Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
B P Verma vs Union Of India on 6 August, 2025
Reserved on 26.07.2025
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
This the 06th day of August, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Original Application No. 1429 of 2010
B.P. Verma, S/o Late Shri G P Verma, R/o 56-B, Kauwa Bagh
Colony, N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur, working as Senior Manager,
(Printing and Stationary), N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur.
........... APPLICANT
By Advocate: Shri Manoj Kumar Upadhyay
Versus
1. Union of India through the General Manager, N.E Railway,
Gorakhpur.
2. Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. Deputy Director (Estt.) GP-I, Railway Board, New Delhi.
4. Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi through its
Secretary.
..........RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri Pramod Kumar Rai
ORDER
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J) Shri Manoj Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Pramod Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.
2. The instant original application has been filed seeking following relief:
"i. to issue an order or direction setting aside the order dated 17.12.2009 passed by the Deputy Director (Estt.), GP-I, Railway Board, New Delhi (Annexure No. A-1 to Compilation -I) RITU RAJ SINGH
1|Page ii. To issue an order or direction commanding the respondents to give promotion to the applicant as Junior Administrative Grade Officer w.e.f. 01.01.2009 in scale of Rs. 16400-20000/- (old scale) with all consequential benefits including pay seniority, increments with arrears of salary.
iii. To issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
iv. To award the cost."
3. A compendium of the brief facts narrated in the OA is that the applicant (now retired) is aggrieved by the order dated 17.12.2009 passed by the Deputy Director (Estt.), GP-I, Railway Board, New Delhi by which his acclaim for promotion to Group 'A' post has been rejected. The applicant has contended that he was given ad hoc promotion in senior scale of Rs. 10000-15200/- (old scale) on the basis of Rule 208 mentioned in the Railway Establishment Code Volume - 1 after following the required procedure. On 05.05.2008, the ad hoc promotion of the applicant in senior scale was regularized w.e.f. 29.02.2008. Applicant has claimed that one vacancy to the Group A cadre post fell vacant on 01.01.2009 due to the retirement of one person and in all likelihood, the applicant was supposed to have been regularized on that post, however, the said benefit was not granted by the respondents. Applicant has claimed that his representations requesting the grant of the aforesaid benefit have been rejected by the applicant citing illegal reasons and by denying the benefit of promotion to the applicant, the respondents have inflicted huge injury and loss upon him. Thus, citing a few case laws and rule positions, the applicant has prayed for allowing this OA thereby directing the respondents to confer the benefit of promotion upon him.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.
RITU RAJ SINGH
2|Page
5. Initiating his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was working on ad hoc basis (ad hoc promotion) in senior scale of Rs. 10000-15200/- (old scale) on the basis of Rule 208 of Railway Establishment Code Volume - 1. Ad hoc promotion of the applicant was regularized w.e.f. 29.02.2008. Post of Group A became vacant since 01.01.2009 due to retirement of Mr Dhirendra Kumar, the then Director. The applicant was the most senior person in senior scale and thus he was entitled to be promoted w.e.f. 01.01.2009 in Group A cadre. The applicant had made representation on 25.05.2008 for regularization of promotion in senior scale and again moved application on 06.01.2009 to the Secretary, Railway Board, New Delhi but prayer of the applicant was not redressed rather it was rejected. It is also argued that paragraph no. 208 / 209 of the Railway Establishment Code specifies that if the ad hoc promotion has been made in accordance with the service rules, the promotes would be entitled to regularize the period of ad hoc service for their seniority. It was further argued that since the applicant was working w.e.f. 18.07.2001 and it was regularized on 05.05.2008 to be effective from 28.02.2008 thus the period spent by the applicant on ad hoc basis was liable to be counted for promotion of the applicant for higher grade. Thus, referring to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, learned counsel for the applicant argued to allow the OA setting aside the impugned order and directing the respondents to extend the benefit in light of the prayer no 2. To substantiate his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T Vijayan and Others Vs Divisional Railway Manager and others reported in 2000 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 444.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that although the applicant had worked on the post of senior scale since 18.7.2001 yet it was a stop gap arrangement. Ad hoc promotion was not made in accordance with rule. Thus, the applicant cannot take benefit of the Rule 208 and Rule 209 of the Railway Establishment Code Volume I. RITU RAJ SINGH
3|Page Learned counsel for the respondents also placed reliance on the judgment of T Vijayan (supra) case which has been relied upon by the applicant's counsel particularly the para no 20 of it and argued that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority and thus argued to dismiss the OA. Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Government of West Bengal & Ors Vs Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors reported in 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 1093.
7. Rejoinder has been filed by the applicant wherein the same facts as cited in the OA have been narrated.
8. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully perused the OA, counter affidavit, rejoinder, written submissions filed on behalf of the respondents and also gone through the case laws cited upon by the contesting parties.
