Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ayodhya Prasad Singh vs General Manager N C Rly on 21 August, 2025
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench
Allahabad
****
This is the 21st Day of August, 2025
Original Application No.175/2013
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)
Ayodhya Prasad Singh Son of Late Indra Bhan Singh and 4 others.
...........Applicants
By Advocate: Shri A.K. Srivastava
Versus
Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Central
Railway, Subedarganj, Allahabad & 2 others.
............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Ajay Kumar Rai
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking a direction to the respondents to promote the applicants against 60 posts under 80% quota of promotion to the post of Office Superintendent in PB-2 (₹9300-34800) with Grade Pay of ₹4200/-, with a further direction not to provide reservation to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the matter of such promotion.
2. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants have already been granted all the reliefs claimed in the present Original Application and therefore, no cause of action survives for further adjudication.
3. In view of the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the applicants' counsel, the Original Application stands disposed of as having become infructuous. No order as to costs. SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 21st Day of August, 2025 Original Application No.118/2015 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Altaf Ahmed Khan ...........Applicant By Advocate: None Versus Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Ajay Kumar Rai
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) List revised. None present for the applicant. However, Shri Ajay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents is preset.
2. From the perusal of the order sheets, it is evident that pursuant to the order of this Tribunal dated 18.07.2025, a registered notice was sent to the applicant on 23.07.2025. It is further noted by the Registry on 19.08.2025 that the unserved notice was received with the remarks "incomplete address." Since the matter relates to pay fixation pertaining to the year 2015, it appears that either the cause of action no longer survives or the applicant has lost interest in pursuing the case.
3. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
SUSHIL
KUMAR (Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
SRIVASTAVA
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 20th Day of August, 2025 Original Application No.1732/2014 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative) Pradeep Kumar S/o late Vishwanath Pradad R/o Quarter No.1495/A, Manas Nagar, Mughalsarai & 29 others.
...........Applicants By Advocate: Shri Rakesh Kumar Dixit Versus Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railways Hazipur (Bihar) & 11 others ............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Anil Kumar ORDER Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking quashing of the impugned orders dated 25.07.2014 and 20.02.2014 with a further prayer to direct the respondents to comply with the order dated 08.04.2011 in respect of the applicants herein, assign them the correct seniority vis-à-vis the applicants of O.A. No.1301/2003, and extend to them the same benefits which were granted to their juniors (applicants of O.A. No.1301/2003) along with all consequential benefits.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that due to the efflux of time, the Instant Original Application has become infructuous.
3. Therefore, considering the circumstances mentioned above, the Original Application is dismissed as having become infructuous. Any interim order stands vacated accordingly. No costs. SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Oral Order)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 14th Day of August, 2025 Original Application No.1086/2012 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Smt. Shanti Devi, Aged about 57 years, wife of Late Shyam Kishore, R/o Meja Road Railway Station, P.O. Meja Road, Allahabad, District Allahabad.
...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri Ashish Srivastava Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, Head Quarter North Central Railway, Subedarganj, Allahabad.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad.
3. Senior Divisional Personal Officer, North Central Railway, Allahabad.
............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Bashist Tiwari
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) Heard Shri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Bashist Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Instant Original Application has been filed by the applicant SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following main relief(s):-
"i. This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to refix the salary of the late husband of the applicant by giving benefit of ACP and accordingly the family pension of the applicant may be revised.
ii. This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the arrears of the fixation with admissible interest thereupon."
3. The brief facts of the case, as per the Original Application, are as under:-
3.1 The husband of the applicant late Shyam Kishore, entered railway service in the year 1979-80 as Khalasi under the office of Respondent No. 2, North Central Railway, Allahabad. In due course, he was extended the benefit of CPC pay scales and was placed in the grade of Helper Grade-I, where he continued to serve till his demise on 05.01.2011.
3.2 On 01.10.1999, the Railway Board introduced the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme for its employees, under which financial upgradations were to be granted on completion of 12 years and 24 years of regular service. Later on, by circular dated 10.11.2004, Respondent No. 3 directed all concerned authorities to implement the scheme and furnish details of eligible employees, clarifying that half of the casual service together with full service after conferment of temporary status would count towards the qualifying service for ACP.
3.3 As the said scheme was not being uniformly implemented, several employees approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. Nos.
398/2008, 107/2009 and 443/2009, which were disposed of with directions to the respondents to extend ACP benefits in accordance with the applicable rules and earlier orders.
SUSHIL KUMAR 3.4 In compliance to the aforesaid order, the respondents granted SRIVASTAVA the benefit of ACP to Helper Khalasies by counting half of their casual service and arrears were also paid.
3.5 The applicant's husband also represented for similar benefit on 12.09.2009. When the same was not considered, he along with other similarly placed employees filed O.A. No. 379/2010, which was disposed of on 26.03.2010 with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation by a reasoned and speaking order.
3.6 The respondents vide order dated 02.07.2010, rejected the representation of the applicant by observing that earlier implementations were not in consonance with the Railway Board's circular dated 17.08.2004. Aggrieved thereby, Shri Shyam Kishore and others filed O.A. No. 475/2011.
3.7 Unfortunately, during the pendency of the said proceedings, Shri Shyam Kishore expired on 05.01.2011. Thereafter, the applicant was sanctioned family pension at the rate of ₹5,480/- per month, which she is presently drawing.
3.8 The grievance of the applicant is that the pension and family pension are calculated on the basis of the last pay drawn by the deceased employee and if her husband had granted the second ACP on completion of 24 years of service, his pay would have been fixed at a higher stage, thereby entitling her to enhanced family pension. Hence, the present Original Application has been filed by the applicant (wife of deceased employee) seeking extension of ACP benefit and consequential revision of family pension accordingly.
4. Counter Affidavit has been filed from the side of the respondents SUSHIL KUMAR on 14.03.2013 wherein they have denied the claim of the applicant and SRIVASTAVA stated that:-
4.1 The husband of the applicant, late Shri Shyam Kishore was initially appointed as Khalasi and later on promoted as Helper Grade-
I on 01.03.1993 after empanelment on 17.08.1989. He was duly granted CPC pay scales during his service and was also extended the benefit of the first financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme on completion of 12 years of service.
4.2 Although Shri Shyam Kishore would have become due for the second financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme on completion of 24 years in 2011, the ACP Scheme had already been replaced by the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme with effect from 01.09.2008 under the 6th CPC. Accordingly, he was granted benefits under the MACP Scheme and no further benefit under the repealed ACP Scheme can be claimed.
4.3 The service of the deceased employee was duly reckoned in accordance with Railway Board's directives and all admissible benefits under the prevailing scheme were already granted to him during his lifetime. The claim of the applicant that further financial upgradation or enhanced pension is due, is misconceived.
4.4 The order dated 02.07.2010 passed by the Divisional Personnel Officer, Allahabad in compliance of this Tribunal's earlier direction in O.A. No. 379 of 2010, wherein the claim for counting of casual service towards ACP was specifically rejected as not being in consonance with the Railway Board's instructions. Hence, the respondents submit that the Original Application is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
SUSHIL
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant again placed KUMAR SRIVASTAVA reliance on the impugned order dated 02.07.2010 and stated that in the second last para of the aforesaid order, the respondents have themselves recorded that, as far as the MACP Scheme is concerned, in accordance with the directions dated 01.09.2008 and Railway Board's letter dated 10.06.2009, the case of financial upgradation of the petitioner along with similarly situated employees was under
consideration, and if found eligible, financial benefits under the MACP Scheme would be extended to them.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the entitlement of the deceased employee to second financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme on completion of 24 years of service is evident from the very scheme itself and denial thereof has resulted in financial loss to the applicant by way of reduced family pension. He emphasized that the impugned order dated 02.07.2010 itself acknowledges that the case of the deceased was under consideration for financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme as per Railway Board's instructions dated 01.09.2008 read with letter dated 10.06.2009 and once such admission was made, the respondents were bound to extend the benefit rather than indefinitely keeping it pending. It is further stated that pension is a continuing cause of action and denial of rightful fixation of pay of the deceased employee directly affects the family pension of the applicant, thereby necessitating intervention of this Tribunal.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the deceased employee was already extended the benefit of first ACP and subsequently covered under the MACP Scheme introduced w.e.f. 01.09.2008, under which financial upgradation was duly considered in accordance with Railway Board's circulars. It is submitted that the SUSHIL second ACP benefit claimed by the applicant is untenable as the ACP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Scheme itself stood superseded before the deceased could complete 24 years of service and no vested right could accrue in respect of a repealed scheme. Learned counsel further contended that all admissible benefits were already granted during the lifetime of the deceased and the impugned order dated 02.07.2010 only clarified the legal position as per Railway Board's directives; therefore, the present claim is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.
8. 8. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the material placed on record. The short issue for determination is whether the deceased employee, late Shri Shyam Kishore, was entitled to consideration for financial upgradation under the ACP/MACP Scheme and the consequential revision of family pension payable to the applicant.
9. It is not in dispute that the husband of the applicant was initially appointed as Khalasi and later promoted as Helper Grade-I and had completed more than three decades of service in the Railways. It is also admitted in the second last para of the impugned order dated 02.07.2010 passed by the Divisional Personnel Officer, Allahabad, that "as far as the MACP Scheme is concerned, in accordance with the directions dated 01.09.2008 and Railway Board's letter dated 10.06.2009, the case of financial upgradation of the petitioner along with similarly situated employees is under consideration and if found eligible, financial benefits under the MACP Scheme will be extended to them."
10. Once such an admission has been made in the respondents' own order, they are duty bound to conclude the process of consideration instead of keeping the matter pending indefinitely. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that pension and retiral benefits are a measure of socio-economic security and must be construed liberally in favour of employees and their dependents [D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305]. It is equally settled that pension and family pension are continuing causes of action and any denial of rightful fixation results in recurring financial loss to the beneficiary [State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334].
11. It is true that after 01.09.2008, the ACP Scheme stood superseded by the Modified ACP (MACP) Scheme, as explained by the Hon'ble SUSHIL Supreme Court in Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair, (2020) 5 SCC KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
421. However, even under the MACP Scheme, the respondents were required to examine eligibility and extend financial upgradation where due. In the present case, the respondents themselves recorded in the impugned order dated 02.07.2010 that the case of the deceased employee was "under consideration" for financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme. Such a stand creates a legitimate expectation in favour of the employee and, by succession, his widow, which cannot be left unaddressed.
12. In view of the above discussion, the Original Application is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The respondents shall consider and finalize the case of late Shri Shyam Kishore for grant of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme strictly in terms of Railway Board's instructions dated 01.09.2008 read with letter dated 10.06.2009 and other applicable circulars.
(ii) In the event the deceased employee is found eligible for financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme, his pay shall be refixed accordingly, and the family pension of the applicant shall be revised on that basis.
(iii) Arrears of pay fixation, if any, and arrears of revised family pension along with admissible allowances shall be released to the applicant within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(iv) If the respondents fail to comply with the aforesaid directions within the stipulated period, the applicant shall be entitled to simple interest @ 6% per annum on the arrears from the date they fell due till actual payment.
13. The Original Application is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA (Oral Order) Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 18th Day of August, 2025 Original Application No.751/2025 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative) Vimlesh Kumar Soni aged about 38 years son of Shivram Soni, resident of M.I.G. 88, Pritam Nagar Allahabad (Now Prayagraj).
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri I.R. Khan
Versus
1. Union of India Ministry of Steel, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi through its Secretary.
2. Chairman and Managing Director Steel Authority of India Limited Isbat Bhawan, Lodhi Road New Delhi 110003.
3. Director In-charge Durgapur Steel Plant, Durgapur West Bengal 712203.
4. Branch Manager Branch Sales Office Ispat Bhawan 22-A Muir Road Prayagraj/Allahabad U.P. ............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan ORDER Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) Heard Chaudhary Niyaz Ahmad Khan, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri I.R. Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents. SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
2. Instant Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following main relief(s):-
"i. This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash the order of acceptance of the conditional resignation dated 07.11.2022 of the applicant and rejection of withdrawal dated 19.08.2024 and also quash the resolution of penal rent.
ii. This Hon'ble Tribunal may in alternate direct the respondents to release all the arrears of salary and funds including the retrials benefit of the applicants forthwith or within a period as stipulated by this Hon'ble Tribunal. "
3. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant was serving as Managing Technician under the respondents and while posted at Allahabad, he was transferred to Durgapur Steel Plant by order dated 18.02.2019. He was relieved on 07.03.2019. His request for cancellation of transfer on account of the serious illness of his parents was, however, not accepted and was rejected on 07.09.2019. The applicant thereafter did not join at the transferred place.
4. It is further stated by the applicant's counsel that the applicant being under compulsion, tendered resignation, which was subsequently accepted on 07.11.2022.
5. The grievance of the applicant is that the resignation was conditional and, therefore, could not have been accepted in law. Further, his subsequent request for withdrawal of resignation ought to have been allowed and that the respondents acted illegally in rejecting it on 19.08.2024. The applicant also assails the imposition of penal rent on the ground that he could not vacate the official accommodation at Allahabad because of the Covid-19 situation and his family circumstances.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submit that transfer is an incidence of service and the plea of medical hardship, though examined and did not justify exemption. He further submits that the applicant voluntarily tendered resignation, which was accepted by the competent authority on 07.11.2022 and that withdrawal was sought much later i.e. after the resignation had taken effect. It is also stated that the applicant's continued retention of government accommodation at Allahabad after his relieving from that unit was unauthorized, attracting liability of penal rent under the rules.
7. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
8. Transfer is a normal condition of service and every employee is required to serve wherever posted. Personal hardship, even when genuine, does not vest in the employee a right to remain at a particular station. In this case, the applicant's representation was duly considered but rejected by the competent authority, which cannot be said to be arbitrary or unlawful.
