Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Gursewak Singh Dehot vs M/O Railways on 9 October, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A.No. 060/1108/2023
With
MA No.536/2025
Pronounced on : 30.10.2025
(Reserved on : 09.10.2025)
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)
Gursewak Singh Dehot, aged 60 years, resident of 6990, Mohalla
Grunanaakpura, Bhatinda (Punjab)- Ex. Chief Goods Supervisor
(Group 'C') Ambala Division of Northern Railway.
...Applicant
(Advocate: Sh. Karnail Singh)
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through General Manager, Northern Railway,
Baroda House, New Delhi-110001.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, DRM office Complex, Northern
Railway, Ambala Cantt-133001.
3. Senior DPO, DRM office complex, Northern Railway, Ambala Cantt-
133001.
4. Senior DRM, DRM office complex, Northern Railway, Ambala Cantt.
5. Chief Commercial Inspector, Northern Railway, Bhatinda Station.
6. Chief Welfare & Labour Inspector, Northern Railway, Ambala
Cantt.
7. Station Supdt, Northern Railway, Rampura Phool Station.
8. Station Supdt, Northern Railway, Gidderwaha Station.
9. Station Supdt, Northern Railway, Malot Station.
10. Station Supdt, Northern Railway, Bhuchu Station.
...Respondent(s)
(Advocate: Sh. Sanjay Goyal along with Sh. Pankaj Khurana, Sh.
Abhinav Sagar, Commercial Inspector/Commercial DRM Office, Ambala
Cantt.).
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana
Vanapalli
DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF
Satyanar INDIA, OU=CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone=
6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a
9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77,
ayana
PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN,
SERIALNUMBER=
053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de094
53dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59,
CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli
Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this
document
Location:
Date: 2025.10.31 13:24:44+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
2
ORDER
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A):
1. This application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, whereby, the applicant has sought for the following relief:
"8.1 To quash & set aside the impugned order dated 02.08.2023 (Annexure A/5) issued contrary to the Duty roster and the actual duty performed by the applicant at the respective stations. 8.2 To pass the orders to the respondents for making the payment of OTA claimed by the applicant for the actual duty performed by the applicant at BCU, PUL, MOT & GDB stations.
8.3 To pass the orders to the respondents to grant 12% interest p.a. on the due payment of OTA from the due date i.e. date of realization. 8.4 To grant costs of Rs.50,000/- as a cost of litigation. 8.5 To summon all the relevant records of the respondents including the data for the respective stations in Time Management System (TMS)."
2. The applicant in its OA has submitted the following:-
i) The applicant was working as Goods Supervisor in the year 2008 bound for 8 hours duty daily being a continuous worker. As per the Hours of Employment Rules as applicable in the Railways but due to shortage of staff the applicant was compelled by the circumstances generated on the part of respondents, the applicant has to perform duty in addition to his rostered hours of duty. The extra duties performed by the applicant at different stations for a various periods is as under:-
a). 2008 to 2014 as a Goods Supervisor at Bhuchu (BCU)station.
b). From 03.03.2017 to 04.12.2017 as Goods Supervisor at Malot (MOT) station.
c) From January 2019 to 14.12.2019 as Goods Supervisor at Gidderbaha (GDB) station
d). from 04.08.2021 to 02.02.2022 as Goods Supervisor at Rampura Phool (PUL) station The respondents maintained on TMS (Time Management System) that applicant has compelled to perform the duty at different stations for Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF Satyanar INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a 9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, ayana PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de094 53dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.31 13:24:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 3 which the applicant is entitled to overtime allowance for the extra duty performed by him. The relevant Wagon transfer register on TMS showing the timings of loading & unloading of wagons in the presence of the applicant and the roster for the post of Goods Supervisor holding at that point of time for which the respondents are duty bound to maintain.
ii) The applicant had approached the respondents for OTA however without bothering for OTA and, he was assured to get the same and as such the claim of the applicant was postponed on one or the other pretext. Ultimately, the respondents started threatening the applicant that if the applicant will raise his claim then the applicant has to face the disciplinary cases without any reason. The biased & malafide intentions of the respondents had not sanctioned OTA and he was not relieved from 28.06.2019 when the applicant was promoted & posted at Rampura Phool station vide order dated 28.6.2019.
