Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Manveer Singh vs General Manager N C Rly on 7 April, 2026
Reserved on 30.03.2026
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
This the 07th day of April, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Original Application No. 183 of 2013
1. Manveer Singh S/o Sri Chatar Singh, presently working as Sr.
Goods Guard in Jhansi, Division, R/o 123 Rani Laxmi Nagar,
Jhansi.
2. Neeraj Singh S/o Sri O.P. Sharma, R/o 89-A, Dildar Nagar,
Khoti Baba, Jhansi.
3. V.N. Singh S/o Sri G.P. Singh, R/o RB-II 618-B, Rani Laxmi
Nagar, Sipari Bazar, Jhansi.
4. Arun Kumar Singh S/o Late Ram Pratap Singh, RB-II 917/A
Workshop Road, Railway Colony, Jhansi.
5. N.K. Singh S/o Late Raj Kishor Singh, R/o MB-536A, Rani
Laxmi Nagar, Sipari Bazar, Jhansi.
6. Kumar Ravi Ranjan S/o Sri Rajpati Singh, R/o 407/1-C Adarsh
Nagar, Sipari, Jhansi.
........... APPLICANTS
By Advocate: Shri Ashish Srivastava
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Central Railway,
Hq. Subedarganj, Allahabad.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Jhansi
Division, Jhansi.
3. Senior Divisional Personal Officer, North Central Railway,
Jhansi.
4. V.K. Bhilware, presently posted as Sr. Passenger Guard, Jhansi
Division, Jhansi.
5. Baldev Prasad, presently posted as Sr. Passenger Guard, Jhansi
Division, Jhansi.
RITU RAJ
SINGH
1|Page
6. Mukesh Kumar Meena, presently posted as Sr. Passenger Guard,
Jhansi Division, Jhansi.
..........RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha
ORDER
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J) Shri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.
2. The instant original application has been filed seeking following relief:
"(i) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash the order dated 29.03.2012, promotion to the post of senior passenger guard in Grade of Rs. 9300-34800 + Grade Pay of Rs. 4200 in Traffic Running Department of Jhansi Division.
(ii) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to issue a suitable order or direction restraining the respondents from applying the reservation while making the promotion of senior passenger guard in Jhansi Division by non-selection method on the basis of seniority cum suitability and the SC/ST candidates may not be granted promotion excess to their prescribed reservation quota.
(iii) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to pass afresh promotion order on the basis of seniority cum suitability as per the seniority of candidates reflect in the eligibility list on the basis of RBE No. 79 of 2005 and 19 of 2009.
(iv) Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant."
3. A compendium of the facts narrated in the OA is that the applicants were working under the respondents department on the post of Guard / Sr. Guard in Jhansi Division of NC Railway and when a notification was issued by the respondents for promotion of the candidates on the post of Sr. Passenger Guard, the applicants applied for the same. A total of 56 vacancies of Senior Passenger Guard were notified out of which 35 vacancies were notified for UR RITU RAJ SINGH
2|Page category, 14 for SC category and 07 for ST category. The major contention of the applicants is that the respondents while issuing the promotion list dated 29.03.2012, gave promotion to the SC/ST candidates in excess to the prescribed limit of their reservation quota by applying the principle of reservation in terms of RBE No 126 of 2010 which has already been quashed by the Tribunal. The applicants have contended that by the aforesaid exercise, the respondents have violated their own Circulars and rules and therefore as the prayer, the applicants have prayed to quash the order dated 29.03.2012 which deals with the promotion to the post of Sr. Passenger Guard in Grade of Rs. 9300-34800 + Grade Pay of Rs 4200 in Traffic Running Department of Jhansi Division and also to direct the respondents to issue suitable order or direction restraining them from applying the reservation while making the promotion of Sr. Passenger Guard in Jhansi Division by non selection method on the basis of seniority cum suitability and that the SC / ST candidates may not be granted promotion excess to their prescribed reservation quota. Prayer has also been sought to direct the respondents to pass afresh promotion order on the basis of seniority cum suitability as per the seniority of candidates reflect in the eligibility list on the basis of RBE No. 79 of 2005 and RBE No 19 of 2009.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that excess reservation has been allowed to the SC / ST candidates in promotion which is against the reservation policy and rules. Referring to the notification in question, learned counsel for the applicants stated that total vacancies for promotion were notified as 56 out of which 14 vacancies were meant for SC category and 07 vacancies were meant for ST category. It is further argued that issue has already been settled in the judgment dated 15.07.2011 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CWP No 13218 of 2009 (O&M) titled Lacchmi Narayan Gupta & Others Vs Jarnail Singh & Others. The RITU RAJ SINGH
