Madhya Pradesh High Court
Neeraj Kumar Singh vs The General Manager on 21 November, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60880
1 WP-5089-2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
ON THE 21st OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 5089 of 2007
NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH
Versus
THE GENERAL MANAGER AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akash Choudhury - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari - Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 26.4.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur whereby the Original Application No.784/2004 [ Neeraj Kumar Singh Vs. U.O.I. & others] has been dismissed.
3. Facts of the case, in short, are as under:-
The petitioner was duly selected to the post of Assistant Yard Master having undergone the regular selection process conducted by the Central West Railway. But, before joining to the said post he was sent for Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA Signing time: 11/28/2025 11:32:04 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60880 2 WP-5089-2007 Traffic Apprentice Training for a period of 02 years from 12.5.1997. After successful completion of training, petitioner was permitted to join the duties on 16.7.1999. The respondents assigned seniority to the petitioner from the date of his joining on the post on 16.7.1999. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation claiming seniority from 12.5.1997 but the same was rejected by the respondents on 14.6.2002. Hence, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") by filing an Original Application No.784/2004.
4. After issuance of notice in the original application, the respondents filed a reply stating that the petitioner was offered an appointment only on 12.5.1997 and after passing the required medical examination, he was appointed as a Traffic Apprentice on a fixed pay scale of Rs.1400-2300/-, whereas regular pay scale of Traffic Apprentice was Rs.1600- 2600/-. The training was followed by a final examination (written and viva voce), which was conducted by the committee consisting of Junior Administrative Grade Officers of Zonal Headquarters. Based on the recommendations of the Selection Committee in the final examination, the seniority of the Traffic Apprentice is determined in the respective cadres from the date of issuance of the posting order by the Divisions. These procedures are being applied universally on all the Divisions as per the guidelines issued by the Chief Personnel Officer, Mumbai, and the same are in conformity with the provisions laid down in para 302 read with para 303(a) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (for short "IREM'). It is further submitted that the petitioner was granted an increment during the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA Signing time: 11/28/2025 11:32:04 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60880 3 WP-5089-2007 training period. In view of the above, the claim of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. Learned counsel for the applicant had placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal in O.A.No.188/1991 [Shri Milan Kant Verma Vs. Union of India] decided on 18.12.1996, which has been discarded by the Tribunal and placing reliance on provisions of paragraph 303(a) of IREM, the Tribunal dismissed the original application.
5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal dated 26.4.2005, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that para 302 of IREM only says about the seniority of an incumbent on the post from the date of joining in the cadre. The Tribunal has wrongly placed reliance on para 303 of IREM, which deals with the issue of inter se seniority between the candidates recruited by the Railway Recruitment Board (RRB). Apart from that, there is no provision under the statute which debars counting of the training period in the determination of seniority and total length of service in the employment.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent/Railways submits that in the entire Department of Railways, the training period is not to be counted in the seniority. The petitioner was appointed against the regular post in accordance with paras 302 & 303 of IREM (Volume-I). During apprentice training, the petitioner was only paid a stipend of Rs.1400/- in the first year of training and Rs.1445/- for the second year. After the appointment, he was fixed at the minimum of the regular pay scale. Therefore, the petitioner was not holding the regular post from 12.5.1997 to 15.7.1999 and was merely under Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA Signing time: 11/28/2025 11:32:04 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60880 4 WP-5089-2007 mandatory training, which was a precondition for holding the regular post of Traffic cadre. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed as the Tribunal has not committed any error of law while dismissing the original application.
8. We have learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a Traffic Apprentice through RRB after following the due process of selection. The moment he was sent for the training as a Traffic Apprentice, the relation of employer-employee relationship developed between the petitioner and the Railways. During the training period, the employees are governed under the Conduct Rules, and during the apprentice period, the services of the incumbent are liable to be terminated under the statutory rules framed by the Railways. Upon completion of successful training and clearing the examination, the petitioner was only posted to the post of Assistant Yard Master. Since the training period is mandatory, therefore, after every selection and before posting to the selected post, the employee is required to undergo training to perform the technical job.
10. The respondents have placed reliance on para 303(a) of IREM which only says that candidates who are to be sent for initial training to training school will rank in the seniority in the relevant cadre in the order of merit obtained at the examination held at the end of the training period before being posted to the working post. Therefore, this clause relates to inter se seniority between all the selected employees of the same batch who are sent to the training after selection. This also clarifies that those who join a subsequent course for any reason whatsoever and those who pass the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA Signing time: 11/28/2025 11:32:04 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60880 5 WP-5089-2007 examination in subsequent attempts will rank junior to those who pass the examination in earlier courses. This principle nowhere debars counting of services for the purpose of the entire length of service from the initial date of appointment, immediately after selection. After completing the Traffic Apprentice training, the incumbent is liable to be posted in the relevant cadre in order of seniority on the basis of marks obtained in the examination. Thus, para 303 (a) of IREM only provides the mode of fixation of the seniority of those apprentices who passed the examination.
10. Learned Tribunal has wrongly discarded the judgment of Jabalpur Bench in O.A.No.188/1991 dated 18.12.1996, in which, judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M.P.Pradhan Vs. Union of India , AIR 1990 SC 891 was referred. In the aforesaid judgment of M.P.Pradhan (supra), the Apex Court has held that joining as a Paid Apprentice on a permanent basis cannot be anything else but entering Government service on a permanent basis. The Apex Court in paragraph 5 of the above decision held as under:-
"5. We have examined the admitted entries in the service book of the appellant which are on the record. These entries show that the appellant joined service as paid apprentice on substantive permanent basis on 1st of July, 1937. It is correct that from 1st of July, 1937 upto 1st of August, 1941 he has been shown in the service book to be appointed in officiating capacity to various posts but the fact remains that his basic appointment as paid apprentice was permanent. The finding of the Tribunal that the appellant was made permanent for the first time as Copyist on 1st August, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA Signing time: 11/28/2025 11:32:04 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60880 6 WP-5089-2007 1941 cannot be accepted in the face of clear entries in the service book showing that he joined as paid apprentice on permanent basis on 1st of July, 1937. Joining as paid apprentice on permanent basis cannot be anything else but entering Government service on permanent basis and since the entry was before 31st March, 1938 Fundamental Rule 56(c)(i) is attracted and the appellant is entitled to remain in Government service till the age of 60 years."
[Emphasis supplied]
11. Therefore, the Tribunal has failed to see the view taken by the Apex Court in respect of the counting of service during the Apprentice/Training period. As discussed above, after selection through RRB, if the selected candidate is sent for training, then an employer-employee relationship develops, and the incumbent is deemed to have actually entered into the services of the Railway. Therefore, the service and seniority are liable to be counted from the date of issuance of the selection list, not from the joining on the post after completion of training or apprenticeship. Since the appointment is in a technical post, therefore, every selected candidate is required to undergo training as an Apprentice. After completing training successfully, only posting orders are liable to be issued. Therefore, services are liable to be counted from the date of initial appointment and not from the date of posting to the post after completion of the training period. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. The services of the petitioner are to be counted from 12.5.1997 and are to be treated as Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA Signing time: 11/28/2025 11:32:04 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60880 7 WP-5089-2007 services for all purposes and benefits.
12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
RM
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA
Signing time: 11/28/2025
11:32:04 AM