iii) The applicant was aggrieved biased and malafide intentions for not granting the genuine claims and was not relieved for the new station i.e. Rampura Phool on promotion.
iv) After retirement, the applicant moved an RTI application dated 20.07.2022 seeking copy of the Wagon transfer register and roster for the post of Goods Supervisor at respective stations. According to the roster for the 'Goods Supervisor', the applicant was bound for 8 hours duty daily and it is evident from the 'Wagon Transfer Register' maintained by the respondents that the applicant performed extra over the roster duty at the above stations which cannot be denied by the respondents.
v) Thereafter, the applicant submitted representation dated 19.08.2022 (Annexure A/2) which was not decided by the respondents, because of ill will. The financial losses because of no grant of overtime Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF Satyanar INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a 9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, ayana PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de094 53dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.31 13:24:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 4 allowance, the applicant had filed OA No.1093 of 2022 before this Tribunal and this Tribunal was kind enough to pass the direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant within 8 weeks period for which the respondents have failed intentionally as such even paid no respect to the directions passed by this Tribunal.
vi) Further in compliance of order in OA No. 60/1093/2022, the respondent no.3 issued a letter dated 22.12.2022 (Annexure A/3) to the applicant that if the employee submits his request claiming of overtime allowance prescribed performa and documentary proof then his request will be considered as per rules. The applicant submitted his request dated 13/14.3.2023 to respondent no.4 i.e. Senior DCM, Northern Railway, Ambala along with relevant documents but was not decided. It is worth to mention that respondent No. 7 to 9 refused to verify the OTA claims of the applicant. Thereafter, the respondent no.4 issued a letter dated 11.07.2023 to respondent no.4 i.e. Commercial Inspector Bathinda (ie CMI BTI) directing to verify the overtime at Malout, Giddarbaha and Rampura Phool station with specific instructions to reply within 3 days.
vii) Further, it is stated by the applicant that for non-compliance of the order passed by the respondents, the applicant approached by way of CP No.36 of 2023 and then the respondents have issued the order dated 02.08.2023, which is absolutely unreasoned & in contraventions to the rules of the respondent department itself and law as applicable, which is under challenge in the instant case. As such it is third around of litigation at the cost of applicant from his hard core pension, therefore, the respondents intentionally compelling the applicant for series of litigations.
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF
Satyanar INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a 9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, ayana PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de094 53dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.31 13:24:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 5
3. Notice was issued to the respondents. The written statement has been submitted by the respondents wherein preliminary objection stating as follows:-
i) The applicant has filed the present OA claiming the Over Time Allowance which is not maintainable as it is time barred as the period for which the applicant is claiming the Over Time Allowance pertains to the year 2008 to 2022, and therefore, it is barred by limitation as per Section 21 of CAT Act, 1985, and thus, the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.
ii) Further, the applicant is arbitrarily claiming the overtime allowance and as per the service record of the applicant, he never performed any over time duty and it is not even mentioned anywhere in his attendance register, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for any relief. The same is also evident from the reports of the Station Supervisors (Annexure R-1 (Colly).
iii) The applicant had submitted a representation before the competent authority which was considered by the competent authority i.e., Sr.DCM/FS and it was observed that the claim of the applicant for over Time allowance is not as per the clause (i), (ii), (iii) of para (1) and further sub clause (B), (C) of Clause (I) and sub clause (E) of clause (IV) of para (II) of Joint Accounts and Executive Procedure Office Order Serial No.5917 Circular dated 15.06.1975 (Annexure R/4).
iv) Further, the claim of the applicant cannot be considered in view of Circular dated 12.02.1964 (Annexure R/5). No orders were ever passed by the then competent authority whereby, the applicant was directed to perform extra duty/over time duty. The applicant if ever performed the overtime duty during his service period, then he should have represented before the competent authority for grant of the overtime allowance at that relevant time. When the applicant claimed Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF Satyanar INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a 9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, ayana PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de094 53dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.31 13:24:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 6 for the overtime allowance, the claim of the applicant was forwarded to the competent authority and in pursuance to that, a report was received from concerned supervisors regarding the service tenure of the applicant i.e. SS/Buchu, SS/Malot, SS/Giddarbaha, and SS/Rampura Phul and as per the report of all the supervisors not even a single entry of over time duty performed by the applicant was found. Thus, the claim of the applicant for grant of the overtime allowance is arbitrary and illegal.