3|Page issue is also settled vide DoPT Circular dated 10.08.2010. Further, Jabalpur and Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal have also held that RBE No 126 of 2010 dated 14.09.2010 has been quashed and thus no decision could be taken on the basis of the aforesaid RBE. It is also argued that the respondents have no authority to apply the provision of the aforesaid RBE in case of promotion on the basis of seniority cum suitability. Respondents have not followed the earlier RBE No 79/2005 and RBE No 19/2009 issued by the respondents themselves. Thus, learned counsel for the applicants argued that although the applicants have retired from service yet on the basis of proposed promotion list dated 29.03.2012, the posting of the private respondents have been made which is illegal and against the settled proposition of law. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 08.08.2011 passed by the Jabalpur Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No 162 of 2011 titled Radhakrishan M Satwani and Others Vs Union of India and others and connected cases; and also upon the judgment dated 26.11.20211 passed by the Jaipur Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No 62 of 2011 with Misc Application No 281 of 2011 titled Lokesh Kumar Saini and Others Vs Union of India and others.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that OA was filed in the year 2013 against the proposed panel and thus the OA itself was not maintainable on the ground of being premature since no such order has been passed in that year. The private respondents in lieu of posting order issued by the official respondents have joined their duty since 2013 and they are continuing on the post. It is argued that while issuing the notification and preparing the panel, settled legal position to extend the benefit of reservation in promotion was followed. Learned counsel for the respondents also argued that proposed seniority list has been prepared on the basis of Board's letter dated 03.09.2009 and 07.06.2010. On the basis of post based roster, calculation has been made. The applicants' prayer for calculation on RITU RAJ SINGH
4|Page the basis of point based roster is not acceptable. There has not been any violation of any circular. It is also argued that private respondents were posted back in the year 2013-14 and since then they are continuing. Applicants have retired from services then it will not be desirable at this stage to set aside the proposed promotion and posting order issued in lieu thereto. Learned counsel for the respondents also argued that applicants have retired from services. No proposal or order has ever been issued in their favour for promotion. They have not worked on the promotional post and thus after the retirement of the applicants, no promotion order can be passed in their favour. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in its judgment dated 27.11.2024 passed in the case of Government of West Bengal and Others Vs Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors. reported in 2024 INSC 906.
7. Rejoinder has also been filed by the applicants rebutting the averments of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. A perusal of the rejoinder reveals that the pleadings contained in the counter have been denied in an identical way as per the pleadings recorded in the OA.
8. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the documents on record.
9. From the perusal of the records, it is revealed that a notification was issued for promotion on seniority cum suitability basis to fill up 56 vacancies of Senior Passenger Guard out of which 35 vacancies were notified for UR category, 14 for SC category and 07 for ST category. Applicants' plea is that excess reservation has been given to the SC and ST category against their entitlement. Applicants have not taken plea that reservation in promotion to SC and ST candidates is not applicable. The OA was filed in the year 2013 and the applicants challenged the proposed panel and promotion list. Thereafter, one stay application was also moved when posting order was issued but the same has not been allowed. Services RITU RAJ SINGH
5|Page of notice upon the private respondents have been presumed sufficient. They are not represented by any counsel nor have they appeared in person. It is not clear as to whether they are continuing in service or have retired. But this fact that applicants have retired from services has been stated by the learned counsel for the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants has also stated that although the applicants were not promoted against the aforesaid notification yet later on they were promoted.