9. As the facts of the case have already been narrated above in detail, the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. Before discussing the submissions raised across the Bar, it will be useful to quote the relevant portion of the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T Vijayan (supra) which is as follows:
"This Court in Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers Association & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (1990) 2 SCC 715 = 1990 (2) SCR 900 has laid down in principles (A) and (B) as under :
"(A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. The corollary of the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority.
(B) If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted."
RITU RAJ SINGH
4|Page Applying the above principles to the instant case, since respondents 4 to 143 were promoted on ad hoc basis, and that too in a situation where regular promotion was not immediately possible and since ad hoc promotion was permissible in view of Para 216 of the Railway Establishment Manual quoted above, they are clearly entitled to the benefit of ad hoc service rendered by them on the post of Fireman 'A' or 'First Fireman' for the purpose of reckoning their seniority vis-a-vis the appellants.
It may be stated here that a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Aghore Nath Dey & Ors. (1993) 3 SCC 371 considered the principles (A) and (B) as set out above and explained as under :
"There can be no doubt that these two conclusions have to be read harmoniously and conclusion (B) cannot cover cases which are expressly excluded by conclusion (A). We may, therefore, first refer to conclusion (A). It is clear from conclusion (A) that to enable seniority to be counted from the date of initial appointment and not according to the date of confirmation, the incumbent of the post has to be initially appointed 'according to rules.' The corollary set out in conclusion (A), then is, that 'where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such posts cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority.' Thus, the corollary in conclusion (A) expressly excludes the category of cases where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules, being made only as a stopgap arrangement. The case of the writ petitioners squarely falls within this corollary in conclusion (A), which says that the officiation in such posts cannot be taken into account for counting the seniority.
The conclusion (B) was added to cover a different kind of situation, wherein the appointments are otherwise regular, except for the deficiency of certain procedural requirements laid down by the rules. This is clear from the opening words of the conclusion (B), namely, 'if the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the 'rules' and the latter expression 'till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules'. We read conclusion (B), and it must be so read to reconcile with conclusion (A), to cover the cases where the initial appointment is made against an existing vacancy, not limited to a fixed period of time or purpose by the appointment order itself, and is made subject to the deficiency in the procedural requirements prescribed by the rules for adjudging suitability of the appointee for the post being cured at the time of regularisation, the appointee being eligible and qualified in every manner for a regular appointment on the date of initial appointment in such cases. Decision about the nature of the appointment, for determining whether it falls in this category, has to be made on the basis of the terms of the initial appointment itself and the provisions in the rules. In such cases, the deficiency in the procedural requirements laid down by the rule has to be cured at the first available opportunity, without any default of the employee and the appointee must continue in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service, in accordance with the rules. In such cases, the appointee is not to blame for the deficiency in the procedural requirements under the rules at the time of his initial appointment, and the appointment not being limited to a fixed period of time is intended RITU RAJ SINGH
5|Page to be a regular appointment, subject to the remaining procedural requirements of the rules being fulfilled at the earliest."
In Keshav Dev & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (1999) 1 SCC 280 as also Shri L. Chandrakishore Singh v. State of Manipur & Ors. (1999) 8 SCC 287 = JT 1999 (7) SC 576, the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers Association's case (supra) was followed.
In another decision in Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa & Ors. AIR 2000 SC 85 = JT 1999(8) SC 578, to which one of us (S.Saghir Ahmad, J.) was a party, the entire case law was reviewed and it was held that if the ad hoc promotion had been made in accordance with the service rules, the promotees would be entitled to reckon the period of ad hoc service towards their seniority.
Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in C.K. Antony v. B. Muraleedharan & Ors. (1998) 6 SCC 630 and has drawn our attention to paragraph 6 on page 638. Having regard to the facts of this case and the Service Rules involved therein, the reliance on that decision is wholly misplaced as that decision does not answer the problem involved in the present case which, as pointed out above, is covered by the decisions already discussed above.
The Tribunal has also found that according to the mode of recruitment, the shortfall, if any, in the post of First Fireman, which could not be filled up by promotion, would be filled up by direct recruitment and, therefore, direct recruits have to be placed below the promotees in the matter of seniority. This also appears to be reasonable. But since we have already held above that the promotion of respondents 4 to 143 was made in accordance with the Rules and they are entitled to reckon the period of ad hoc service on the post of First Fireman towards their seniority, we need not delve into that question any further.
For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in these appeals which are dismissed, but without any order as to costs."
Similarly, in the case of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that promotion only becomes effective upon assumption of duties on promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of vacancy or the date of recommendation. IT is also held that there is no fundamental right to promotion. The promotion cannot be granted retrospectively after retirement.
Also, Para 208 and 209 of the Railway Establishment Code Volume I is also quoted herein below:
208. Officiating promotions.--(1) An officiating arrangement made in the place of a permanent open line Group A or B officer deputed to fill a post temporarily sanctioned for a survey or construction shall continue to be permissible during leave taken from the survey or construction by the Railway officer so deputed, provided that such leave does not exceed four months and the head of the construction department certifies that the officer is expected to return to that survey or construction on expiry of the leave.
