Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Har Govind vs M/O Railways on 31 July, 2025
OA No. 601/2016, OA No. 320/2015, OA No. 708/2015, OA No. 269/2016 and OA No. 575/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
Original Application No. 601/2016,
Original Application No. 320/2015,
Original Application No. 708/2015,
Original Application No. 269/2016
and
Original Application No. 575/2016
ORDER RESERVED ON: 25.07.2025
DATE OF ORDER: 31.07.2025
CORAM
HON'BLE MS. RANJANA SHAHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. LOK RANJAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
OA No. 601/2016
Ram Swaroop Ajmera son of Late Shri Ram Krishan Ajmera,
aged about 58 years, resident of 3-J-10, Talwandi, Kota and
presently working as Junior Clark, Office of Divisional
Railway Manager, Leave & Pass Section, West Central
Railway, Kota Division, Kota.
..... Applicant
Shri C.B. Sharma, counsel for the applicant
Versus
1. Union of India, through General Manager, West Central
Zone, West Central Railway, Jabalpur.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, West Central Railway,
Kota Division, Kota.
3. Shri Murari Lal, Junior Clerk, Office of Divisional
Railway Manager, Pay Section, West Central Railway,
Kota Division, Kota.
..... Respondents
Shri V.D. Sharma, counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Digitally signed by NATHU
NATHU LAL LAL KUMAWAT
Reason: your signing
reason here
KUMAWAT Date: 2025.08.01 14:16:23
+05'30'
OA No. 601/2016, OA No. 320/2015, OA No. 708/2015, OA No. 269/2016 and OA No. 575/2016
OA No. 320/2015
Parmanand Khandelwal son of Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal
Khandelwal, aged around 53 years, resident of 75/134,
Shipra Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Rajasthan). Presently
working as Senior Tax Assistant in the department of
Income Tax, Jaipur.
..... Applicant
Shri Amit Mathur, counsel for the applicant
Versus
1. The Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New
Delhi.
2.The Central Board of Direct Taxes through its
Chairman, North Block New Delhi.
3. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Revenue Building, Janpath, Jaipur.
4. The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Central Revenue
Building, Jaipur.
..... Respondents
Shri Gaurav Jain, counsel for the respondents.
OA No. 708/2015
Hargovind s/o Sawalia, aged about 58 years, r/o village and
post Mahukala, Teh. Gangapur City, presently working as
Technician Grade-I, in the o/o Railway Power House,
Gangapur City, West Central Railway, Gangapur City.
..... Applicant
Shri B.K. Jatti, counsel for the applicant
Versus
1. Union of India through the General Manager, West
Central Railway, Jagalpur.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, West Central Railway,
Kota.
3. Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer o/o Divisional
Railway Manager, West Central Railway, Kota.
4. Asst. Personnel Officer (Electrical), West Central
Railway, Kota.
Digitally signed by NATHU
NATHU LAL LAL KUMAWAT
Reason: your signing
reason here
KUMAWAT Date: 2025.08.01 14:16:23
+05'30'
OA No. 601/2016, OA No. 320/2015, OA No. 708/2015, OA No. 269/2016 and OA No. 575/2016
5. Ramcharan, Technician, Grade-I, presently working in
the o/o P-Kota O/o Senior Electrical Engineer, D.R.M.
Office, Kota.
6. Mohan Lal R, Technician, Grade-I, presently working in
the office of SWM o/o Senior Electrical Engineer, DRM
Office, Kota.
7. Ajay Kumar Kherwal, Technician Grade-I, presently
working in the office of GGC o/o Senior Electrical
Engineer, DRM Office, Kota.
..... Respondents
Shri V.D. Sharma, counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
OA No. 269/2016
Hargovind s/o Sawalia, aged about 58 years, r/o village and
post Mahukala, Teh. Gangapur City, presently working as
Technician Grade-I, in the o/o Railway Power House,
Gangapur City, West Central Railway, Gangapur City.
..... Applicant
Shri B.K. Jatti, counsel for the applicant
Versus
1. Union of India through the General Manager, West
Central Railway, Jabalpur.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, West Central Railway,
Kota.
3. Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer o/o Divisional
Railway Manager, West Central Railway, Kota.
4. Asst. Personnel Officer (Electrical) West Central
Railway, Kota.
..... Respondents
Shri V.D. Sharma, counsel for the respondents.
OA No. 575/2016
Rajendra Kumar S/o Late Shri Lal Chand aged around 52
years, R/o D-1, Paramhans Colony, Murlipura, Sikar Road,
Jaipur.
Presently working as Additional S.P. CID (SSB), Police Head
Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
..... Applicant
Shri Amit Mathur, counsel for the applicant
Digitally signed by NATHU
NATHU LAL LAL KUMAWAT
Reason: your signing
reason here
KUMAWAT Date: 2025.08.01 14:16:23
+05'30'
OA No. 601/2016, OA No. 320/2015, OA No. 708/2015, OA No. 269/2016 and OA No. 575/2016
1. The Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Government
of India, New Delhi.