9. As regards the resignation, the record clearly shows that it was tendered by the applicant and accepted on 07.11.2022 by the Competent Authority wherein it is stated that "Resignation tendered by Shri Vimlesh Kumar Soni, T/No.490026, SAIL P.No.D001898 Manager (PPCD), is hereby accepted with effect from 12.12.2022 (A/N). This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority." The contention of the applicant's counsel that it was conditional is not borne out by evidence. Once resignation is accepted, the relationship of employer and employee stands severed. The law in this regard is well settled by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra (1978) 2 SCC 301, Punjab National Bank v. P.K. Mittal (1989) 2 SCC 175 and Ravindra Singh Vs. State of M.P. (1995) 3 SLJ 65 (SC), where it SUSHIL KUMAR has been held that after acceptance of resignation, an employee cannot, SRIVASTAVA as a matter of right, insist upon withdrawal unless the rules specifically permit. The applicant sought withdrawal in August 2024, nearly two years after acceptance. By then, the resignation had been fully acted upon. The rejection of the withdrawal request therefore cannot be faulted.
10. On the question of penal rent, it is admitted that the applicant continued to occupy official accommodation at Allahabad despite having been relieved on 07.03.2019. The rules clearly stipulate that such retention beyond the permissible period is unauthorized and attracts penal rent. The plea that Covid-19 prevented compliance does not carry weight, as the transfer and relieved orders were issued much before the onset of Covid-19 in 2020. The action of the respondents in levying penal rent and adjusting it against retiral dues is therefore perfectly justified under the rules.
11. While this Tribunal is not unmindful of the personal difficulties faced by the applicant on account of the illness of his parents, service matters are required to be adjudicated in accordance with established principles and applicable rules. In the present case, the respondents' actions are consistent with law, and no arbitrariness or illegality is demonstrated.
12. For the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal finds no merit in the present Original Application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed at the admission stage.
13. There shall be no order as to costs.
All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 18th Day of August, 2025 Original Application No.1116/2011 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative) Ram Prasad son of Shri Karora, Resident of House No.1072, Masihaganj, Sipari Bazar, District Jhansi.
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri H.K. Tripathi
Versus
1. Union of India through its General Manager, North Central Railway, Jhansi & 2 others. .
............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Atul Kumar Shahi
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) Instant Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeks for setting aside the order dated 11.10.2010 passed by Respondent No.2 with a further to direct the respondents to absorb/regularize the services of applicant on a Group 'D' post within stipulated time in view of regularization scheme.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that due to the efflux of time, the Instant Original Application has become infructuous.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents did not oppose the applicant's request.
4. Therefore, considering the circumstances mentioned above, the Original Application is dismissed as having become infructuous. Any interim order stands vacated accordingly. No costs. SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 14th Day of August, 2025 Original Application No.490/2018 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Pramod Kumar Tiwari ...........Applicant By Advocate : Shri Dharmendra Tiwari (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Suraj Singh
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Case called out. None present for the applicant. However, Shri Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the respondents is present.
2. The matter is very old and pertains to the year 2018 and relating to removal from service. It appears that either the cause of action is not survive or the applicant has lost in interest in pursuing the matter.
3. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
SUSHIL Sushil
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 14th Day of August, 2025 Original Application No.335/2015 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) R.K. Tiwari ...........Applicant By Advocate : Shri S.J. Ishtiaque (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Vidyapati Tripathi ORDER Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Case called out. None present for the applicant. However, Shri Vidyapati Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents is present.
2. The matter is very old and pertains to the year 2015 and relating to promotion. It appears that either the cause of action is not survive or the applicant has lost in interest in pursuing the matter.
3. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
SUSHIL Sushil
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Oral Order)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 12th Day of August , 2025 Original Application No.516/2025 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Jitendra Kumar aged about 34 years son of Bhagwan Das, Resident of H. No.48, Bila Dakshin, District Mahoba. Presently poste as Track-Maintainer- I, Unit No.138 Under Senior Section Engineer/Pathway/Banda.
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri S.K. Maurya
Versus
1. The Union of India through General Manager, North Central Railway, Subedarganj, Prayagraj.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Jhansi.
3. Divisional Railway Manager/Engineer/Karmik/North-Central Railway, Jhansi.
4. Additional Divisional Engineer (Central) North-Central Railway, Jhansi.
5. Senior Divisional Engineer North-Central Railway, Jhansi.
6. Senior Section Engineer/Pathway/North-Central Railway, Banda, Jhansi Division.
............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Anil Kumar
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) SUSHIL KUMAR Heard S.K. Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri SRIVASTAVA Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. With the consent of leaned counsel for both the parties, this Original Application is being head and disposed of at the admission stage itself.
3. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant seeking for the following main relief(s):-
"(i) Direction to the concerning respondents to correct the pay-
scale/salary of the applicant at par to the similarly situated employee having been appointed on 24.07.2013.
(ii) further direction to the concerning respondents to pay the arrears of salary with all consequential benefits with interest to the applicant forthwith since Financial Year 2016 (from which year the anomaly in promotion and pay scale has arisen) till date, as due to wrong fixation of pay; junior s to the applicant are drawing more salary than the applicant."
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was appointed on 24.07.2013 on the post of Gangman under the LARGESS Scheme in place of his father, who was a permanent employee of the respondents' department. It is stated that in the service book of the applicant, his date of appointment was erroneously entered as 26.07.2013. This error was subsequently corrected by the competent authority vide letter dated 19.01.2024.
5. The grievance of the applicant is that due to the said wrong entry, his promotions to higher grades carrying Grade Pay ₹1900, ₹2400, and ₹2800 were delayed in comparison to his juniors, who were appointed later but promoted earlier, thereby drawing higher pay since 2016. Although his seniority has now been corrected vide provisional list dated 07.04.2025, his pay fixation and arrears have not been rectified till date.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that several SUSHIL KUMAR representations have already been made to the authorities, including SRIVASTAVA letters dated 20.03.2023, 02.04.2024, and 10.04.2025, but no decision has been taken on the applicant's claim for refixation of pay and consequential benefits.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present O.A. raises several disputed questions of fact pertaining to the applicant's service records, dates of promotion, seniority position and pay fixation, which require thorough verification from the departmental records. He therefore seeks some time to obtain instructions from the department.
8. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant would be satisfied if liberty is granted to him to submit a comprehensive representation incorporating all his grievances with supporting documents and if the competent authority amongst the respondents is directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated time frame.
9. In view of the above and considering the consensus arrived at between the parties, the Original Application is disposed of at the admission stage itself, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, with the direction to the applicant to submit a comprehensive and consolidated representation setting out all his grievances relating to his date of appointment, promotions, seniority position, pay fixation, and consequential monetary benefits, along with all relevant supporting documents to the competent authority amongst the respondents. Such representation shall be submitted within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
SUSHIL 10. Further, on receipt of the aforesaid representation, the KUMAR SRIVASTAVA competent authority is directed to decide the same after verifying the relevant service records and taking into account the applicable rules, policies, and instructions in force and pass a reasoned and speaking order on the applicant's representation within a further period of two months from the date of receipt of such representation. In the event the applicant is found entitled to any monetary or service-related benefits, same shall be released to him as early as possible.
11. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Oral Order)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the ___________ Day of August , 2025 Original Application No.1048/2021 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Mohd. Saleem a/a 67 years, S/o Late Abdul Sattar Retired Technician-I (PED) Jaunpur. Resident of House No.65 Shahabuddinpur Bhandari Station Road Post Sadar, District Jaunpur U.P. ...........Applicant By Advocate: Mohd. Sarwar Khan Versus
1. The Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway, Ajmeri Gate, New Delhi.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Lucknow.
............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Saurabh
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Heard Mr. Mohd Sarwar Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Sunil holding brief of Shri Saurabh, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The present Original Application has been filed by the SUSHIL KUMAR applicant seeking for the following main relief(s):-
SRIVASTAVA "a. To issue an order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to re-fixed the last drawn salary on the basis of promotion as Sr. Tech (PED) in PB 9300- 34800 with GP 4200/ and give all the post retiral benefits after re-fixation of the salary and rest past deferential balance amount between GP 2800 and GP 4200 be also allowed in favour of the applicant and give the arrears.
II. To issue an order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to decide the representation of the applicant dated 13.1.2020 by reasoned and speaking order within fortnight."
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was initially appointed as Electrician Khalasi on 19.08.1978 in the pay scale of ₹196-232 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Technician-I (Pump Engine Driver) during his service in Northern Railway. He superannuated from service on 31.03.2013 while drawing a pay of ₹15,110/- in the pay band of ₹5200- 20200 with Grade Pay ₹2800/-.
4. It is further submitted that prior to the retirement of the applicant a process was initiated for promotion to the post of Senior Technician (PED) in PB ₹9300-34800 with GP ₹4200/-. The result of the suitability test was declared on 21.06.2013, after the applicant had already retired. Further, his name appeared at Serial No. 5 in the select list, with a remark that he had already superannuated on 31.03.2013. The final promotion order was issued on 29.06.2013, promoting those who were still in service, while excluding the applicant on account of his retirement.
5. The grievance of the applicant is that the delay in issuance SUSHIL KUMAR of the promotion order was deliberate and due to administrative SRIVASTAVA lapses. He submits that if the respondents had acted in a timely manner, the promotion could have been granted prior to his superannuation. He claims that such delay has caused him significant prejudice, as he has been deprived of financial benefits that would have accrued from the higher post. He further submits that he has made repeated representations, including on 19.08.2014 and 13.01.2020 and also approached the authorities under the Right to Information Act on 13.11.2019, but has received no effective redressal.
6. To the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submits that while the applicant's name did appear in the suitability list, he was not in service on the date of issuance of the promotion order. He states that mere inclusion in a selection or suitability list does not confer any vested or enforceable right to promotion, particularly when the concerned employee has already superannuated. Since no promotion order was issued in favour of the applicant during his service tenure, no claim for retrospective promotion or consequential benefits can be entertained.
7. It is a settled position in service jurisprudence that inclusion in a suitability or select list does not create an indefeasible right to promotion. The Apex Court and High Courts have consistently held that promotion becomes effective only from the date of issuance of the promotion order and not from the date of inclusion in the panel or list. Furthermore, once an employee retires from service, he ceases to have any legal entitlement to be promoted unless a specific provision or rule permits post-retirement SUSHIL KUMAR promotion for the purpose of pension revision, which is not the case SRIVASTAVA herein.
8. In the present case, there is no dispute that the applicant retired from service on 31.03.2013 and that the promotion order was issued on 29.06.2013. There is also no evidence on record to show that a promotion order in favour of the applicant was either approved or kept in abeyance prior to his retirement. In the absence of any formal promotion order before retirement, no accrued or vested right can be claimed by the applicant. While the delay in finalizing the promotion process may be regrettable, such administrative delays do not entitle a retired employee to claim promotion retrospectively as a matter of right, particularly when such promotion carries financial implications. Accordingly, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the reliefs sought by the applicant are not sustainable either on facts or in law. The Original Application lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
9. In view of the above, the Original Application is dismissed.
10. There shall be no order as to costs.
All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 01st Day of August, 2025 Original Application No.516/2019 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Smt. Krishna Tarsolia deceased represented through LR Mahesh Kumar Tarsolia ...........Applicant By Advocate : Shri R K R Sharma (Not present) Shri P K Srivastava (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri D.S. Shukla
ORDER
List has been revised. None present for the applicant. However, Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. The matter is very old and pertains to the year 2016. It appears that either the cause of action is not survive or the applicant has lost in interest in pursuing the matter.
3. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
SUSHIL
KUMAR (Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
SRIVASTAVA
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 01st Day of August, 2025 Original Application No.288/2016 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Jai Ram Sharma ...........Applicant By Advocate : Shri Rajesh Kumar (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey ORDER List has been revised. None present for the applicant. However, Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. The matter is very old and pertains to the year 2016. It appears that either the cause of action is not survive or the applicant has lost in interest in pursuing the matter.
3. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
SUSHIL Member (A) Member (J)
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
Sushil
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 01st Day of August, 2025 Original Application No.1116/2013 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Kalyan Shah & others ...........Applicant By Advocate : Shri Manoj Kumar Srivastava (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri M.P. Mishra (Not present) Shri Arun Kumar Gupta (Not present) ORDER List has been revised. None present for either of the parties.
2. The matter is very old and pertains to the year 2013. It appears that either the cause of action is not survive or the applicant has lost in interest in pursuing the matter.
3. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
SUSHIL Member (A) Member (J)
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
Sushil
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 31st Day of July, 2025 Original Application No.1580/2013 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) U P P P S Association ...........Applicant By Advocate : Shri N.P. Singh Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri K.P. Singh
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Shri N.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri K.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has not received any instructions from the applicant for quite some time and, therefore, is unable to proceed with the matter.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the issue involved pertains to cadre review. He further points out that the applicant has already superannuated and in such circumstances, the reliefs claimed in the Original Application are not admissible.
4. In view of the above facts and the continued non- prosecution of the matter by the applicant, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. SUSHIL KUMAR 5. All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, also stand SRIVASTAVA disposed of accordingly.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 24th Day of July, 2025 Original Application No.652/2014 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Gore Lal ...........Applicant By Advocate : Shri N.P. Singh (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri R.K. Srivastava (Not present) ORDER List has been revised. None present for either of the parties.
2. The matter is very old and pertains to the year 2014. It appears that either the cause of action is not survive or the applicant has lost in interest in pursuing the matter.
3. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
SUSHIL
KUMAR Sushil
SRIVASTAVA
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** Diary (Original Application) No.3888/2025 This the 21st Day of July, 2025.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Awadhesh Chandra S/o Swami Nath Singh R/o EWS-597, Awas Vikas- 3, Panki Kalyanpur Road, Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh 208017.
........... Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Amar Deep Sharma
Versus
1. Union of India through Principal Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi.
2. The Director General of Field Gun Factory, Kanpur Ministry of Defence, Government of India 208009.
3. Pratima Gupta, Additional Director General Field Gun Factory, Kanpur Ministry of Defence, Government of India 208009.
............ Respondents By Advocate: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan ORDER Heard Shri Amar Deep Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. From the office report, it is found that there is some defect in the OA such as the Delay Application need to be filed, Departmental Appeal not filed and Annexure A-13 not complete.