RITU RAJ SINGH
6|Page (2) Officiating arrangement in the leave vacancies of Group 'A' or Group 'B' officers is allowed if the vacancy is for 30 days and above on the Zonal Railways, Production Units and other railway units and for 46 days and above in the Railway Board and Research, Design and Standardisation Organisation.
209. (A) Promotions to Railway Services, Group A.--(1) All substantive promotions to Railway Services Group 'A' shall be made by the President; and (2) No officer shall be eligible for promotion to and within the service, unless the Government is satisfied that the officer is suitable for promotion in all respects.
(B) Promotion from Group 'B' to Group 'A' (Junior Scale).--(1) Appointments to the posts in the junior scale shall be made by selection on merit from amongst Group 'B' officers of the departments concerned with not less than 3 years of non-fortuitous service in the grade.
(2) If the quota reserved for Group 'B' Officers for promotion to junior scale is not fully utilised, the remaining vacancies may be filled by Government in accordance with the recruitment rules and in consultation with the UPSC; and (3) The Departmental Promotion Committee for this purpose shall consist of a representative of the Union Public Service Commission as Chairman and two representatives of the Ministry of Railways as Members.
(C ) Promotion from junior scale to senior scale.--(1) Appointment to the posts in the Senior scale shall be made by promotion in the order of seniority, subject to rejection of the unfit, of officers with ordinarily not less than 4 years service in the junior scale.
(D) Promotion from senior scale to higher grade posts.--(1) Promotions to the Administrative Grade are dependent on the occurrence of vacancies in the sanctioned establishment and are made wholly by selection; mere seniority does not confer any claim for such promotion.
(2) Appointments to the posts in the Junior Administrative Grade shall be made by selection on merit from amongst the officers ordinarily with not less than 5 years' service in the senior scale.
(3) Appointments to the posts in the Senior Administrative Grade (Level-II) shall be made by selection on merit from amongst the officers ordinarily with not less than 3 years' service in the Junior Administrative Grade.
(4) Appointments to the posts in the Senior Administrative Grade (Level-I) shall be made by selection on merit from amongst the officers ordinarily with not less than 2 years service in the Senior Administrative Grade (Level-II).
(5) The departmental Promotion Committee for purposes of promotion from Senior Scale and above to higher grade posts shall consist of Chairman, Railway Board, Financial Commissioner Railways and three other Members of the Railway Board.
10. In this matter, as is evident from the record, the applicant was allowed the ad hoc promotion in the senior scale on 18.07.2001 and it was regularized on 05.05.2008 w.e.f. 29.02.2008. Applicant's claim is that since ad hoc promotion was made under rules following the procedure thus the period spent as ad hoc promotee shall be taken into consideration for promotion to the higher grade. The respondents' stand is that it was simply a stop gap arrangement and regular promotion was made w.e.f. 29.02.2008 and thus he was not entitled to take benefit of the stop gap arrangement for counting his RITU RAJ SINGH
7|Page services to be promoted in higher grade. The respondents' case is also that Union Public Service Commission's recommendation was received on 29.02.2008 and thus on that basis the applicant was regularized since 29.02.2008. In the case of T Vijayan (supra), in para 19 as has been quoted hereinabove, it is held that once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rules, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. It is also held that corollary of the rule is that when the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of West Bengal Vs Aghore Nath Dey reported in 1993 Vol 3 SCC 371 (Full Bench) has considered the fact of the ratio laid down in the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Assn. vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1990 Vol 2 SCC 715 and has specifically held that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop gap arrangement, the officiation on such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority. Thus, on the basis of above proposition, the category of cases where the initial appointment was only ad hoc and not according to rules but being made only as a stop gap arrangement was excluded. If the provision in Para 208 / 209 of the Railway Establishment Code Volume I as well as ratio laid down in the aforesaid case is taken together, it is held that the applicant was given ad hoc promotion as stop gap arrangement on 18.07.2001. Procedure prescribed for regular promotion has not been followed. Thus, ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Aghore Nath Dey (supra) will come into play and the applicant will not be entitled for the relief claimed in the matter. Period spent on ad hoc basis as stop gap arrangement has rightly not been counted by the respondents. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant has retired in the year 2016. UPSC's approval was also granted on 29.02.2008. DoPT instructions contained in Office Memorandum dated 10.04.1989 also does not support the case of the RITU RAJ SINGH
8|Page applicant. Ratio laid down in the case of Dr. Amal Sathapthi (supra) will also come in the way of the applicant and thus he is not entitled for any relief as claimed in the matter.
11. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions and analysis, the instant case of the applicant is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly, dismissed being devoid of merits. All associated MAs stand disposed of. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (Administrative) Member (Judicial)
(Ritu Raj)
RITU RAJ
SINGH
9|Page