v) The overtime claims of the staff who have worked over and above statutory limit fixed under Hours Of Work and Period Of Rest (HOER) are prepared and submitted in time to avoid infringement of provision of Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The overtime allowance is worked out on weekly basis in cases of Essentially Intermittent (E.1.) workers and on two weekly basis in cases of continuous and intensive workers. The reports of Station Supervisors have nowhere mention that on any occasion exceptional pressure was put on the application to work over time for which the applicant is claiming overtime allowance. The claim of over time is not tenable on the basis of no approval for claim of OT by competent authority, no entries in OT registers has been found to be maintained as per the reports of the Station Supervisors (Annexure R/1).
vi) It is averred by the respondents that the applicant was never asked to work overtime. The promotion orders of the applicant issued on 28.06.2019 by Personnel Branch, Ambala Cantt, vide letter no.561-
E/Promotion/CBS/CPS/EC/UMB (Annxure R/2) but it is clarified here that the same were quashed by the same department and promotion of the application in GP-4600, L-7 of Chief Booking Supervisor (CBS) in Goods Office/PUL was cancelled as two major penalty charge sheets ie., SF-5 were pending against the applicant (Annxure R/3). Therefore, it is Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF Satyanar INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a 9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, ayana PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de094 53dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.31 13:24:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 7 crystal clear that the promotion orders of the applicant were not affected, and therefore, his transfer to Rampura Phul did not come into effect. The representation of the applicant was considered by the competent authority i.e., Sr.DCM/FS and it was observed that the claim of the applicant for over Time allowance is not as per the clause (i), (ii),
(iii) of para (I) and further sub clause (B), (C) of Clause (1) and sub clause (E) of clause (IV) of para (II) of Joint Accounts and Executive Procedure Office Order Serial No. 5917 Circular dated 15.06.1975.
Further, the claim of the applicant cannot be considered in view of Circular dated 12.02.1964 (Annexure R/5). The claim of the applicant was considered by the respondent-department and after sincere consideration it was rejected in view of the Railway Circulars dated 15.06.1975 (Annexure R/4) and 12.02.1964 (Annexure R/5). The representation of the applicant dated 13/14.03.2023 claiming the Over Time Allowance was examined by competent authority i.e., Sr.DCM/FS/UMB as it was found not as per rule and policy (Annexure R/6).
vii) On receipt of the replies from the Station Supervisors/BCU, SS/MOT, SS/GDB and SS/PUL, CMI/BTI, it was observed that the claim of the applicant seeking Over Time is arbitrary as the same was not verified by concerned supervisors as the entry of mentioned period was neither made in attendance register nor in Over Time registers (Annexure R/7). The orders dated 02.08.2023 is reasoned and speaking orders in itself and is based on Railway Circulars dated 15.06.1975 and 12.02.1964 according to which the overtime claim of the applicant is not maintainable.
4. The applicant has filed rejoinder wherein the applicant reiterated the contents of the O.A and emphasized on following submissions: Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF
Satyanar INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a 9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, ayana PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de094 53dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.31 13:24:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 8
i) The cause of recurring nature in the light of judgment passed by Hon'ble SC in case of MR Gupta v/s UOI (1996 AIR 669) and many more judgments like UOI VS Tarsem Singh (CIVIL APPEAL NO.5151- 5152 OF 2008) passed by Hon'ble SC. The over time register is maintained by the concerned Station Superintendent for which no role has to play by the applicant. Therefore, the respondents cannot take the advantage of their own wrong. However, the overtime claim of the applicant may be verified from their computerize data established and maintained by the respondent department in the name of NMS. The respondents have placed nothing on record to show that the applicant has not performed duty in access to rostered hours. The impugned order dated 02.08.2023 (Annexure A/5) has been passed without sufficient reason and is not at all justified as such not acceptable in the eyes of law. Since the applicant was working under the control and supervision of the Station Superintendent (erstwhile Station Masters as mentioned in the above printed serial number 5917) are responsible for maintenance of overtime registers properly and correctly.