3. Further, the learned counsel for the applicant also stated that there is some mistake in the pleadings of the Original Application and as such he does not wants to press this Original Application. Therefore, he request to dismiss the OA with liberty to file afresh.
SUSHIL 4. Under these circumstances and taking into consideration the KUMAR statement made by learned counsel for the applicant, the Original SRIVASTAVA Application is dismissed as not pressed. However, applicant is at liberty to file fresh application in accordance with law.
(Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (Judicial) Sushil SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA (Open Court) Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 24th Day of July, 2025 Original Application No.1134/2019 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Ram Ajor Maurya ...........Applicant Applicant in person: (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Devendra Pratap Singh ORDER List has been revised. The applicant who argue his case in person, is not present today. However, Shri Devendra Pratap Singh, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. The matter is very old and pertains to the year 2019. It appears that either the cause of action is not survive or the applicant has lost in interest in pursuing the matter.
3. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
SUSHIL (Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
KUMAR Member (A) Member (J)
SRIVASTAVA
Sushil
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 24th Day of July, 2025 Original Application No.1329/2012 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Aswani Kumar Srivastava ...........Applicant By Advocate : Shri Vinod Kumar (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Bablu Singh (Not present) ORDER List has been revised. None present for either of the parties.
2. The matter is very old and pertains to the year 2012. It appears that either the cause of action is not survive or the applicant has lost in interest in pursuing the matter.
3. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
SUSHIL
KUMAR Sushil
SRIVASTAVA
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 23 Day of July, 2025 rd Original Application No.675/2025 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Abhijeet Kumar aged about 39 years, S/o Sri Arvind Sharma, R/o Mohalla - Lodipur Zamaniya, Post Zamaniya Kasba, District - Ghazipur.
...........Applicant
By Advocates: Shri Gaurav Gautam
Ms. Shrishti Singh
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Director, Postal Services, Varanasi Region, Varanasi.
3. Post Master General, Varanasi Region, Varanasi.
4. Superintendent of Post Offices, Ghazipur, District Ghazipur.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayab ORDER Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Heard Shri Gaurav Gautam along with Ms. Shrishti Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the Original Application is being heard and disposed of at the admission stage itself. SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
3. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant, Shri Abhijeet Kumar, primarily seeking a direction to the respondent-3 for expeditious disposal of his departmental appeal dated 11.07.2025, which has been filed against the penalty order dated 07.07.2025 passed by Respondent No. 4.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant was appointed as Postal Assistant on 27.04.2009 in Bulandshahar (U.P.) and was subsequently transferred to Ghazipur Division under Rule 38 of the Postal Manual Vol. IV. A charge sheet dated 05.05.2025 was issued to him regarding alleged irregularities during his tenure as Assistant (Stock Section), Divisional Office, Ghazipur, for the period 28.08.2016 to 04.11.2018.
5. The grievance of the applicant is that during the reply period, he was medically unfit due to spinal injury and was advised bed rest. Despite this, the penalty order dated 07.07.2025 was passed without granting him a opportunity to defend. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant has already preferred a departmental appeal dated 11.07.2025 before Respondent No. 3 against the aforesaid penalty order but the same has not yet been decided. Therefore, he restricts his prayer and confines his relief to a direction for early disposal of the said appeal in accordance with law.
6. To the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents, Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, submits that the penalty order dated 07.07.2025 was passed in accordance with the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, after due service of the charge sheet upon the applicant and granting him an opportunity to submit his reply. He further submits that the departmental appeal dated 11.07.2025 filed by the applicant is under active consideration SUSHIL and will be decided as per rules and procedure. KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
7. In view of the limited nature of relief sought by the applicant and considering the assurance given on behalf of the respondents that the departmental appeal dated 11.07.2025 is under active consideration, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to dispose of the present Original Application with a direction to the competent authority, i.e., Respondent No. 3, to consider and decide the applicant's pending departmental appeal dated 11.07.2025 strictly in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
8. It is made clear that this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
9. With the above direction, the Original Application stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (J) Sushil SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA (Open Court) Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 16 Day of July, 2025 th Misc. Application (Delay Condonation Application) No.655/2025 In Diary (Original Application) No.862/2025 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Raj Kumari Wife of Late Virendra Kumar, Resident of 85/38, Cooperganj, Laxmipurwa, Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. PIN-208003.
...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri Shashank Tripathi Versus
1. General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
2. Divisional Railway Manager/Divisional Traffic Manager, Lucknow.
3. Regional Manager, North-Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
4. Station Superintendent, North-Eastern Railway, Bangai.
5. Assistant Traffic Manager, North Eastern Railway, Lucknow. (Disciplinary Authority).
............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Anil Kumar
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Heard Shri Shashank Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Instant Misc. Application has been filed by the applicant(s) seeking SUSHIL KUMAR condonation of delay in filing the accompanying Original Application SRIVASTAVA registered as Diary No. 862/2025.
3. The main relief sought by the applicant in the Original Application is to quash the removal order dated 30.06.2017 passed against the applicant's husband, late Virendra Kumar and to treat him in service till his death on 21.08.2022, along with a prayer for payment of arrears of salary, family pension, and other consequential benefits.
4. It is stated by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a poor widow and had no knowledge of the removal order passed against her husband during his lifetime. It is contended that the applicant came to know about the impugned order only recently and upon legal advice, filed the present application. It is submitted that the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional but occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the applicant.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has strongly opposed the delay condonation application by filing objection dated 05.04.2025. It has been submitted that the removal order dated 30.06.2017 was passed after following due process of law and was duly served upon the applicant's husband. The delinquent employee never challenged the order during his lifetime nor submitted any representation or objection. The present application, filed after more than seven and a half years, is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as being hopelessly barred by time. Reliance is placed on several decisions of the Apex Court, including Union of India v. Harnam Singh, Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India and Bhoop Singh v. Union of India, to contend that inordinate and unexplained delay is a valid ground to deny relief.
6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the removal order dated 30.06.2017 was passed against the applicant's husband and remained unchallenged throughout his lifetime. The applicant has not produced any cogent material or specific dates to substantiate the plea that she became aware of the said SUSHIL KUMAR order only recently. The explanation offered for the delay is vague, general, SRIVASTAVA and does not satisfy the test of "sufficient cause" as required under Section 21(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act.
7. The law on delay and limitation is well settled. Mere filing of representations or ignorance of an order cannot be a ground for condonation of delay, particularly when the delay is of more than seven years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhoop Singh (supra) and Harish Uppal (supra) has categorically held that inordinate and unexplained delay is sufficient to deny relief regardless of the merits of the case.
8. In the present case, the applicant has failed to explain each day's delay or demonstrate any justifiable cause for approaching the Tribunal at such a belated stage. The inaction of the applicant and her late husband over such an extended period reflects complete laches and negligence.
9. In view of the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the delay in filing the Original Application is inordinate and not satisfactorily explained. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay is rejected. As a result, the Dy. No.862/2025 (Original Application) also stands dismissed as barred by limitation.
10. No order as to costs.
All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (J) Sushil SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA (Open Court) Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 22 Day of July, 2025 nd Original Application No.282/2013 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Swatantra Kumar Agarwal ...........Applicant By Advocate: None Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Raghvendra Pratap Singh ORDER List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. However, Shri Raghvendra Pratap Singh, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. As per the office report dated 28.02.2024 as well as fresh report dated 11.09.2025, registered notice has been sent to the applicant. However, till date neither any unserved notice has been received nor any counsel appears to press the matter. Further, the matter relates to MACP and pertaining to the year 2013. It appears that either the cause of action is not surviving or the applicant has lost interest to pursue the case.
3. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
SUSHIL
KUMAR (Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
SRIVASTAVA Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Oral Order)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 08 Day of July, 2025 th Original Application No.1017/2014 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Satya Prakash Dwivedi son of Sri S.N. Dwivedi, Resident of Kawabagh Railway Colony, Fost Office Kawabgh, District Gorakhpur-273012.
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri S.K. Om
Versus
1. Union of India, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, through its Secretary.
2. Chairman, Railway Board, Union of India, Badauda House, New Delhi.
3. General Manager (Karmik), North-East Railway, Gorakhpur-
273012.
4. Principal, Senior Secondary School, North-East Railway, Kawabagh, Gorakhpur-273012.
............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Ajay Kumar Rai
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Heard Pradeep Kumar Mishra holding brief of Shri Sanjay Kumar Om, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ajay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. With the consent of the learned counsel for both parties, the matter is SUSHIL KUMAR being heard and decided finally. SRIVASTAVA
3. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant seeking for the following main relief(s):-
"a. to issue a direction to the respondent No.3 to fix the salary of the applicant with effect from01.01.2006 in the pay band of Rs.9870+Rs.4200 as grade pay (Rs.14070) according to Rule 7(ii) of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 and according to the order dated 10.02.2009 passed by the South - East Railway, Kharagpur with all consequential benefits.
b. To issue a directing to the respondent No.3 to pay the entire arrears of salary to the applicant after fixation of his pay with effect from 01.01.2006 on pay band of Rs.9870+ Rs.4200/- as grade pay (total Rs.14070/-) along with 10% interest per annum from 01.01.2006 till the date of actual payment."
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was appointed as a Primary School Teacher under the North-East Railway on 28.02.2001 in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000 and was drawing a basic pay of Rs. 5000/- as on 01.01.2006. He further submitted that upon implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations and issuance of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, Rule 7(ii) of the said Rules provided for the grant of an additional increment in cases where pay bunching occurred. He submits that Primary School Teachers under the South-East Railway, who were similarly placed and drawing the same basic pay as the applicant, were extended the benefit of bunching and had their pay fixed at Rs. 9870/- in Pay Band-2 with a Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-, totaling Rs. 14,070/- with effect from 01.01.2006.
5. The grievance of the applicant is that despite being identically situated, the applicant was denied the same benefit by the respondents without any valid justification. In this regard, the applicant submitted a detailed representation dated 12.08.2013 to Respondent No. 3 seeking parity but no decision has been communicated to him till date.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted SUSHIL that the applicant's pay was correctly fixed in accordance with the KUMAR SRIVASTAVA provisions of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 and the fitment tables issued by the Railway Board. It is contended that the applicant, who was drawing a basic pay of Rs.5000/- as on 01.01.2006 is rightly placed in the revised pay band of Rs. 9300-34800 with a Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-, which corresponds to his pre-revised basic pay as per the official fitment chart. Therefore, the fixation of the applicant's pay at Rs. 9300/- + GP Rs. 4200/- is as per the applicable rules and there is no error or irregularity in the matter.
7. He further submitted that the benefit of bunching under Rule 7(ii) of the Revised Pay Rules, 2008 is not to be granted automatically, but only when the specific conditions laid down therein are fulfilled. The respondents, after receiving various representations on similar issues, examined the matter in consultation with the Accounts Department and concluded that the bunching benefit was not applicable in the applicant's case. This decision was duly communicated to the concerned authorities vide letter dated 25.04.2012.
8. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the order dated 28.02.2013 passed by the Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 141/2012 (S.C. Sharma vs. Union of India & Others) and submitted that an identical issue has already been decided in the said case. He further stated that the applicant would be satisfied if a direction is issued to respondent No. 3 to decide the applicant's pending representation dated 12.08.2013 in light of the aforesaid order passed by the Jabalpur Bench.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The core grievance of the applicant relates to non- extension of the benefit of bunching under Rule 7(ii) of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, which, according to the applicant, has been granted to similarly situated Primary School Teachers under the South-East Railway, Kharagpur. It is not in dispute that the applicant SUSHIL submitted a detailed representation dated 12.08.2013 to Respondent No.3 KUMAR SRIVASTAVA seeking similar treatment, but no reasoned or speaking order has been passed on the said representation till date.
10. In service jurisprudence, particularly where financial entitlements are involved, a reasoned decision by the competent authority is not only desirable but legally necessary. While this Tribunal does not propose to go into the merits of the applicant's claim at this stage, in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that the applicant's representation deserves to be considered afresh by the competent authority in accordance with law.
11. Accordingly, this Original Application is disposed of with a direction to Respondent No.3 to consider and decide the applicant's representation dated 12.08.2013 by passing a reasoned and speaking order, keeping in view the provisions of Rule 7(ii) of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, the Railway Board's instructions and the order dated 28.02.2013 passed by the Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 141/2012 (S.C. Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors), within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
12. It is made clear that this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
13. There shall be no order as to costs.
All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 08th Day of July, 2025 Original Application No.803/2015 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) R.P. Bhatt ...........Applicant By Advocates: Shri S.K. Kushwaha (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Ajay Kumar Rai
ORDER
List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. However, Shri Ajay Kumar Rai, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. The matter is very old and pertains to the year 2015. It appears that either the cause of action is not survive or the applicant has lost in interest in pursuing the matter.
3. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
SUSHIL Member (A) Member (J)
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
Sushil
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 08th Day of July, 2025 Original Application No.1204/2013 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Sandeep Kumar Gond ...........Applicant By Advocates: Shri V.K. Chandel (Not present) Shri V.K.S. Chandel (Not present) Shri Avadhesh Pratap Singh (Not present) Shri R.N. Singh (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey ORDER List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. However, Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. The matter is very old and pertains to the year 2013. It appears that either the cause of action is not survive or the applicant has lost in interest in pursuing the matter.
3. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA (Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 08th Day of July, 2025 Original Application No.1004/2012 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Inder Bihar Sharma (deceased) represented through LR Smt. Bhanu Sharma and others.
...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri Sameer Kumar Rai (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Raj Pal Singh
ORDER
List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. However, Shri Raj Pal Singh, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. The matter is very old and pertains to the year 2012. It appears that either the cause of action is not survive or the applicant has lost in interest in pursuing the matter.
3. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
SUSHIL
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
KUMAR Member (A) Member (J)
SRIVASTAVA
Sushil
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 08th Day of July, 2025 Original Application No.1168/2011 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) S.N. Prasad ...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri Indresh Chandra (Not present) Shri Awadhesh Kumar Sharma (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Raghvendra Pratap Singh ORDER List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. However, Shri Raghvendra Pratap Singh, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. The matter is very old and pertains to the year 2011. It appears that either the cause of action is not survive or the applicant has lost in interest in pursuing the matter.
3. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
SUSHIL
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
KUMAR Member (A) Member (J)
SRIVASTAVA
Sushil
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 30th Day of June, 2025 Original Application No.1066/2014 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Dr. Laxmi Shanker Tripathi ...........Applicant By Advocate: None Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Saurabh
ORDER
List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. However, Shri Saurabh, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. The matter is very old and pertains to the year 2014. It appears that either the cause of action is not survive or the applicant has lost in interest in pursuing the matter.
3. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
SUSHIL
Member (A) Member (J)
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA Sushil
(Oral Order)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 26th Day of May, 2025 Original Application No.448/2025 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Arshad Aman a/a 52 years, S/o Aman Ullah Khan, H.Q. CWE Commander Works Engineer, Prayagraj 211001 r/o C-789 G.T.B. Nagar, Kareily Prayagraj.
...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri S.K. Singh Vashisth Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary of Ministry of Defence New Delhi.
2. The Military Engineer Servicers Directorate General (Pers)/E1B Engineer-in-Chief's Branch Kashmir House, Raja Ji Marg new Delhi 110011.
3. The HQ CWE Commander Works Engineer Prayagraj.
4. The CWE Commander Tezpur.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan ORDER Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Heard S.K Singh Vashisth, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents.
SUSHIL 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for both parties, the KUMAR SRIVASTAVA matter is being heard and decided finally at the admission stage itself.
3. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant challenging the impugned movement order dated 07.05.2025 issued by the respondents whereby he has been directed to report at CWE, Tezpur pursuant to his promotion to the post of Administrative Officer-II (AO-II) vide order dated 27.02.2025. The applicant has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider his representations for a change of posting to Prayagraj, in view of the available and anticipated vacancies.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was initially appointed as LDC on 26.12.1997, promoted to UDC on 23.03.2005 and thereafter as Office Superintendent (AAO) on 02.03.2020. On 27.02.2025, he is promoted as AO-II and transferred to CWE, Tezpur.
5. Aggrieved by the place of posting, the applicant submitted several representations dated 18.03.2025, 29.04.2025, 02.05.2025, 06.05.2025 and 09.05.2025 requesting for a change of posting to HQ CWE Prayagraj, HQ CE (AF) Prayagraj or HQ CWE Bamrauli, mentioning his personal hardship and availability of vacant posts at those stations.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits when the aforesaid representations have not been responded by the respondents authorities, the applicant again moved a representation on 06.05.2025 along with forgo certificate indicating his decision to forgo the promotion in case the transfer to Tezpur is not withdrawn. However, the respondents in spite of taking any decision of the representations of the applicant proceeded to issue the movement order dated 07.05.2025, SUSHIL compelling him to join at Tezpur. KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
7. By concluding his submission, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the action of the respondents in ignoring the applicant's request and compelling him to proceed to Tezpur, despite his forgoing the promotion, is arbitrary and discriminatory. A specific instance of one Smt. Sunita Devi has been cited who, despite being senior, has served and continued to serve her entire tenure at Prayagraj and has also been retained there upon her promotion, thereby pointing to discriminatory treatment.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the posting on promotion is subject to administrative requirements and exigencies of service. The applicant has been promoted on merit and the posting to Tezpur was made considering organizational needs. It is further contended that the issuance of a forgo certificate does not automatically invalidate the movement order unless the competent authority formally accepts the forgo request and cancels the promotion.
9. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
10. From the records and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the applicant has made multiple representations citing personal hardship and availability of vacancies at Prayagraj. He has also submitted a forgo certificate dated 06.05.2025, clearly expressing his unwillingness to accept the promotion if the posting to Tezpur is not reconsidered. However, it appears that the respondents have not passed any reasoned or speaking order on these representations, nor have they clarified the status of the forgo request.
SUSHIL KUMAR 11. While this Tribunal agrees that postings on promotion fall within SRIVASTAVA the realm of administrative discretion, such discretion must be exercised in a fair, transparent and non-arbitrary manner. It is well settled that administrative authorities are bound to consider and respond to representations made by employees, especially when such requests are grounded in personal hardship and backed by the existence of vacancies.
12. In view of the above, the Tribunal does not find it appropriate at this stage to interfere with the movement order directly. However, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the applicant's grievance warrants consideration by the competent authority. Accordingly, The Original Application is disposed of with a direction to the applicant to file a fresh representation raising his grievance along with forgo certificate within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. On receipt of such representation the Competent Authority among the respondents shall consider and decide the same in accordance with the applicable rules and pass a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks.
13. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 29th Day of May, 2025 Original Application No.671/2015 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Shiv Shankar Shukla ...........Applicant By Advocate: None Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Raghvendra Pratap Singh Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha ORDER List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. However, Shri Raghvendra Pratap Singh along with Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. Pursuant to order of this Tribunal dated 13.02.2025, notice was sent to the applicant on 17.02.2025 through registered post. However, as per the note of registry, no unserved notice has been received so far. Further, the matter relates to MACP and pertaining to the year 2015. It appears that either the cause of action is not surviving or the applicant has lost interest to pursue the case.
3. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
SUSHIL KUMAR 4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
SRIVASTAVA
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Oral Order)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad This is the 28th Day of May, 2025 Original Application No.350/2025 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)
1. Md. Rakib (Father of the deceased), Aged about 60 years, son of Md. Samser Alam, Resident of Qureshi Mohalla (Railpar), Azad Basti, Asansol (North), Police Station - Asansol, District - Burdwan.
2. Md. Naushad, Aged about 28 years, son of Md. Raquib, Resident of Qureshi Mohalla (Railpar), Azad Basti, Asansol North) Police Station- Asansol, District - Burdwan.
...........Applicants By Advocates: Shri Alok Kumar Mishra Shri Akshay Mishra Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Central Railway, G.M. Office, CQVH+V83, Subedarganj, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh 211015.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad Division, Nawab Yusuf Road, Civil Lines, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh 211001.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Shree Prakash Rai ORDER Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Heard Shri Akshya Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant SUSHIL KUMAR and Shri Shree Prakash Rai, learned counsel for the respondents and SRIVASTAVA perused the record.
2. Present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking appointment in favour of applicant no.2, being the nominee of the deceased son of applicant no.1, who died in the train accident involving Train No. 12311 (Howrah-Delhi Kalka Mail) on 10.07.2011 near Malwan Railway Station. The applicant has relied upon the Railway Board's letter dated 19.08.2011, which indicated that one member of each deceased passenger's family would be considered for Group-D employment in the Indian Railways.
3. It is not in dispute that the applicant was paid compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- in 2019 and subsequently received the enhanced compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- pursuant to the amended Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, upon the direction of the Railway Claims Tribunal.
4. The grievance of the applicant is that although he has submitted a representation on 16.12.2024 requesting for appointment to applicant No.2 in accordance with the Railway Board's letter dated 19.08.2011, but the respondents neither taken any action nor communicated any decision on the said representation.
5. The respondents submit that the applicant's claim for appointment is barred by excessive delay, as the representation was made only on 16.12.2024, more than thirteen years after the accident in 2011 and several years after the DNA identification in 2017. The respondents further contend that no sufficient explanation has been offered for the delay and therefore, the claim is not maintainable and SUSHIL liable to be rejected.
KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
6. After hearing the learned counsel for both parties and upon a careful perusal of the material available on record, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the applicant has approached the respondents with the request for engagement/appointment after an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than thirteen years from the date of the unfortunate train accident on 10.07.2011. Even after the conclusive DNA identification in 2017, the applicant waited until 16.12.2024 to submit his representation. The Railway Board's letter dated 19.08.2011, while indicative of a welfare measure to assist families of deceased passengers, does not confer an unconditional or perpetual right to seek appointment. The underlying objective of such schemes is to provide timely support to the dependents of the deceased and prolonged delay without reasonable justification defeats this purpose.
7. In view of the above, we finds no merit in the claim of the applicants. The applicants failed to approach the competent authority within a reasonable period and has not explained the cause of such extraordinary delay. As a result, the prayer for engagement/appointment does not warrant any indulgence. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed.
8. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 28th Day of May, 2025 Misc. Application (Delay Condonation Application) No.2361/2025 In Diary (Original Application) No.2717/2025 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Ram Kishan Tiwari son of Late Hari Ram Tiwari, R/o H.N. 132/625, Munsi Purawa, T.P. Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar & 2 Ors.
...........Applicants By Advocates: Shri Dinesh Chandra Yadav Shri D. Kumar Mishra Versus Union of India through General Manager, North Central Raiwlay, Subedarganj, Prayagraj, U.P. and 2 Others.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Smt. Seema Srivastava ORDER Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Heard Shri Dinesh Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Smt. Seema Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Instant Misc. Application has been filed by the applicant(s) seeking condonation of delay in filing the accompanying Original Application registered as Diary No. 2717/2025. The delay has been sought to be condoned on the grounds, inter alia, that the applicants SUSHIL KUMAR were contract labourers working as parcel-porters under the SRIVASTAVA supervision of the Railway authorities for several years and had participated in the screening process conducted on 04.04.2013 in compliance with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment dated 17.11.2009 and subsequent order dated 15.02.2013 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 433/1998 and connected matters.
3. It has been averred that despite participating in the said screening, the results were not declared and the applicants kept making oral and written representations from the year 2014 till 2022. Further, two more representations were submitted in 2023 and 2024 respectively. It is on the basis of these later representations that the applicants claim the cause of action is continuing and that the Original Application filed in February 2025 is within time.
4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by leaned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. The screening in question was held on 04.04.2013. Thereafter, the applicants claim to have submitted various representations over the years, with the last ones dated 20.11.2023 and 17.10.2024. However, the cause of action, if any, arose when the result of the screening was allegedly not declared shortly after April 2013 and certainly not later than 2014, when the applicants themselves claim to have begun pursuing the matter with the authorities.
5. The law is well settled that mere submission of representations does not extend the period of limitation unless the delay is properly explained and is supported by cogent reasons. Repeated representations, without any action from the respondents or without any substantive response, cannot revive a stale cause of action. The applicants have not demonstrated sufficient cause or any compelling SUSHIL KUMAR circumstances justifying the long delay of over 11 years from the date of SRIVASTAVA screening.
6. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59 and several other cases has clearly held that stale claims cannot be entertained merely because representations have been filed from time to time.
7. The applicants have also pleaded lack of knowledge regarding limitation provisions, but ignorance of law is no excuse and cannot be a ground for condonation of such an inordinate delay.
8. In view of the above, this Tribunal is not satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay. Accordingly, The Misc. Application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Resultantly, the Original Application (Dy. No.2717/2025) is also rejected as barred by limitation.
9. No order as to costs.
10. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Oral Order)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 28th Day of May, 2025 Original Application No.911/2024 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Anil Kumar Pandey a/a 52 years, son of Surendra Pandey, Resident of 05 Unchgaon, Unch Gaon, District Gorakhpur Uttar Pradesh.
...........Applicant
By Advocates: Shri Abhishek Rai
Shri Ashutosh Rai
Versus
1. Union of India through Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Chief Executive Officer, Prasar Bharti, Prasar Bharti House, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi 110001.
3. Director General Akashvani, Akashvani Bhawan, Parliament Street Road, New Delhi.
4. Deputy Director General/Head Office, All India Radio, 18 Vidhan Sabha Marg, Lucknow.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan ORDER Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Heard Shri Abhishek Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents.
SUSHIL 2. Present Original Application has been filed by the applicant KUMAR SRIVASTAVA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking for the following main relief(s):-
"A. This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 18/26.07.2024 passed by the Director General (News) Prasar Bharti India's Public Service Broadcaster Directorate General Akashwani Vigilance Section.
B. This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the opposite party to conclude and decide the disciplinary proceeding pursuant to the office memorandum dated 10.08.2017 within period stipulated by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
C. This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the opposite party to open the seal cover result of the post Accountant to the Administrative Officer (AO). Pursuant to the DPC for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer for the vacancy in the year 2022 & 2023.
D. This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the opposite party to accord the notional promotion over the post of Administrative Officer from the date his juniors have already been promoted."
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant drew the attention of this Tribunal towards Para-7 of the Counter Reply in which it is mentioned that:-
"7. That the inquiry proceedings have been completed and the IO in his report dated 18.08.2024 has concluded that the charges are not proved. The report has been accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and procedural requirement under Rule 14 and 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 are completed. However, due to various with the 1st sage advice of CVC, the case was referred to the commission for its 2nd stage advice. CVC vide OM dated 25.02.2025 has agreed with the recommendations of the Disciplinary Authority and advice that the applicant may be exonerated. Accordingly, the case is present under process for issue necessary orders. There has been no deliberate attempt to delay or prolong the case against the applicant. However, due to the facts and circumstances stated above, the disciplinary case against the applicant could not be concluded as on date. With regard to promotion of the applicant, the matter is being handled as per extend guidelines and the applicant will be SUSHIL entitled to all promotional benefits after the conclusion of his KUMAR SRIVASTAVA disciplinary case. "
4. By relying the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the applicant submits that respondents have admitted that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant have been concluded. The Inquiry Officer has exonerated the applicant of all charges, and the report has been accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. Furthermore, the Central Vigilance Commission, in its second stage advice dated 25.02.2025, has also concurred with the findings and recommended exoneration.