10. Before discussing the submission raised across the Bar, it will be useful to quote the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra) wherein the similar issue of consideration and conferment of promotion to an employee after his retirement was considered. The Apex Court has held as under:
"15. The primary question that arises for our consideration in the present appeal is whether respondent No.1, who was recommended for the promotion before his retirement but did not receive actual promotion to the higher post due to administrative delays, is entitled to notional financial benefits of the promotional post after his retirement?
16. We have perused the pleadings and the records and have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
17. The relevant provision i.e., Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules, is extracted hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:
"Pay on Officiating Appointment- 54(I)(a): Subject to the provisions of Chapter VII, a Government employee who is appointed to officiate in a post shall not draw pay higher than* "his substantive pay" in respect of a permanent post, other than a tenure post, unless the officiating appointment involves the assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to the post, other than a tenure post, on which he holds a lien, or would hold a lien had it not been suspended:
Provided that the Governor may specify posts outside the ordinary line of a service the holders of which may, notwithstanding the provisions of this rule and subject to such conditions as the Governor may prescribe, be given any officiating promotion in the cadre of the service which the authority competent to order promotion may decide, and may thereupon be granted the same pay as they would have received if still in the ordinary line."
18. Upon a bare perusal of Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules, it is clear that promotion cannot be retrospectively granted after retirement, as it requires the actual assumption of duties and responsibilities of the promotional post. In the present case, since RITU RAJ SINGH
6|Page respondent No. 1 superannuated before the final approval of his promotion, he could not have formally assume the charge of the promotional post of Chief Scientific Officer. Therefore, although respondent No. 1 was recommended for promotion, Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules precludes him from getting the financial benefits of the promotional post without having taken on the responsibilities of the said post i.e. Chief Scientific Officer.
19. It is a well settled principle that promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted, rather than from the date a vacancy arises or the post is created. While the Courts have recognized the right to be considered for promotion as not only a statutory right but also a fundamental right, there is no fundamental right to the promotion itself. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to a recent decision of this Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board and Others v. Dharamdeo Das9 , wherein it was observed as follows:
"18. It is no longer res integra that a promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created. No doubt, a right to be considered for promotion has been treated by courts not just as a statutory right but as a fundamental right, at the same time, there is no fundamental right to promotion itself. In this context, we may profitably cite a recent decision in Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai10 where, citing earlier precedents in Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty 11and Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab12, a three-Judge Bench observed thus:
41. This Court, time and again, has laid emphasis on right to be considered for promotion to be a fundamental right, as was held by K. Ramaswamy, J., in Director, Lift Irrigation Corpn.
Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty in para 4 of the report which is reproduced below:
'4....... There is no fundamental right to promotion, but an employee has only right to be considered for promotion, when it arises, in accordance with relevant rules. From this perspective in our view the conclusion of the High Court that the gradation list prepared by the corporation is in violation of the right of respondent-writ petitioner to equality enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution, and the respondent-writ petitioner was unjustly denied of the same is obviously unjustified.'
42. A Constitution Bench in Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, laying emphasis on Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India held that if a person who satisfies the eligibility and the criteria for promotion but still is not considered for promotion, then there will be clear violation of his/her's fundamental right. Jagannadha Rao, J. speaking for himself and Anand, C.J., Venkataswami, Pattanaik, Kurdukar, JJ., observed the same as follows in paras 22 and 27:
RITU RAJ SINGH
7|Page 'Articles 14 and 16(1) : is right to be considered for promotion a fundamental right
22. Article 14 and Article 16(1) are closely connected. They deal with individual rights of the person. Article 14 demands that the 'State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws'. Article 16(1) issues a positive command that:
'there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State' It has been held repeatedly by this Court that clause (1) of Article 16 is a facet of Article 14 and that it takes its roots from Article 14. The said clause particularises the generality in Article 14 and identifies, in a constitutional sense "equality of opportunity" in matters of employment and appointment to any office under the State. The word "employment" being wider, there is no dispute that it takes within its fold, the aspect of promotions to posts above the stage of initial level of recruitment. Article 16 (1) provides to every employee otherwise eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone of consideration, a fundamental right to be "considered" for promotion. Equal opportunity here means the right to be "considered" for promotion. If a person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be "considered" for promotion, which is his personal right. "Promotion" based on equal opportunity and seniority attached to such promotion are facets of fundamental right under Article 16(1).