ii) For this, applicant may not be held liable for the production of their records. Sub clause 2 of Para 1, Northern Railway PS no.5917 clearly says that the overtime claim are to be prepared and regularly submitted as per schedule programme and for the period fixed by the station superintendent at respective stations Where has the applicant has been forced to submit his overtime claim without insisting the concerned Station Superintendent in accordance with their own printed serial order mentioned above. However, under the compelling circumstances and in interest of his own claim the applicant has already submitted the overtime claim as demanded by the respondent No.3 but without any plausible reason the same has been rejected while passing the impugned order dated 02.08.2023 Annex. A5. Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF
Satyanar INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a 9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, ayana PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de094 53dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.31 13:24:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 9
iii) It is averred by the applicant in the rejoinder that para 2 of the above mention NRPS No.5917 also speaks that this Subordinate in charge (means Station Superintendent with reference to applicant) under whom the applicant has been working must keep in mind that it is legal responsibility :-
Para 2 (a):
The staff is booked to work overtime only Inescapable circumstances Para 2 (e):
The overtime of the staff who have work over and above the statutory limits fixed are prepared and submitted in time to avoid the infringement of provision of the Payment of Wages Act 1936 whereas the respondents have been failed to the perform their bounden duty to prepare and submit the overtime claim for the extra duty beyond the statutory limit performed by the applicant. Accordingly, the respondents cannot take the advantage of their wrong, if any, as held by many courts that the respondents cannot take the advantage of their own wrong and the applicant may not left to suffer on account of lapses of the respondents.
Para 2 (g) says:
The Assistant Personnel Inspectors (presently designated as Chief Welfare & labour Inspectors) while visiting any station of establishment will invariably check the overtime registers maintained by the Subordinate incharge of the establishment and see that instructions issued are rigidly followed by him. Any failure on the part of Subordinate Incharge should be brought to the books and he should be brought to book and he should be put wise about his legal responsibility. At this stage, the respondents have not wilfully rejected the claim of the applicant by simply saying that the Overtime register were not maintained at the respective station which were maintained Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF Satyanar INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a 9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, ayana PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de094 53dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.31 13:24:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 10 and checked by the Chief Welfare & labour Inspectors concerned (respondent No.6) time to time. Even then, the duty performed by the applicant can be verified from the attendance register of the respective stations. Further, it is not out of place to mention that the production of records is the duty of the respondents as held by many courts. Even, if not maintained, the applicant may not be held responsible for the lapses on the part of respondents themselves and the applicant had to play no role in maintain the Wagon Transfer Register (WTR). Copy of the NRPS No. 5197 issued by respondents is annexed as Annexure A/7.
iv) It is further averred by the applicant that it was very well in the notice of the all the respondents including Commercial Inspector (respondent No.5) inspecting the work & ledgers/registers of the applicant belonging to Commercial department that the applicant has been performing over & above statutory limits of hours of duty.
Therefore, the applicant has prayed that the instant OA be allowed.
5. Heard both the counsels and have gone through the pleadings and averments made in this case.
6. The main question in this case is whether the applicant should according to him, has performed his duty during his roster hours of the duty is entitled for OTA or not, irrespective of the fact that whether the claim for OTA has been put up by the applicant in time or not.
7. It has been seen that one claim of the applicant has already been considered and approved by the respondents on the basis of the recommendations from the concerned Station Master. The Tribunal is of the view that the record of performance beyond rostered hours of duty has to be with the respondents either in the biometric form or manual in the roster and this can be verified by the office record and the OTA claim of the applicant can be settled/rejected by a speaking order for the duration. The question of time barred claim will not come Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF Satyanar INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a 9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, ayana PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de094 53dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.31 13:24:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 11 into consideration as the respondents were also duty bound to notify that which employee has been put for duty beyond duty hours.
8. In view of these observations, the present OA is allowed with the direction to the respondents to consider and verify the claim of the applicant with their office record/register and pass a speaking order with regard to the claim of the applicant. The applicant is also directed to file his claim afresh with all the relevant papers to the respondents within a period of four weeks for further consideration and verification. The entire exercise be completed within a period of 12 weeks (4 weeks for making fresh representation and further 8 weeks for deciding those representations) after the receipt of a certified copy of this order.
9. With the aforesaid directions, the OA is allowed. MA No.536/2025 stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
(ANJALI BHAWRA)
MEMBER (A)
/sv/
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana
Vanapalli
DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF
Satyanar INDIA, OU=CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone=
6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a
9bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77,
ayana
PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN,
SERIALNUMBER=
053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de094
53dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59,
CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli
Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this
document
Location:
Date: 2025.10.31 13:24:44+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0