5. Leaned counsel for the applicant further submits that in view of the admitted facts, the reliefs sought at Para A (quashing of the impugned charge memo) and Para B (expeditious conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings) have become infructuous. However, he requested the Tribunal to dispose of the OA by issuing an appropriate directions for opening the sealed cover relating to the applicant's promotion to the post of Administrative Officer for the vacancy years 2022 and 2023 and to consider him for notional promotion from the date on which his juniors were promoted, as delay in issuing the final exoneration order is causing continuing prejudice to the applicant's career progression and promotional benefits.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents reiterates the position taken in the counter affidavit and submits that the process for issuance of final exoneration order is underway and necessary action in relation to the sealed cover and promotional consideration shall be undertaken in due course in accordance with law.
7. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record particularly Para-7 of the Counter Affidavit.
SUSHIL 8. It is evident from the Counter Affidavit that the disciplinary KUMAR SRIVASTAVA proceedings against the applicant have concluded with the charges held as not proved by the Inquiry Officer and the findings accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. The CVC has also concurred with the recommendation for exoneration and the issuance of the final order is stated to be under process.
9. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that Reliefs A and B, as prayed for in the Original Application, have become infructuous. However, since the final exoneration order is yet to be issued and the sealed cover procedure in respect of the applicant's promotion to the post of Administrative Officer for the vacancy years 2022 and 2023 is pending conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, appropriate directions are warranted to safeguard the applicant's promotional rights.
10. Accordingly, the Original Application is disposed of with the directions to the respondents to issue the final exoneration order of the applicant within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Thereafter, within the next eight weeks, they shall open the sealed cover and consider the applicant's promotion to the post of Administrative Officer for the vacancy years 2022 and 2023. If found fit by the DPC, he shall be granted notional promotion from the date his immediate junior was promoted, with consequential benefits as per rules, excluding arrears of salary.
11. No order as to costs.
All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Oral Order)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 26th Day of May, 2025 Original Application No.446/2025 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Subhodh Ranjan Joharia 66 years S/o Late Brahm Swaroop Johari, 246, Near Chandu Pan Bhandar, Moradabad Road, Police Station Katghar, District Moradabad.
...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri Rakesh Kumar Verma Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Railway,Baroda House, New Delhi.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, D.R.M. Office, Moradabad,
3. Divisional Finance Manager, Northern Railway, Moradabad.
4. Assistant Section Officer, Northern Railway, Moradabad.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan ORDER Heard Shri Dharmendra Tiwari holding brief of Shri Rakesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents.
SUSHIL 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for both parties, the KUMAR SRIVASTAVA matter is being heard and decided finally at the admission stage itself.
3. The Applicant, a retired employee of the Northern Railway, has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking redressal of his grievance regarding deductions made from his retirement benefits including gratuity and other admissible dues amounting to Rs. 2,21,575/-. The Applicant retired from the post of Chief Train Ticket Inspector (CTTI) from Northern Railway, Moradabad Division on 31.01.2019.
4. The case of the applicant is that after issuance of the retirement letter the Respondent No. 2 (Divisional Railway Manager, Moradabad) prepared the settlement dues on 30.01.2019 which were later processed by Respondent No. 3 (Divisional Finance Manager) through issuance of the Pension Payment Order dated 21.10.2019/08.11.2019.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that during this process, several deductions were made from his retirement dues without any show-cause notice, inquiry or opportunity of hearing, which is against the principles of natural justice and established legal norms.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that aggrieved by such deductions, the Applicant submitted his first detailed representation/objection on 25.02.2019 before the Respondent No. 2. However, no action was taken. Thereafter, the Applicant further submitted representations on 10.07.2019, 29.07.2019 and ultimately a reminder dated 02.01.2024 requesting for reconsideration of the deductions and re-fixation of his pension but the respondents have not taken any decision on the matter till date.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a settled SUSHIL principle of law that any deduction from terminal benefits of a KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Government Servant cannot be made without due process of law and without giving the concerned employee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The action of the Respondents in withholding a substantial amount from the Applicant's gratuity and other dues without assigning any reason or issuing any communication is arbitrary, non-transparent and not in conformity with the principles of natural justice.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the deductions from the Applicant's retirement dues were made as per rules to recover pending liabilities, and the pension was correctly fixed based on service records.
9. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and upon perusal of the record, the Tribunal is of the view that ends of justice would be met by directing the Respondents to examine and decide the pending representations of the Applicant in a time-bound manner. Accordingly, the Original Application is disposed of with the direction to Competent Authority among the respondents to consider and decide the Applicant's representation dated 29.07.2019 in accordance with law and relevant rules governing pensionary and retirement benefits and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The decision taken shall be communicated to the Applicant forthwith.
10. It is made clear that this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
11. With the above directions, the Original Application stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Justice Rajiv Joshi) SUSHIL KUMAR Member (J) SRIVASTAVA Sushil (Open Court) Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 27th Day of May, 2025 Review Application No.39/2017 In Original Application No.688/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Vinod Kumar ...........Applicant By Advocates: Shri Shivam Pratap Singh (Not present) Shri Piyush Singh (Not present) Shri Saksham Srivastava (Not present) Shri A.P. Singh (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Anil Kumar
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) List has been revised. Nobody is present on behalf of the applicant. Although the names of four Advocates i.e. Shri Shivam Pratap Singh, Shri Piyush Singh, Shri Saksham Srivastava and Shri A.P. Singh are reflected in the cause list as counsel for the applicant.
2. Shri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents is present.
3. The matter is quite old and pertains to the year 2010 in which instant Review Application has been filed. It appears that either the cause of action is not survive or the applicant has lost in interest in pursuing the matter.
4. Under these circumstances, the Review Application stands SUSHIL dismissed for want of instruction. KUMAR SRIVASTAVA All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 22nd Day of May, 2025 Original Application No.1342/2015 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Kiran Upadhyay ...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri N.P. Singh Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Saurabh
ORDER
List has been revised. Shri N.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Sunil holding brief of Shri Saurabh, learned counsel for the respondents is present.
2. The matter is quite old and pertains to the year 2015. Learned counsel for the applicant states that he has not received any instructions from his client for a long time; therefore, the matter may be dismissed for want of instructions.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection in this regard.
4. Under these circumstances, the Original Application stands dismissed for want of instruction. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
SUSHIL
5. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 22nd Day of May, 2025 Original Application No.300/2019 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Sweta Nishad ...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri Dharmendra Tiwari (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Bablu Singh
ORDER
List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. However, Shri Bablu Singh, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
3. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 23rd Day of May, 2025 Original Application No.38/2017 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Sharafat Hussain ...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri Amrendra Kumar Srivastava Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Vidyapati Tripathi ORDER Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) Instant Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeks a direction for the respondents to provide the benefit of the pay scale of Rs.14500-11500 after completion of two years in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500, as has been granted to many others, including juniors.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that due to the passage of time, the Instant Original Application has become infructuous.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents did not oppose the applicant's request.
4. Therefore, considering the circumstances mentioned above, the Original Application is dismissed as having become infructuous. Any interim order stands vacated accordingly. No costs. SUSHIL KUMAR All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of. The SRIVASTAVA registry will take appropriate action in this regard for removing the M.As.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 21st Day of May, 2025 Original Application No.206/2011 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Ram Prasad ...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri Rakesh Verma (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri N.P. Singh
ORDER
List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. However, Shri N.P. Singh, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. The matter is very old and pertains to the year 2011. It appears that either the cause of action is not survive or the applicant has lost in interest in pursuing the matter.
3. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
SUSHIL
Member (A) Member (J)
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA Sushil
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 23rd Day of April, 2025 Original Application No.177/2022 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Chakravarti Sar John Larence ...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri A.K.Dwivedi (Not present) Shri Bheshaj Puri (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan ORDER List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. However, the names of two advocates Shri A.K. Dwivedi and Shri Bheshaj Puri are reflected in the cause list.
2. Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, Advocate is present for the respondents.
3. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Justice Rajiv Joshi)
SUSHIL
Member (J)
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA Sushil
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 23rd Day of April, 2025 Original Application No.1499/2016 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Kamlesh Kumar ...........Applicant By Advocate: S.P. Verma (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Amitabh Kumar Sinha (Not present) ORDER List has been revised. Nobody is present either of the parties.
2. The matter pertains to compassionate appointment and a Delay Condonation Application has also been filed. It appears that either the cause of action is no longer surviving or the applicant is not interested in pursuing the case. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution.
3. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (J) Sushil SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA (Open Court) Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 22nd Day of April, 2025 Original Application No.108/2025 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Ikram Ali Khan ...........Applicant By Advocate: Mr. E.A. Khan (Not present) Mr. W.A. Siddiqui (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan ORDER List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. However, the names of two advocates Mr. E.A. Khan and Mr. W.A. Siddiqui are reflected in the cause list.
2. Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, Advocate is present for the respondents.
3. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Justice Rajiv Joshi)
SUSHIL
Member (J)
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA Sushil
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 17th Day of April, 2025 Original Application No.1724/2015 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Anil Kumar Dixit ...........Applicants By Advocate: Shri S.K. Jaiswal (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri M.P. Mishra
ORDER
List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. However, Shri M.P. Mishra, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. The matter is very old and pertains to the year 2015.
3. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 17th Day of April, 2025 Original Application No.1644/2015 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Ajay Kumar Saraswat and others ...........Applicants By Advocate: Shri Anand Kumar (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents
By Advocate: Smt. Rachna Dubey
ORDER
List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. However, Smt. Rachna Dubey, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. The matter is very old and pertains to the year 2015.
3. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 17th Day of April, 2025 Original Application No.1205/2015 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Shiva Prakash ...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri Rajesh Verma (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Mukesh Kumar
ORDER
List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. However, Shri Mukesh Kumar, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. The matter is very old and pertains to the year 2015.
3. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 17th Day of April, 2025 Original Application No.672/2015 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Mayank Bhushan Dubey & others ...........Applicants By Advocate: Shri Anand Kumar (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents
By Advocate: Smt. Rachna Dubey
ORDER
List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. However, Smt. Rachna Dubey, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. The matter is very old and pertains to the year 2015.
3. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 17th Day of April, 2025 Original Application No.320/2015 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Kamta Prasad ...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri Anand Kumar (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Subhash Chandra Mishra ORDER List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. However, Shri Subhash Chandra Mishra, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. The matter is very old and pertains to the year 2015.
3. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 17th Day of April, 2025 Original Application No.453/2012 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Om Prakash ...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri Anand Kumar (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Anil Kumar
ORDER
List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. However, Shri Anil Kumar, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. The matter is very old and pertains to the year 2012.
3. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 16th Day of April, 2025 Original Application No.849/2015 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Ram Naresh Yadav ...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri Shyamal Narain Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Vimal Kumar Rai
ORDER
List has been revised. Shri Shyamal Narain, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vimal Kumar Rai, Learned counsel for the respondents are present.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant, Shri Ram Naresh Yadav, has expired during the pendency of the present Original Application.
3. In view of the death of the sole applicant and no substitution application having been filed within the prescribed time, the cause of action does not survive.
4. Accordingly, the Original Application stands dismissed as abated. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
5. All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, stand disposed SUSHIL of.
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 7th Day of April, 2025 Original Application No.1500/2016 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Ranveer Singh ...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri Udai Chandani (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Subhash Chandra Mishra ORDER List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. However, Shri Subhash Chandra Mishra, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
3. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 4th Day of April, 2025 Original Application No.1162/2015 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Vinod Shankar Singh and Anr.
...........Applicants By Advocate: Shri S. D. Tiwari (Not present) Shri Dharmendra Tiwari (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Subhash Chandra Mishra ORDER List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. However, Shri Subhash Chandra Mishra, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. Matter pertains to pay fixation and related to the year 2015. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
3. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (J) Sushil SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA (Open Court) Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 4th Day of April, 2025 Original Application No.31/2017 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Arvind Kumar Trivedi ...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri Santosh Kumar Pandey (Not present) Shri Anil Kumar Singh (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Vijay Kumar Singh ORDER List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. However, Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
3. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (J) Sushil SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA (Open Court) Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 3rd Day of April, 2025 Original Application No.743/2019 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Mahesh Prasad ...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri Maha Prasad (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Ajay Kumar Rai
ORDER
List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. However, Shri Ajay Kumar Rai, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
3. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (J) Sushil SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA (Open Court) Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 3rd Day of April, 2025 Original Application No.840/2014 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Mahadev Sharma ...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Ram Chandra Sahu
ORDER
List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. However, Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
3. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (J) Sushil SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA (Open Court) Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 3rd Day of April, 2025 Original Application No.1124/2023 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Rajeev Kumar ...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri Gaurav Khare (Not present) Shri Rashtrapati Khare (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan ORDER List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. However, Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. Matter pertains to Transfer/Posting. It appears that either the cause of action is not survive or the applicant has no interest to pursuing the matter.
3. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (J)
SUSHIL
KUMAR Sushil
SRIVASTAVA
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 3rd Day of April, 2025 Original Application No.1427/2024 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Abhyudaya Bhardwaj ...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri Atul Sharma (Not present) Shri A.K. Sharma (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan ORDER List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. However, Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. Matter pertains to Transfer/Posting. It appears that either the cause of action is not survive or the applicant has no interest to pursuing the matter.
3. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (J)
SUSHIL
KUMAR Sushil
SRIVASTAVA
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 21st Day of March, 2025 Original Application No.462/2015 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hemant Kumar ...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri V.P. Mishra (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha ORDER List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. However, Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. Under these circumstances, it appears that applicant has no interest to pursuing the matter. Therefore, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
3. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of. The registry will take appropriate action in this regard for removing the M.As.
(Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (J) Sushil SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA (Open Court) Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 19th Day of March, 2025 Original Application No.18/2024 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
1. AIANGOs, Filed Gun Factory, A Recognized Association, represented by its Secretary namely Sri Shikhar Chandra Rai aged about 49 years Son of Sri V.N.Rai R/o B-1028, Panki, Kanpur.
2. Sri Abhai Nath Singh, Aged about 49 years, S/o of Late S.N. Singh, Resident of 209-C, Swaraj Nagar, Panki Kanpur.
...........Applicants
By Advocate: Shri S.J. Ishtiaque
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defense, Department of Defense Productions, Government of India, New Delhi 110001.
2. Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare), North Block, New Delhi.
3. The Controller General of Defense Accounts, Ministry of Defense Ulan Batar Road, Palam Colony New Delhi 110010.
4. The Director of Ordinance (Coordination & Services) Ayudh Bhavan, 10-A, S.K. Bose Road, Kolkata 700001.
5. C.M.D. Advance Weapons & Equipment India Limited Kalpi Road, Kanpur.
SUSHIL 6. The General Manager Field Gun Factory, Kalpi Road, Kanpur. KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Mahendra Prasad Mishra ORDER Heard Shri S.J. Ishtiaque, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Mahendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. Since, the matter is not admitted therefore with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the OA is heard and decided finally at this stage.
2. The applicants have filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking to quash the order dated 28.05.2022 passed by Respondent- 6. They also seek directions to include HRA, TA and SFA in overtime allowance calculations, pay arrears with interest and consider his representations dated 15.03.2021, 25.06.2021, 20.09.2021 and 24.12.2023 in light of the Madras High Court judgment followed by Tribunals.
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:-
3.1 The applicants in this case are members of a recognized employee association. They are either currently working in or have retired from the Field Gun Factory, Kanpur. The factory was placed under the administrative control of CMD, Advanced Weapons & Equipment India Limited through a government notification issued on 01.10.2021.
3.1 The applicants were receiving Overtime Allowance (OTA) SUSHIL whenever they worked beyond their normal weekly duty of 44.75 KUMAR SRIVASTAVA hours. Earlier, the calculation of OTA included various allowances such as House Rent Allowance (HRA), City Compensatory Allowance, Transport Allowance and Small Family Allowance, as per the Factories Act, 1948. However, through a memorandum dated 26.06.2009, the Respondent No.1 decided to exclude certain allowances (HRA, Transport Allowance and Small Family Allowance) from OTA calculation, effective from 01.01.2006.
3.2 Previously, the applicants had filed OA No.857/2021 seeking directions to extend the benefit of Overtime Allowance (OTA) by including HRA, TA, and SFA from 01.01.2006 based on the Madras High Court's order dated 30.11.2011 in Writ Petition No. 609/2011 and similar orders passed by different Benches of this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide order dated 22.10.2021, directing Respondent-6 to decide the applicant's pending representation in light of the Madras High Court's judgment and the orders of various Benches of this Tribunal. However, the said representation of the applicants was rejected vide order dated 28.05.2022, which is challenged in the present case.
4. Respondents have filed Counter Affidavit on 05.04.2024 and have denied claim of the applicant by stating that:
4.1 The applicant has relied on various judgments passed by different High Courts and Tribunals. However, it is submitted that every case is decided on its own merits and general reliance on such judgments does not apply to the applicant's case. Citing multiple cases without demonstrating their direct applicability is misleading and should not be considered.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 4.2 The respondents have acted in strict compliance with the order dated 22.10.2021 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 857/2021. A detailed speaking order was passed on 28.05.2022, following an earlier speaking order dated 18.01.2022. The contempt petition filed by the applicant regarding non-compliance was also dismissed by this Tribunal on 12.04.2023, holding that the order had been substantively complied with.
4.3 The issue raised by the applicant relates to Field Gun Factory, which now falls under Advanced Weapons and Equipment India Ltd. The applicant has compared it with orders issued for a different factory, Ordnance Parachute Factory, which is under another corporation. Since both belong to separate entities, orders passed for one cannot be applied to the other. Therefore, the Original Application is liable to be dismissed.
5. Rejoinder Affidavit has also been filed by the applicants' counsel in which he has denied the averments of the respondents' counsel and reiterated the facts of the Original Application.
6. The applicants' counsel submits that the exclusion of HRA, TA, and SFA from Overtime Allowance (OTA) calculations is contrary to Section 59(2) of the Factories Act, 1948. They rely on the Madras High Court's judgment, which held that all allowances must be included in OTA calculations. Several Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Benches, including those in Kolkata, Hyderabad, and New Delhi, have also directed the inclusion of these allowances in OTA. The applicants further submit that the Ministry of Defence has implemented these orders for similarly placed employees and therefore, they are also entitled to the same benefits.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 6.1 It is also submitted by the applicants' counsel that the case of the applicant is identical to previous cases where orders were passed in favor of employees and the Tribunal should ensure uniform application of the law. The respondents have arbitrarily rejected their claim without proper reasoning, despite clear judicial precedents. The applicants request that the Tribunal quash the impugned order dated 28.05.2022 and direct the respondents to grant them OTA benefits with arrears and interest, as given to similarly placed employees.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicants cannot claim benefits solely based on judgments passed in other cases. Each case is decided on its own facts and the applicants have not shown how those judgments directly apply to their situation. The Tribunal had already directed the respondents to decide the applicants' representation, which was done through a detailed speaking order on 28.05.2022. Since the order was properly reasoned and in compliance with the Tribunal's earlier directions, there is no basis for interfering with it.
7.1 The respondents further contend that the applicants are comparing their case with employees from a different factory under another corporation, which is not valid. The Field Gun Factory, Kanpur, where the applicants worked now falls under Advanced Weapons and Equipment India Ltd., while the cited cases involved a different entity. Therefore, the applicants cannot demand the same benefits based on orders passed for another factory. Since the issue has already been considered and decided, the present Original Application should be dismissed.
8. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel SUSHIL for both the parties and perused the pleadings available on record. KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
9. It is evident from the record that the applicants seek inclusion of HRA, TA, and SFA in the calculation of Overtime Allowance (OTA), relying on various judicial pronouncements including the judgment of the Madras High Court. The respondents, on the other hand, contend that the exclusion of these allowances from OTA calculation is based on a policy decision and that the applicants' case is distinguishable from those previously decided.
10. It is also bring from the record that various Employee Associations and Unions objected to this change issued vide memorandum dated 26.09.2009 and filed representations before the authorities. Some unions had also approached judicial forums. One of the Employee Union namely Heavy Vehicles Factory Employees filed OA No. 1144 of 2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chennai Bench and the Tribunal vide order dated 24.12.2010 dismissed the OA.
11. The union then challenged the Tribunal's decision in the Madras High Court and the Madras High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 609/2011, 1276/2011, 1466/2011, 1980/2011 to 1982/2011, 9076/2011, and 21035/2011 vide order dated 30.11.2011 held that "the exclusion of allowances was not in accordance with Section 59(2) of the Factories Act, 1948." The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and directed that all allowances should be included in OTA calculations.
12. The respondents challenged the Madras High Court judgment in the Apex Court in SLP No. 12845-12852 of 2012 and the Apex Court admitted the appeal but did not grant a stay order meaning the Madras High Court's ruling had to be implemented until a final decision was SUSHIL made.
KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
13. Based on this, several Benches of this Tribunal including Hyderabad Bench in OA Nos. 18/2018 and 20/2018, Kolkata Bench in OA No. 1523/2019 and Principal Bench New Delhi in OA No.650/2016 passed similar orders directing the inclusion of allowances in OTA calculations.
14. It is also notice that the Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 1523 of 2019 directed the applicants to submit representations with an undertaking that any payment received would be subject to the outcome of the pending Supreme Court case. Similarly, in OA No. 705 of 2020 and OA No. 139 of 2021, the Kolkata Bench passed an order in favor of employees, directing the respondents to grant the same benefits as other Tribunal benches and the Madras High Court.
15. Thereafter, the Ministry of Defence implemented the Calcutta Bench's order on 17.03.2021 and the Controller of Finance and Accounts (Factories), Bengal Group ordered the payment of OTA arrears by 31.08.2021.
16. Following the aforesaid orders passed by the Madras High Court ad well as Several Bench of this Tribunal, the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal has also passed an order dated 14.09.2021 in OA No.698/2021 in favor of employees directing the respondents to issue a reasoned order considering past judgments and grant similar benefits if the case facts were identical.
17. In view of the discussion made above, it is observed that the issue in question has already been decided by various Benches of this Tribunal including the Chennai, Hyderabad, Kolkata, and Principal Benches, as well as by the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. SUSHIL KUMAR 609/2011 and connected matters. The Madras High Court held that SRIVASTAVA the exclusion of these allowances was not in accordance with Section 59(2) of the Factories Act, 1948 and directed that all allowances should be included in OTA calculations. The respondents challenged the said judgment before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 12845-12852 of 2012, which was admitted but no stay was granted, meaning the Madras High Court's ruling remains in operation.
18. Following the orders of the Madras High Court and various Benches of this Tribunal, the Ministry of Defence implemented the order of the Kolkata Bench and directed the payment of OTA arrears.
19. In view of the above and considering that the respondents have already implemented similar orders passed by other Benches, the present OA deserves to be allowed in terms of those decisions.
20. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed, and the impugned order dated 28.05.2021, denying the claim of the applicants, is set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the applicants' claim for inclusion of HRA, TA, and SFA in OTA calculations in accordance with the orders passed by various Benches of this Tribunal as well as the Madras High Court. The respondents shall pass a reasoned order within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the applicants are found eligible for the same benefit, the respondents shall extend the benefit to them accordingly. However, any payment made to the applicants shall be subject to the final outcome of the SLP No.12845-12852 of 2012 pending before the Apex Court.
21. There shall be no order as to costs.
All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of. The registry will take appropriate action in this regard for removing the SUSHIL M.As.
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (J)
Sushil
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 21st Day of March, 2025 Original Application No.424/2023 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Smt. Shivani Verma, aged about 35 years, W/o Shri Amit Verma, Resident of Village Singra, Post Bhattagon, District - Jhansi.
...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri Lakhan Singh Kushwaha Versus
7. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts, Government of India, New Delhi.
8. Chief Post Master General, UP Circle, Lucknow.
9. Post Master General, Agra Region, Agra.
10. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Jhansi Division, Jhansi.
11. Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, (HQ), Jhansi,
12. Devendra Singh, Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, (HQ), Jhansi.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan ORDER Heard Shri Lakhan Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents. Since, the matter is not admitted therefore with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the OA is heard and SUSHIL decided at this stage.
KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
2. Instant Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking for a direction to the Respondent-4 to allow the applicant to continuously discharge her services under the respondents and pay her salary time to time.
3. The brief facts of the case as stated in the Original Application are as under:-
3.1 The applicant, a divorced woman was engaged as a casual laborer on 31.05.2017 under the respondents. She was entrusted with duties such as serving tea, shifting files, photocopying and other clerical tasks. She continued working until 17.04.2023, when her services were discontinued by Respondent- 5.
3.2 The applicant was earning Rs. 392 per day and her livelihood as well as her two minor daughters' education depended entirely on this employment.
3.3 The respondent No. 5 acted with personal prejudice against the applicant and upon facing resistance, orchestrated the applicant removal from service without following due process. The applicant has made complaints in this regard to the respondents' authorities but no remedial action has been taken as yet.
4. The Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents on 23.02.2024 stated as under:
4.1 The applicant, Shivani Verma, was never engaged or recruited in any official capacity in the Jhansi Division. She was merely called for work on a daily wage basis for specific tasks like cleaning (Safai) and SUSHIL maintenance (Farrash) as per the department's requirement and she KUMAR SRIVASTAVA was duly paid for the work performed. However, she was never formally appointed to any post within the department nor did she hold any regular or contractual employment status. 4.2 Despite this, the applicant has filed multiple complaints against the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Jhansi Division and other officials including allegations against Sri Devendra Singh, the then Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices (HQ), Jhansi. She submitted complaints to various authorities including the District Magistrate, the Chief Postmaster General and the Assistant Labour Commissioner seeking her engagement in the department. The allegations were duly inquired into by the department through Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices (North), Jhansi, who conducted a fact-finding inquiry. The inquiry report dated 17.05.2023 along with the statement of the officer concerned concluded that the allegations were entirely baseless and without merit. Additionally, the applicant was contacted for her statement during the inquiry but she refused to provide any response.
4.3 Furthermore, another complaint concerning the applicant was received on the DOPG Portal on 19.07.2023 forwarded by one Vinod Kumar Singh. A suitable reply was given to the complainant clarifying that the applicant was never engaged in the department.
5. Notice was issued to Respondent-5 by this Tribunal on 10.07.2023; however, despite sufficient time and opportunity, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent-5. In the absence of any rebuttal from the said respondent, the matter is being considered based on the pleadings and submissions available on record.
6. In the Rejoinder Affidavit, the applicant submits that she was unfairly removed from her job and her complaints were dismissed due SUSHIL KUMAR to the influence of Shri Devendra Singh, Assistant Superintendent SRIVASTAVA (Headquarters), Jhansi. She submitted complaints to various authorities including the District Magistrate, Police, Labor Commission and Government officials but at every stage, investigations were manipulated in favor of Shri Devendra Singh. The applicant further submits that she was continuously employed since 31.05.2017 and was wrongly dismissed without due process. It is also submitted that departmental investigations lacked female members and pressure was exerted on her to withdraw her complaint.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was engaged as a casual laborer under the respondents since 31.05.2017 and continuously discharged her duties until her abrupt removal on 17.04.2023. The applicant was earning Rs. 392 per day and was assigned regular clerical tasks.
7.1 The counsel submits that her removal was arbitrary, without any notice or due process and was carried out with mala fide intent by respondent-5, against whom the applicant had raised objections.
7.2 The applicant has made multiple representations to higher authorities, including the District Magistrate and the Chief Postmaster General but no relief has been granted.
7.3 It is further submitted that the inquiry report relied upon by the respondents is biased lacks independent scrutiny and was influenced by officials against whom the applicant had made allegations. Additionally, the absence of female members in the inquiry committee and the pressure exerted on the applicant to withdraw her complaints further highlight the unfair treatment meted out to her.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant, Shivani Verma, was never formally engaged or appointed in SUSHIL any official capacity within the Jhansi Division but was merely called KUMAR SRIVASTAVA for work on a daily wage basis as per departmental requirements for tasks such as cleaning (Safai) and maintenance (Farrash) for which she was duly paid.
