days of casual service by the time others were regularized vide order dated 12.08.1993. The second prayer they have made in this O.A. is to direct the respondents to bring them within the parameter of old Railway Pension Rules by quashing their order of rejection dated
10.01.2022. It is the case of the applicant that similarly placed one Sri Subodh Kumar Nayak, whose name placed below the name of applicant No.1 in the casual employee list maintained by the respondents-department had iled O.A. No0.161/2017 praying for the similar relief and this Tribunal vide order dated 25.04.2024 directed the respondents to regularized his service w.e.f. the date when others were regularized vide order dated 12.08.1993 but without any back wages. Further, it is the case of the applicants that in compliance of the order dated 11.09.2000 in OJC No.17025 of 1998 the respondents kept the name of both the applicants in the liveregister. Thereafter, their cases were examined by the Committee and on the basis of the recommendation made by this Committee. approval from the General Manager was sought for their engagement /re-engagement as substitute in Group 'D' category vide letter dated 15.10.2003. The approval of the General Manager was communicated after near about two years in letter dated 23.06.2005. Thereafter. they were engaged as substitute in Group 'D' and subsequently both of them were regularized on 27.06.2007 and 10.02.2009 respectively. According to them the NPS came into effect from 01.01.2004. Therefore, the delay in regularization being not attributable to them and they being engaged on casual basis which is prior to 01.01.2004, rejection of their grievance to bring them with the parameter of old pension Rule is Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:12.03.2026 10:05 O.A. 107 OF 2022 9 illegal. Hence they have iled this O.A. with the prayers referred to above.
XXXX
4. Heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the records.
5. It was not disputed in course of the hearing that Sri Subodh Kumar Nayak was similarly situated like the present applicants. It is not also the case of the respondents that the order passed by this Bench in the case of Sri Subodh Kumar Nayak has been stayed or set- aside by any higher forum. The respondents also did not dispute the fact that the persons regularized vide order dated 12.08.1993 had put less number of casual service than the present applicants who had put into 210 and 831 days as on the date of regularization of the service of the others. The relevant portion of the order of this Bench 25.04.2024 passed in O.A. No. 161/2017 is extracted below:-
5. In the instant case. it is not in dispute that the persons those who were regularized vide order dated 12.08.1993 (A/3) all were engaged as casual labourers in the year 1991, 1992 and 1993 whereas engagement of the applicant on such casual basis was in 1986. On perusal of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in OJC No. 17025/1998 dated 11.09.2000. it is established that the Honble High Court disposed of the Writ Petition holding that in view of the letter dated 06.01.1992 (A/2) no further direction is necessary, therefore.
when the cases of other casual laborers, who were engaged in 1991, 9 O.A.No. 260/00161 of 2017 1992 and 1993 and retrenched. were considered and regularized. the respondents ought to have considered the case of the applicant since his engagement and retrenchment were much prior to 1991. Further. when the case of the applicant was taken to live casual register and subsequently. he was engaged as substitute. conferred with temporary status and regularization. the respondents ought to have taken note of the order dated 12.08.1993 (A/3) wherein the juniors of applicant were regularized. Thus. there was miscarriage of justice caused to the applicant in the decision making process of the matter is tell tale on the face of the record. The respondents did not utter a single word in respect of the above aspects in their counter and have only raised technical objection of limitation etc. This Tribunal is not impressed on such technical grounds when the injustice is palpable.
6. In view of the above, justi iability or otherwise in the matter of regularization of juniors without considering the case of seniors Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:12.03.2026 10:05 O.A. 107 OF 2022 10 came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari vs The State Of Jharkhand. AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 3589, wherein it was held as under:
...... Equally. in our opinion, the authorities cannot be heard to throw their hands in despair by submitting that there are no vacancies and that it had already regularized such of the persons in the seniority list, who reported for work. The Tribunal has entered a inding of fact that this defence is clearly not borne out of the record. Accordingly. we are of the view that having decided to implement the decision of the Tribunal. which was af irmed by the High Court. the Union of India must follow a rational principle and abide strictly by the seniority list in proceeding to regularize the workmen concerned. Accordingly, we direct that the case for regularization shall be considered strictly in accordance with the seniority list in pursuance of the directions which were Issued by the Tribunal and con irmed by the High Court and such of the persons. who are available for regularization on the basis of vacancies existing at present. shall be considered in accordance with law. The Tribunal has denied back-wages but has ordered a notional ixation of pay and allowances.
While af irming that direction. we also direct that persons who have crossed the age of superannuation will be entitled to the computation and payment of their retiral dues on that basis. This exercise shall be carried out within a period of three months from the receipt of a copy of the judgment. If it becomes necessary to grant age relaxation to the concerned workmen, the appellants shall do so."
7. It may be noted that the doctrine of precedent, also known as "stare decisis," is a fundamental principle in common law systems. which requires courts to follow previous decisions when deciding cases with similar facts or legal issues. This ensures consistency and predictability in the application of law. On examination of the facts and issues involved in this case with the case earlier decided by this Bench, referred to above. we do not ind any merit to differ from the view already taken in the case of Subodh Kumar Nayak (supra). In the circumstances, the Respondents are hereby directed to treat the applicants to have been regularized with effect from the date when others were regularized vide order dated 12.08.1993 only for the purpose of pension and pensionary bene its without any back wages seniority etc and accordingly. the order dated 10.01.2022 is hereby quashed with direction to bring them within the purview of Old Railway Pension Rules and. thereafter, process their pension case and grant them pension and pensionary bene its. The entire action shall be completed within an outer limit of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:12.03.2026 10:05 O.A. 107 OF 2022 11
8. In the result this OA stands allowed to the extent stated above. No costs.
8. The respondents department challenged the said order before Hon'ble High Court in WP (C) No. 22616 of 2025.
Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 12.01.2026 dismissed the writ petition with following observations:
2. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submits and learned CGC appearing for the petitioners-Union Government does not dispute that the relief has been accorded to the Opposite Parties and that the petition has been admitted in the light of another cognate case in WP(C) No.22554 of 2024 between Union of India and others v.
Subodha Kumar Nayak, decided by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.12.2025, supportive of case of the Opposite Parties. On being asked, learned CGC in all fairness submits that the decision in Subodha Kumar Nayak has attained the inality, there being no further challenge thereto in the Apex Court.
3. It has been a cardinal principle of adjudicatory process that like cases should decided alike and therefore what has happened to Subodha Kumar Nayak's case should come to the rescue of Opposite Parties herein on the principle of parity, no inconsistent factors coming from the record.
In the above circumstances, this petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is, costs having been made easy.
The petitioners shall implement the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack within an outer limit of 60 days and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court, failing which in the next level of legal battle, heavy costs payable by the of icials in their personal capacity may be imposed, in addition to other punitive action.
9. In view of the above since the judgment in the case of Subodha Kumar Nayak having attained finality and the Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:12.03.2026 10:05 O.A. 107 OF 2022 12 applicants herein being similarly placed to the applicants in the above mentioned OA's, this Tribunal does not find any merit to deviate from the stand taken in those OA. Accordingly the respondents are hereby directed to treat the applicants to have been regularized with effect from the date when others were regularized vide order dated 12.08.1993 only for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits without any back wages seniority etc and accordingly the order dated 09.02.2022 is hereby quashed with direction to bring them within the purview of Old Railway Pension Rules and, thereafter pass a speaking order to be communicated to the applicants. The entire action shall be completed within an outer limit of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. Accordingly, the OA stands allowed. No costs.
(PRAMOD KUMAR DAS) (SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
(csk)
Signed By:C SADISH
KUMAR
Signing Date:12.03.2026
10:05