2. The Union Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi.
3. The State of Rajasthan through its Chief Secretary,
State Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home,
Government of Rajasthan, State Secretariat, Jaipur.
5. The Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government
of Rajasthan, State Secretariat, Jaipur.
6. The Chairman, UPSC, Dholpur House, New Delhi.
7. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, IPS, Principal Secretary,
Department of Home, Government of Rajasthan, State
Secretariat, Jaipur.
..... Respondents
Shri V.D. Sharma, counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5.
ORDER
Per: RANJANA SHAHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
At the request of learned counsels for the parties, OA
No. 601/2016, OA No. 320/2015, OA No. 708/2015, OA No. 269/2016 and OA No. 575/2016 are taken up together for disposal as common question of law and facts is involved in the aforesaid matters/OAs as these OAs pertain to applicants' seeking final relief of promotion but have in the meanwhile retired.
2. For the sake of convenience, brief facts of OA No. 601/2016 are taken up. The relief sought for by the applicant in the said OA is as under: -
"(i) That the respondents may be directed to assign seniority to the applicant over and above respondent Digitally signed by NATHU NATHU LAL LAL KUMAWAT Reason: your signing reason here KUMAWAT Date: 2025.08.01 14:16:23 +05'30' OA No. 601/2016, OA No. 320/2015, OA No. 708/2015, OA No. 269/2016 and OA No. 575/2016 No. 3 in the cadre of Junior Clerk pay band Rs. 5200-
20200 with grade pay Rs. 1900/- by modifying seniority list dated 30/10/20145 (Annexure-A/4) and to place the applicant in list-A in place of respondent No. 3 in the eligibility list dated 10/06/2016 (Annexure-A/1) with all consequential benefits.
(ii) That the respondents be further directed to allow the applicant to go through in selection process as started vide eligibility list dated 10/06/2016 (Annexure-A/1) and allow promotion to the cadre of Senior Clerk pay band Rs. 5200-20200 with grade pay Rs. 2800 prior to respondent No. 3 with all consequential benefits.
(iii) Any other order, direction or relief may be passed in favour of the applicant, which may be deemed fit, just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(vi) That the costs of this application may be awarded."
3. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are that he was aggrieved by the eligibility list dated 10.06.2016 (Annexure A/1) issued by the official respondents for promotion to the cadre of Senior Clerk, pay band Rs. 5200-20200 with grade pay Rs. 2800 from the cadre of Junior Clerk, pay band Rs. 5200-20200 with grade pay Rs. 1900 in which the name of private respondent No. 3 was shown in List-A at Sl. No. 4 and the name of the applicant figure in List-B at Sl. No. 1. This is despite the claim of the applicant that he was senior to respondent No. 3 as per date of appointment, hence, respondent No. 3 was wrongly assigned seniority over and above the applicant. Through the present O.A., the applicant has sought re-
fixation of seniority and, accordingly, modification of the
Digitally signed by NATHU
NATHU LAL LAL KUMAWAT
Reason: your signing
reason here
KUMAWAT Date: 2025.08.01 14:16:23
+05'30'
OA No. 601/2016, OA No. 320/2015, OA No. 708/2015, OA No. 269/2016 and OA No. 575/2016
seniority list dated 30.10.2015 (Annexure A/4) and
consequently directions to the respondents to allow the
applicant to participate in the selection process and allow
him promotion to the cadre of Senior Clerk. At the time of
filing of the present Original Application (O.A.) in the year
2016, as has been mentioned by the applicant, his age was
58 years and during the pendency of this O.A., he retired
from the service.
4. The respondents in their reply have stated that the
applicant never challenged his seniority position assigned to
him way back by seniority list dated 22.03.2005 (Annexure
R/1). Thus, his seniority stood finalized. They further
stated that the same seniority position as had been
assigned in the year 2005 is being maintained even in the
seniority list dated 30.10.2015, which the applicant is
seeking to be modified in the year 2016.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Government of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors., decided on 27" November, 2024, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512 and has stated that the relief claimed by the applicant in the present O.A. cannot be granted in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above mentioned judgment. Digitally signed by NATHU
NATHU LAL LAL KUMAWAT Reason: your signing reason here KUMAWAT Date: 2025.08.01 14:16:23 +05'30' OA No. 601/2016, OA No. 320/2015, OA No. 708/2015, OA No. 269/2016 and OA No. 575/2016 6. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record. 7. The question at the very threshold which needs to be determined is whether the relief claimed by the applicant can be granted in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Amal Satpathi
(supra) since the applicant has already retired; as such, the relevant extracts of the above cited judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are reproduced as below: -
"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?
XXXXX
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 Das, 2024 SCC Online SC 1768, 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 Rai, (2022) 12 SCC 579 where, citing earlier precedents in Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty, (1991) 2 SCC 295 and Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209,, 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, Digitally signed by NATHU NATHU LAL LAL KUMAWAT Reason: your signing reason here KUMAWAT Date: 2025.08.01 14:16:23 +05'30' OA No. 601/2016, OA No. 320/2015, OA No. 708/2015, OA No. 269/2016 and OA No. 575/2016 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."