8.1 It is further contended that the applicant does not hold any regular or contractual employment status and has no legal right to seek continued engagement or salary payments.
8.2 The respondents further contend that the applicant has filed multiple complaints against departmental officials including the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices and the then Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices (HQ), Jhansi making baseless allegations without any substantiating evidence. A fact-finding inquiry was conducted by the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices (North), Jhansi, and the inquiry report dated 17.05.2023, along with statements of concerned officers, concluded that the applicant's claims were without merit. Additionally, the applicant was given an opportunity to present her case during the inquiry but refused to provide a statement. The respondents also highlight that a complaint forwarded through the DOPG Portal on 19.07.2023 was duly addressed, clarifying that the applicant was never engaged in the department. Therefore, the claim for reinstatement and salary is untenable and the Original Application deserves to be dismissed.
9. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both parties and upon perusal of the records, it is evident that the applicant was engaged on a casual basis without any formal appointment or contractual employment. The respondents have categorically stated that the applicant was engaged for specific tasks as per departmental requirements and was paid accordingly. There is no documentary evidence on record to establish that the applicant was SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ever appointed in an official capacity or had any legal right to claim continuity of service.
10. At the same time, the applicant has raised grievances regarding alleged arbitrary removal and personal bias of respondent No. 5. While the inquiry report dated 17.05.2023 does not support the applicant's claims, it is also noted that the applicant has not been given a fresh opportunity to present her case comprehensively before the competent authority.
11. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant may be granted liberty to file a fresh representation before the competent authority among the respondents raising all her grievances. It was further requested that a direction may be issued to the respondents to consider and decide the said representation within a stipulated time frame by passing a reasoned and speaking order.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the aforesaid request.
13. In view of the above and with the consent of both parties, the present Original Application is disposed of with the direction to the applicant to submit a fresh representation detailing all her grievances before the competent authority among the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Upon submission of such representation, the competent authority shall duly consider the same and dispose of it by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation in accordance with the applicable rules and legal provisions.
14. No order as to costs.
SUSHIL All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of. The KUMAR SRIVASTAVA registry will take appropriate action in this regard for removing the M.As.
(Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (J) Sushil SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA (Open Court) Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 19th Day of March, 2025 Original Application No.506/2023 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Sewa Lal aged about 50 years, S/o Late Shri Moti Lal, Working as Station Superintendent at Manda Road R/o 6-CDE, Railway Colony, Manda Road, Prayagraj-212104 ...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri Santosh Kumar Kushwaha Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Central Railway, Headquarter Office, Subedarganj, Prayagraj.
2. Chief Operating Manager, North Central Railway, Headquarter Office, Subedarganj, Prayagraj.
3. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, DRM Office, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj.
4. Senior Divisional Operating Manager (Co.), North Central Railway, Prayagraj.
5. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North Central Railway, Prayagraj.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Smt. Seema Srivastava ORDER SUSHIL Instant Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 challenging the impugned order dated 12.06.2023 whereby the applicant was directed to work as Deputy Station Superintendent at Manda Road under his junior, Shri Anil Kumar, Deputy Station Superintendent at Manda Road.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant states that due to passage of time, he was reposted to his initial place of posting and as such, the instant Original Application has become infructuous.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents did not oppose the applicant's request.
4. Therefore, considering the circumstances, the Original Application is dismissed as not pressed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated accordingly.
5. There shall be no order as to costs.
All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of. The registry will take appropriate action in this regard for removing the M.As.
(Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (J) Sushil SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA (Open Court) Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 17th Day of March, 2025 Original Application No.212/2023 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Dharam Pal ...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri Avinash Kumar Sharma (Not present) Shri Sunil (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey ORDER List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. However, Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. Under these circumstances, it appears that applicant has no interest to pursuing the matter. Therefore, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
3. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of. The registry will take appropriate action in this regard for removing the M.As.
(Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (J)
SUSHIL Sushil
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 17th Day of March, 2025 Original Application No.1849/2012 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Sukhbir Singh ...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri Manish Kumar Yadav (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Rajni Kant Rai
ORDER
List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. However, Shri Rajni Kant Rai, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. Under these circumstances, it appears that applicant has no interest to pursuing the matter. Therefore, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Original Application for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
3. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of. The registry will take appropriate action in this regard for removing the M.As.
(Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (J) Sushil SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA (Open Court) Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 5th Day of March, 2025 Original Application No.854/2019 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Rohit Kumr ...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri Sanjay Kumar Shukla (Not present) Shri M A Ansari (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Rajnikant Rai
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. However, Shri Rajnikant Rai, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. Under these circumstances, it appears that applicant has no interest to pursuing the matter. Therefore, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Restoration Application for want of prosecution.
3. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of. The registry will take appropriate action in this regard for removing the M.As.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
SUSHIL Member (A) Member (J)
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
Sushil
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 17th Day of January, 2025 Original Application No.498/2020 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Anita ...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri Ashish Mohan Srivastava (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava ORDER Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. However, Shri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. Under these circumstances, it appears that applicant has no interest to pursuing the matter. Therefore, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Restoration Application for want of prosecution.
3. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of. The registry will take appropriate action in this regard for removing the M.As.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
SUSHIL
KUMAR Sushil
SRIVASTAVA
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 17th Day of January, 2025 Original Application No.1195/2019 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Ritu Singh ...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri S.M. Abbas Naqvi (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Vidyapati Tripathi ORDER Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. However, Shri Vidyapati Tripathi, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. Under these circumstances, it appears that applicant has no interest to pursuing the matter. Therefore, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Restoration Application for want of prosecution.
3. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of. The registry will take appropriate action in this regard for removing the M.As.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
SUSHIL
KUMAR Sushil
SRIVASTAVA
(Oral Order)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** Original Application No.105/2019 This is the 06th Day of January 2025.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (A) Saurabh Katariya Son of Sri Suresh Kumar, Resident of 8/385 Gandhi Nagar Shukla Ganj, District Unnao (UP).
................... Applicant
By Adv. Shri S.M. A. Naqvi
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Communication Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Director Postal Services Kanpur Region Kanpur District -
Kanpur Nagar 208001.
3. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Kanpur (M) Division Kanpur
- 208001.
................. Respondents
B y Adv. Shri Ajay Kumar Misha
OR D E R
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Heard Shri S.M.A. Naqvi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.
SUSHIL 2. Instant Original Application has been filed by the applicant for KUMAR SRIVASTAVA challenging the impugned orders dated 10.05.2016 passed by Respondents by which the services of the applicant under Rule 8(2) of GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules 2011 is terminated with immediate effect.
3. The facts in brief are the applicant, in response to a notification issued by Respondent No.3, The Superintendent of Post Offices, Kanpur (M) Division, Kanpur, applied on 06.11.2012 for the post of Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master (GDS BPM) in the Kanpur (M) Postal Division under the Kanpur Postal Region in the year 2012.
3.1. After undergoing the required selection process and completing all formalities, the applicant was found successful and was engaged/appointed to the post by Respondent No.3. The applicant formally assumed charge of the position as GDS BPM at Mazara Piperkhera, Account Office - Ganga Ghat, District Unnao, under the Kanpur (M) Postal Division on 06.01.2014. However, on 10.05.2016, Respondent No.2 issued a directive to Respondent No.3, instructing the immediate cancellation of the applicant's appointment under Rule 8(2) of Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011.
3.2 Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the instating Original Application by challenging the aforesaid dismissal order.
4. On notice, the respondents have filed counter reply on 19.02.2020 by which they have denied the claim of the applicant and submitted that the respondents submitted a notification for the appointment to the vacant post of GDS (BPM) Majhara Piperkhera (Gangaghat), Unnao was issued on 08.10.2012, with the last date for receiving applications being 07.11.2012. The post was earmarked for the Unreserved (U.R.) category. The applicant, Shri Saurabh Katariya, SUSHIL KUMAR applied for the position as a general candidate on 02.11.2012 and was SRIVASTAVA shown in the 5th position in the merit list. Despite this, the then appointing authority, Shri G.P. Bajpai, appointed the applicant bypassing four higher-merit candidates. 4.1 Following complaints regarding irregularities in the engagement process, a review was conducted at the R.O. level revealing serious procedural lapses. As a result, the competent authority ordered the cancellation of the applicant's engagement referencing Rule 8 of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011. The applicant's engagement was terminated on 10.05.2016 as he had served less than three years in the post.
4.2 The respondents emphasized that the selection criteria for GDS posts is merit-based, primarily determined by the marks obtained in the High School examination. This criterion is in line with the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011.
4.3 The respondents further pointed out that the actions of Shri G.P. Bajpai, the then SPO Kanpur (M) Division were found to be irregular and illegal resulting in a CBI FIR and disciplinary proceedings against him. These actions were deemed to be in violation of departmental rules and merit-based selection.
4.4 In response to the termination of engagement, the applicant filed present Original Application before this Tribunal. However, the respondents contended that the OA was filed approximately three years after the termination order dated 10.05.2016, which is considered time-barred. Therefore, the respondents argued that the OA should be dismissed on the grounds of delay.
5 Learned counsel for the applicant has also filed a rejoinder SUSHIL KUMAR affidavit denying the contentions of the respondents' counsel and SRIVASTAVA reiterated the facts mentioned in the Original Application.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the termination of the applicant's services by the respondents was unjust and illegal. The applicant was duly selected and appointed to the post of GDS BPM following a proper notification and selection process. The applicant fulfilled all formalities and assumed charge of the post in January 2014. The termination order issued in May 2016 was arbitrary and violated the principles of natural justice. The delay in filing the OA has already been condoned by this Tribunal vide order dated 06.07.2022.
6.1 Learned counsel for the applicant further stated that this Tribunal had decided a bunch of matters on the identical issue, including the leading OA No.742 of 2016 (Birbal vs. Union of India & Ors.) and allowed the OA with certain directions. The Union of India filed Writ Petition No.5198 of 2018 (Union of India and 2 others vs. Birbal and another) against the Tribunal's order, but the Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition along with all connected matters on 30.04.2018. Therefore, the applicant seeks the quashing of the termination order and reinstatement to the position.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant's engagement was terminated lawfully under Rule 8(2) of the GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011 due to serious irregularities in the selection process conducted by the then appointing authority, Shri G.P. Bajpai. The respondents contended that the applicant was appointed despite being in the 5th position in the merit list bypassing four higher-merit candidates, which was a violation of the merit-based selection process. Following complaints regarding the SUSHIL irregularities, a review was conducted and it was found that the KUMAR SRIVASTAVA appointment was made in an unlawful manner. The competent authority, therefore, ordered the cancellation of the engagement. The respondents also highlighted that the selection criteria for GDS posts are strictly merit-based, determined by the marks obtained in the High School examination, and the actions of Shri G.P. Bajpai were found to be illegal resulting in an FIR and disciplinary proceedings. However, learned counsel for the respondents also confirmed that the identical issue has already been decided by this Tribunal, against which the Writ Petition filed by Union of India before the Allahabad High Court was also dismissed.
8. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for both parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
8.1 It is evident from the record that the termination of the applicant's services under Rule 8(2) of the GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011 is rooted in the allegation of procedural irregularities in the selection process conducted by the then appointing authority, Shri G.P. Bajpai. The applicant was appointed despite being placed 5th in the merit list bypassing four higher-merit candidates, a clear violation of the merit-based selection process mandated under the GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011. The respondent's actions in terminating the applicant's engagement were taken after a review at the Regional Office level, which found serious lapses in the selection procedure. Additionally, the actions of Shri G.P. Bajpai, the then appointing authority, were found to be illegal, resulting in a CBI FIR and disciplinary proceedings.
8.2 While the respondents have raised the issue of delay in filing the Original Application, the same was addressed and condoned by this SUSHIL Tribunal in its order dated 06.07.2022. Furthermore, the applicant has KUMAR SRIVASTAVA cited the decision of this Tribunal in OA No.742 of 2016 (Birbal vs. Union of India & Ors.), which was upheld by the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 5198 of 2018 and the respondents have not shown any substantial ground to distinguish the present case from the aforementioned decisions.
8.3 In light of the fact that the applicant was duly appointed following the prescribed selection process and considering the dismissal of the Writ Petition by the Allahabad High Court in identical cases, the termination order dated 10.05.2016 passed by the respondents appears to be arbitrary and unjust.
8.4 For ready reference, the operative part of the order dated 14.07.2017 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.742/2016 is reproduced as under:-
"29. Thus, all the cases in hand could be trifurcated as -
(1) Cases where the termination is on the ground of certain irregularities in the very selection thereby attracting Rule 4(3) of the Rules which warrant issue of show cause notice, which admittedly has not been issued to the applicants, consequent to which the impugned orders are to be treated as legally unsustainable.
(2) Cases where on account of misconduct, termination has taken places which, in fact, are to be proceeded under Rule 9 and 10 and, consequently, the order of termination under 8(2) becomes illegal and legally unsustainable.
(3) Cases which do not fall under the two categories and fall under Rule 8(2) of the Rules, but the ingredients thereof, i.e. unsatisfactory service or administrative ground do not exist, consequent to which the impugned order of termination becomes legally unsustainable.
30. Cases filling in each category could be easily made out from the counter filed by the respondents.
31. In view of the above, except the following O.As, in SUSHIL KUMAR which pleadings are not complete, as held in para 16 above, all SRIVASTAVA other O.As are allowed and orders impugned therein are hereby quashed and set aside:-
(a) OAs 886/2016; (b) 32/2017, (c) 33/2017; (d) 564/2017; (e) 565/2017; (f) 602/2017; (g) 685/2017 and (h) 690/2017.
It is declared that the applicants are entitled to reinstatement and further, they are entitled to the consequential benefits, i.e. for full TRCA for the period they have been kept out of service. If any of their places has been filled up by someone, the applicants shall be accommodated in any other vacant post and at the earliest opportunity they shall be brought back to their original post. This order shall be complied with within a period of six weeks from today. Necessary orders for reinstatement be issued accordingly. Arrears of TRCA be disbursed within two months from the date of reinstatement.