***
27. In our opinion, the above view expressed in Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.13, and followed in Jagdish Lal [Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana14, and other cases, if it is intended to lay down that the right guaranteed to employees for being "considered" for promotion according to relevant rules of recruitment by promotion (i.e. whether on the basis of seniority or merit) is only a statutory right and not a fundamental right, we cannot accept the proposition. We have already stated earlier that the right to equal opportunity in the matter of promotion in the sense of a right to be "considered"
for promotion is indeed a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(1) and this has never been doubted in any other case before Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.], right from 1950.' "20. In State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath15, it was held that retrospective seniority cannot be given to an employee from a date when he was not even borne in the cadre, nor can seniority be given with retrospective effect as that might adversely affect others. The same view was reiterated in Keshav Chandra Joshi v.
RITU RAJ SINGH
8|Page Union of India16, where it was held that when a quota is provided for, then the seniority of the employee would be reckoned from the date when the vacancy arises in the quota and not from any anterior date of promotion or subsequent date of confirmation. The said view was restated in Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' Assn. (Direct Recruit) v. State of U.P17, in the following words:
'37. We are also of the view that no retrospective promotion or seniority can be granted from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre so as to adversely affect the direct recruits appointed validly in the meantime, as decided by this Court in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India held that when promotion is outside the quota, seniority would be reckoned from the date of the vacancy within the quota rendering the previous service fortuitous. The previous promotion would be regular only from the date of the vacancy within the quota and seniority shall be counted from that date and not from the date of his earlier promotion or subsequent confirmation. In order to do justice to the promotes, it would not be proper to do injustice to the direct recruits......
38. This Court has consistently held that no retrospective promotion can be granted nor can any seniority be given on retrospective basis from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre particularly when this would adversely affect the direct recruits who have been appointed validity in the meantime."
20. In the instant case, it is evident that while respondent No. 1 was recommended for promotion before his retirement, he could not assume the duties of the Chief Scientific Officer. Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules, clearly stipulates that an employee must assume the responsibilities of a higher post to draw the corresponding pay, thus, preventing posthumous or retrospective promotions in the absence of an enabling provision.
21. While we recognize respondent No.1's right to be considered for promotion, which is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, he does not hold an absolute right to the promotion itself. The legal precedents discussed above establish that promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation. Considering that respondent No. 1 superannuated before his promotion was effectuated, he is not entitled to retrospective financial benefits associated to the promotional post of Chief Scientific Officer, as he did not serve in that capacity.
22. As a result of the above discussion, the judgment dated 1st February, 2023 passed by the High Court of Calcutta and the judgment dated 26th June, 2019 passed by the Tribunal are unsustainable in the eyes of law and are hereby reversed and set aside.
23. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs."
RITU RAJ SINGH
9|Page Thus, in view of the aforesaid quotation, it is implied that when the applicants in this case have already retired from service upon attaining the age of superannuation, no benefit regarding consideration for retrospective promotion can be granted to them. No proposal or order has ever been issued in their favour for promotion and they have not worked on the promotional post and thus after the retirement of the applicants, no promotion order can be passed in their favour on retrospective basis if the aforesaid ratio is taken into consideration. Thus, the instant original application cannot be allowed strictly in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Amal Satpathi (supra) and therefore the same is accordingly, dismissed being devoid of merits. The effect and operation of the impugned order remains intact.
11. All associated MAs stand disposed of. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (Administrative) Member (Judicial)
(Ritu Raj)
RITU RAJ
SINGH
10 | P a g e