XXXXX "20. In State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 334, 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. Union of India, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 272, 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. xxxxx XXXXX
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."
(emphasis supplied) XXXXX
21. While we recognize respondent No.1l'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 Digitally signed by NATHU NATHU LAL LAL KUMAWAT Reason: your signing reason here KUMAWAT Date: 2025.08.01 14:16:23 +05'30' OA No. 601/2016, OA No. 320/2015, OA No. 708/2015, OA No. 269/2016 and OA No. 575/2016 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 26 June, 2019 passed by the Tribunal are unsustainable in the eyes of law and are hereby reversed and set aside.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment passed in the case of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra) has been considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in the case of Jai Prakash Padwar vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.
(WPS No. 3413/2021) in its judgment dated 24.07.2025
and held as below: -
6. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no notional benefits can be extended where promotion is claimed after retirement; therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).
9. The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in the case of Illa Ananda Nivas vs. Asst. Commissioner & Anr. (WP No. 30187 of 2011) vide its order dated 11.07.2025 also considered the above mentioned judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra) and in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the writ petition and held as below (relevant extracts): -
7. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Government of West Bengal and others Vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi and others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3512, held in the following extracted manner: "That even recognizing the promotion 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 Digitally signed by NATHU NATHU LAL LAL KUMAWAT Reason: your signing reason here KUMAWAT Date: 2025.08.01 14:16:23 +05'30' 10 OA No. 601/2016, OA No. 320/2015, OA No. 708/2015, OA No. 269/2016 and OA No. 575/2016 promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation."
8. After careful persuasive of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (referred supra), the promotion only becomes effective on the assumption of duties and the representation of the respondents that the petitioner was superannuated was not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the said principle is squarely applicable to the petitioner herein, as he was superannuated. Even assuming that the petitioner is entitled for promotion as claimed by him, he is not entitled to retrospective financial benefits, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (referred supra)."
10. After going through the above mentioned judgments, the crux of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and followed by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in the case of Illa Ananda Nivas (supra) and Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in the case of Jai Prakash Padwar (supra) is that the promotion only becomes effective on assumption of the duties of the promoted post. In other words, the promotion has to be effectuated and to do so, the employee has to be in service so that he can actually assume the duties on the promotional post and since the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in the above cited judgment in Illa Ananda Nivas (supra) has emphasized that "Even assuming that the petitioner is entitled for promotion as claimed by him, he is not entitled to retrospective financial benefits, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (referred supra)."
Digitally signed by NATHU
NATHU LAL LAL KUMAWAT Reason: your signing reason here KUMAWAT Date: 2025.08.01 14:16:23 +05'30' 11 OA No. 601/2016, OA No. 320/2015, OA No. 708/2015, OA No. 269/2016 and OA No. 575/2016
11. In the case of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra), the employee was though not granted retrospective promotion after his superannuation by the Hon'ble High Court at Culcutta yet he was granted notional financial benefits for the promotional post. But the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed the order of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and specifically considered and dealt with the question "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?" Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court held employee not entitled even to notional financial benefits for the promotional post despite been recommended for promotion before superannuation and also noticing the administrative delay in actually giving him promotion. It needs to be stressed that in that case, the employee was held fit for promotion and was recommended for promotion to Public Service Commission before his retirement but the department received the final approval for his promotion by 04" January, 2017 whereas he superannuated on 30" December, 2016 i.e. barely 04 days prior. Even in such case, the Hon'ble Apex Court declined the relief on the ground that his promotion was not Digitally signed by NATHU NATHU LAL LAL KUMAWAT Reason: your signing reason here KUMAWAT Date: 2025.08.01 14:16:23 +05'30' 12 OA No. 601/2016, OA No. 320/2015, OA No. 708/2015, OA No. 269/2016 and OA No. 575/2016 effectuated as he could not assume the responsibilities of a promoted post because he retired prior to that.
12. Whereas, in the present case, the applicant has first to get himself declared eligible for him to be even considered for promotion, for which he is seeking modification of the seniority list in the year 2016, which was actually assigned to him way back in the year 2005 and which he never challenged since then. Now the applicant has retired, hence, cannot even be directed to go through the process for promotion and cannot assume the duties of the promotional post. In view of the above position, it is not a fit case for interference by this Tribunal and the same deserves to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, in view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Courts (as discussed above), all the Original Applications (OA No. 601/2016, OA No. 320/2015, OA No. 708/2015, OA No. 269/2016 and OA No. 575/2016) are dismissed. No order as to costs.
14. In view of the order passed in the OAs, all the pending Misc. Applications, if any, are disposed off.
(LOK RANJAN) (RANJANA SHAHI)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Ikl
Digitally signed by NATHU
NATHU LAL LAL KUMAWAT
Reason: your signing
reason here
KUMAWAT Date: 2025.08.01 14:16:23
+05'30'