Liberty is given to the respondents to proceed against the applicants falling under category (1) and (2) above.
32. No orders as to costs."
8.5 It is also necessary to reproduce the relevant part of the order dated 30.04.2018 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No.49864/2017, along with other connected matters, by which the order passed by this Tribunal was upheld by the Allahabad High Court:-
"...........
34. The proposition advanced above cannot be disputed and we find no reason to take a different view in the matter. However, here the fact situation is different. Applicant-respondents have been terminated with reference to Rule 8 of Rules 2011 by Appointing Authority but admittedly, said orders have been passed in furtherance of orders/directions given by Superior Authority, noticing some irregularities in appointment of Gramin Dak Sevaks, by exercising power under Rule 4(3). The mere fact that in termination orders, except a few one, reference of orders of Superior Authorities is not there but this is an admitted fact by petitioner that appointments were reviewed by Superior Authorities and finding irregularities, directions were issued and thereafter Appointing Authority issued orders of termination simplicitor, therefore, the manner in which orders of termination simplicitor have been passed is nothing but a camouflage so as to avoid specific requirement of SUSHIL KUMAR compliance of principles of natural justice, enshrined under Rule 4(3) SRIVASTAVA of Rules 2011. Hence, the aforesaid exposition of law laid down in Paras Nath Pandey Vs. Director, North Central Zone, Cultural Centre (supra) has no application to the facts of present writ petitions.
35. We find that termination orders passed by Appointing Authority are in the backdrop of directions/orders of Superior Authority, noticing some irregularities etc. in appointments of Gramin Dak Sevaks and in view of noncompliance of Rule 4(3) i.e. opportunity of hearing to concern Gramin Dak Sevaks, the same are vitiated in law.
36. In view of above discussion, we do not find any manifest error in judgments of Tribunal warranting interference. It is always open to petitioners to pass fresh orders after complying with the requirement of Rules. Hence, we find no valid reason to interfere with judgments of Tribunal, impugned in all these writ petitions.
37. Writ petitions, for the reasons discussed above, lack merit and are dismissed, accordingly. No costs"
8.6 Following the decision cited above, we find no reason to adopt a different view in the matter. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. The impugned termination order dated 10.05.2016 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant to the post of GDS BPM at Mazara Piperkhera, Account Office - Ganga Ghat, District Unnao with all consequential benefits within two months from the date of this order.
9. No order as to costs.
All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of. The registry will take appropriate action in this regard for removing the M.As.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 9th Day of January, 2025 Original Application No.28/2025 Rahul Dixit son of Uma Kant, Resident of Village and Post Koriyan, Ghatampur, District Kanpur Nagar.
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Surya Bhan Singh
Versus
1. Union of India Ministry of Railways, through General Manager, North Central Railway, Subedarganj, Prayagraj.
2. Railway Recruitment Cell, North Central Railway, Nawab Yusuf Road, Balmiki Chauraha, Civil Lines, Prayagraj, through its Chairman.
3. The Chairman, Railway Recruitment Cell, North Central Railway, Nawab Yusuf Road, Balmiki Chauraha, Civil Lines, Prayagraj.
4. Assistant Personnel Officer (Recruitment), North Central Railway, Nawab Yusuf Road, Balmiki Chauraha, Civil Lines, Prayagraj.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan ORDER Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) Heard Shri Surya Bhan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents.
SUSHIL KUMAR 2. The mater is listed under the heading of Admission. With the SRIVASTAVA consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the same is disposed of at the admission stage itself.
3. The applicant has filed the instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking a direction to the respondents to conduct the document verification and medical examination of the applicant by fixing a date for the same in respect of the selection process conducted pursuant to the Centralized Employment Notice (CEN) No. RRC- 01/2019 (Level-1). The applicant further prays for a direction to respondent No. 3 to consider and decide the applicant's representations dated 02.12.2024 and 09.12.2024 within a specified period.
4. The case of the applicant is that he had applied for the Group-D posts advertised by Northern Central Railway (NCR) through the Centralised Employment Notice (CEN) No. 01/2019. He appeared and passed the written test on 26.08.2022 and the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) on 16.01.2023. However, despite securing 67.28 marks, which were above the cut-off for the unreserved category (66.50 marks), the applicant was not called for the document verification (DV) process, which took place from 13.02.2023 to 23.03.2023. The applicant later found out through social media on 24.11.2024 that a reduced cut-off of 66.50 marks had been declared and that document verification was ongoing.
5. Upon learning this, the applicant immediately contacted SUSHIL KUMAR the respondent and requested an opportunity to participate in the SRIVASTAVA next round of document verification. Despite submitting multiple representations, including on 02.12.2024 and 09.12.2024, the respondents failed to address his requests. As a result, the applicant was unable to participate in the scheduled document verification process.
6. The applicant has stated that his absence from the document verification process on 01.12.2023 was due to not receiving any communication and not due to any intentional negligence. He has requested the Tribunal that a direction may be issued to the respondents authorities to decide his pending representation dated 02.12.2024 followed by reminder dated 09.12.2024 regarding his document verification.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents stated that he has no objection to the applicant's request for deciding his pending representation in a timely manner and in accordance with the rules.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the applicant's grievance may be addressed by directing the respondents to consider and decide his pending representations.
9. Accordingly, the Original Application is disposed of with a direction to Competent Authority among the respondents to SUSHIL KUMAR consider and decide the applicant's representations dated SRIVASTAVA 02.12.2024 and 09.12.2024, in accordance with the rules within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and decision thereof be communicated to the applicant forthwith.
10. It is clarified that this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and the decision on the applicant's representations shall be taken independently in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations.
11. There shall be no order as to costs.
All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of. The registry will take appropriate action in this regard for removing the M.As.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** This is the 8th Day of January, 2025 Original Application No.226/2009 Jai Ram Sharma ...........Applicant By Advocate: Rajesh Kumar (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha ORDER Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. However, Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. Under these circumstances, it appears that applicant has no interest to pursuing the matter. Therefore, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Restoration Application for want of prosecution.
3. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of. The registry will take appropriate action in this regard for removing the M.As.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
07.01.2025
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** Restoration Application No.5006/2024 In Original Application No.108/2016 Dinesh Singh ...........Applicant By Advocate: Mohd. Saqib (Not present) Shri S.K. Srivastava (Not present) Shri Maheep Singh (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Devi Shankar Shukla ORDER Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. However, names of three Advocates i.e. Mohd. Saqib, Shri S.K. Srivastava and Shri Maheep Singh are reflected in the cause lists. Shri Devi Shankar Shukla, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. It is also seen from the record that on previous date i.e. on 08.11.2024 nobody appeared on behalf of the applicant. Under these circumstances, it appears that applicant has no interest to pursuing the matter. Therefore, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Restoration Application for want of prosecution.
3. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of. The registry will take appropriate action in this regard for removing the M.As.
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA (Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
07.01.2025
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** Restoration Application No.4847/2024 In Original Application No.1377/2011 This is the 07th Day of January 2025.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (A) Ravindra Singh ...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri Dr. Om Prakash Yadav (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha ORDER Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. Under these circumstances, it appears that applicant has no interest to pursuing the matter. Therefore, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Restoration Application for want of prosecution.
3. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of. The registry will take appropriate action in this regard for removing the M.As.
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA (Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
07.01.2025
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** Original Application No.105/2019 This is the 06th Day of January 2025.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (A) Saurabh Katariya Son of Sri Suresh Kumar, Resident of 8/385 Gandhi Nagar Shukla Ganj, District Unnao (UP).
................... Applicant Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Communication Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Director Postal Services Kanpur Region Kanpur District -
Kanpur Nagar 208001.
3. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Kanpur (M) Division Kanpur
- 208001.
................. Respondents ORDER Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Heard Shri S.M.A. Naqvi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Instant Original Application has been filed by the applicant for challenging the impugned orders dated 10.05.2016 passed by SUSHIL KUMAR Respondent no.3 and 10.05.2016 passed by Respondent No.2 by which SRIVASTAVA the services of the applicant under Rule 8(2) (Open Court) Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** Review Application No.01/2019 In Original Application No.591/2011 This is the 06th Day of January 2025.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (A) R.K. Singh ...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri Anand Kumar (Not present) Shri R.K. Saxena (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Pramod Kumar Rai
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. Shri Pramod Kumar Rai, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. Under these circumstances, it appears that applicant has no interest to pursuing the matter. Therefore, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the Review Application for want of prosecution.
4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of. The SUSHIL registry will take appropriate action in this regard for removing the KUMAR M.As.
SRIVASTAVA
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
06.01.2025
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** MA No.141/2024 In Diary No.2337/2023 This is the 18th Day of December 2024.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (A) Bigyan Chandra Jha ...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri Ram Sheel Sharma (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Shivaji Singh
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) List has been revised. Nobody is present for the applicant. Shri Shivaji Singh, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. Record reflects that objection to the Delay Condonation Application has been filed by the respondents on 31.05.2024. No Rejoinder Reply has been filed by the applicant to the said objection.
3. Under these circumstances, it appears that applicant has no interest to pursuing the matter. Therefore, the Tribunal has no option but to reject the application for condonation of delay. Resultantly, the Original Application is also dismissed as time barred.
SUSHIL
4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of. The KUMAR registry will take appropriate action in this regard for removing the SRIVASTAVA M.As.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
18.12.2024
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** Original Application No.1412/2010 This is the 12th Day of November 2024.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (A) S. N. Pandey ...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri M.K. Upadhyay (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Rajni Kant Rai
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) The list has been revised. Nobody is present for either of the parties.
2. Under these circumstances, the applicant has lost interest in pursuing the matter. Therefore, the Court has no option, but to dismiss the instant case for want of prosecution as per Rule 15(1) of Central Administration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. Accordingly, the instant Original Application stands dismissed for want of prosecution.
3. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of. The SUSHIL registry will take appropriate action in this regard for removing the KUMAR M.As.
SRIVASTAVA
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
12.12.2024
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** Original Application No.835/2012 This is the 12th Day of November 2024.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (A) Om Prakash ...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri M.K. Upadhyay (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Ms. Rachna Dubey
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) The list has been revised. Nobody is present on behalf of applicant. However, Ms. Rachna Dubey, Advocate is present for the respondents.
2. Under these circumstances, the applicant has lost interest in pursuing the matter. Therefore, the Court has no option, but to dismiss the instant case for want of prosecution as per Rule 15(1) of Central Administration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. Accordingly, the instant Original Application stands dismissed for want of prosecution.
3. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
SUSHIL
4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of. The KUMAR registry will take appropriate action in this regard for removing the SRIVASTAVA M.As.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
12.12.2024
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** Original Application No.1138/2021 This is the 29th Day of November 2024.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) Anand Kumar Singh ...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri Bhaskara Bhadra (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
...Respondents By Advocate: Shri Radhey Shyam Yadav ORDER Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) The list has been revised. Nobody appears on behalf of the applicant. However, Shri Amitabh Kumar Sinha holding brief of Shri Radhey Shyam Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents is present.
2. Under these circumstances, the applicant has lost interest in pursuing the matter. Therefore, the Court has no option, but to dismiss the instant case for want of prosecution as per Rule 15(1) of Central Administration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. Accordingly, the instant Original Application stands dismissed for want of prosecution.
3. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
SUSHIL KUMAR 4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of. The SRIVASTAVA registry will take appropriate action in this regard for removing the M.As.
(Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (J) Sushil (Open Court) Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** Original Application No.667/2021 This is the 29th Day of November 2024.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) Gorelal Mishra ...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri Santosh Kumar Pandey (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Rajnikat Rai
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) The list has been revised. Nobody appears on behalf of the applicant. However, Shri Rajnikant Rai, learned counsel for the respondents is present.
2. Under these circumstances, the applicant has lost interest in pursuing the matter. Therefore, the Court has no option, but to dismiss the instant case for want of prosecution as per Rule 15(1) of Central Administration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. Accordingly, the instant Original Application stands dismissed for want of prosecution.
3. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of. The registry will take appropriate action in this regard for removing the M.As.
(Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (J) Sushil SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA (Open Court) Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** Original Application No.472/2019 This is the 26th Day of November 2024.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) Ramesh Chandra Sharma ...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri Karunesh Narain Tripathi (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
...Respondents By Advocate: Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha ORDER Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) The list has been revised. Nobody appears on behalf of the applicant. However, Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents is present.
2. Under these circumstances, the applicant has lost interest in pursuing the matter. Therefore, the Court has no option, but to dismiss the instant case for want of prosecution as per Rule 15(1) of Central Administration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. Accordingly, the instant Original Application stands dismissed for want of prosecution.
3. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of. The registry will take appropriate action in this regard for removing the M.As.
(Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (J) Sushil SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA (Open Court) Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** Original Application No.1486/2023 This is the 26th Day of November 2024.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) Ajit Singh ...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri N.P. Singh (Not present) Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
...Respondents By Advocate: Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma ORDER Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) The list has been revised. Nobody appears on behalf of the applicant. However, Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents is present.
2. Under these circumstances, the applicant has lost interest in pursuing the matter. Therefore, the Court has no option, but to dismiss the instant case for want of prosecution as per Rule 15(1) of Central Administration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. Accordingly, the instant Original Application stands dismissed for want of prosecution.
3. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
4. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of. The registry will take appropriate action in this regard for removing the M.As.
(Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (J) Sushil (Open Court) Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** Original Application No 1342/2024 This the 22nd Day of November, 2024.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Ramesh Prasad Ahirwar ........... Applicant By Advocates: Shri Suvansit Kumar Jaiswal Shri Tarun Jha Versus Union of India & Ors.
............ Respondents By Advocate: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan ORDER Heard Ms. Shrishti Singh holding brief of Shri Suvansit Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that there is some error in the relief clause and therefore she wants to withdraw the instant Original Application with a liberty to file afresh.
3. In view of the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant, the instant Original Application is dismissed as SUSHIL KUMAR withdrawn with the liberty to file afresh. SRIVASTAVA (Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (Judicial) Sushil