Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Hori Lal vs Diivisional Railway Manager N Rly on 24 March, 2026
Reserved
On 23rd February, 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
*********
Original Application No. 237 of 2016
Allahabad this the 24th day of March, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member-J
Hori Lal son of Bhallu Prasad, resident of 356, Rail Bazar (Cant) Kanpur Nagar.
Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Devendra Pratap Singh
Vs.
1. Union of India through Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway,
Allahabad.
2. Senior Divisional Personal Officer, D.R.M. Office, Northern Central Railway,
Allahabad.
3. Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer, (Coaching), Northern Central
Railway, D.R.M. Office, Allahabad.
4. Senior Section Engineer (T.L.) North Central Railway, Kanpur Central,
Kanpur.
Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Ajay Kumar Rai
ORDER
Shri Devendra Pratap Singh, counsel for the applicant and Shri Ajay Kumar Rai, counsel for the respondents are present and heard.
2. This O.A. was heard earlier and decided vide Judgment and Order dated 09.11.2023. Aggrieved by the Order passed by this Tribunal, the applicant has preferred a Writ Petition No. 3395 of 2024 (Hori Lal V. Union of India and others), which was decided vide Judgment and Order dated 14.05.2024 and the Order passed by this Tribunal was quashed and set aside, and the matter was remanded back to this Tribunal for hearing MANISH MEHROTRA and deciding the same in accordance with law. Considering the relief, which is claimed by the applicant in the O.A. and the earlier controversy which was decided by the CGIT vide Award dated 30.04.1993 against which the Order passed by this Tribunal was also considered by the 2 Hon'ble High Court for just and proper adjudication of the case. The Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court is quoted herein below: -
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 09.11.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, whereby the O.A. filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. The petitioner filed the O.A., inter alia, seeking relief of regularization of his service on the post of Khalasi from the date when juniors to him were regularized and pay the same scale of pay, other allowances, benefits etc.
3. Before the Tribunal, the plea raised by the respondents was that the petitioner had earlier approached the CGIT, which passed an award dated 30.04.1993, wherein he was granted relief whereby his order of termination was set aside and he was held entitled to reinstatement with full back-wages and all consequential benefits and, therefore, the present O A. was not maintainable
4. The Tribunal while noticing the fact that against the award dated 30.04.1993, Ο.A. was filed before the Tribunal, whereby the matter was remitted to the CGIT against which the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, which was allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal was set aside. However, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the relief claimed in the O.A. was mirror of the relief already granted by the CGIT and that the Tribunal is not the executing agency for the orders passed by the CGIT or the other Tribunals and consequently dismissed the O.A.
5. A specific query was put to counsel appearing for the respondents, whether the relief granted by the CGIT by its order dated 30.04.1993 is mirror relief to the relief claimed in the said O.A. and if so, whether the said relief has been granted to the petitioner or not.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents indicated that the relief granted is not the mirror relief as claimed in the O.A. and that the award as passed by the CGIT has been implemented in full.
7. In view of clear submissions pertaining to the relief granted by the MANISH MEHROTRA CGIT being not a mirror relief as claimed in the present O.A. before the Tribunal and the Tribunal dismissing the O.A. with the said observations and indicating that the same was not an executing agency for the order passed by the CGIT, the said order cannot be sustained.3
8. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 09.11.2023 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for hearing and deciding the same in accordance with law."
3. This O.A. has been filed by the applicant for the following relief(s):
-
"a. Issue an order or direction commanding the respondents to regularizing the services of the applicant on the post Khalasi from the date when Juniors to the applicants have been regularized and pay same scale of pay, other allowances, benefits promotion selection grade, time scale and revision of pay scale from time to time as has been granted to his Juniors by the respondents.
b. Issue a further order or direction commanding the respondents to pay the entire arrears of salary alongwith 18% till the date of payment. c. Issue any other order or direction as may deem and fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
d. Award costs of this Original Application to the applicant. "
3. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has filed this O.A. for regularization of his services on the post of Khalasi from the date when juniors to the applicant have been regularized with other consequential benefits like same pay scale, allowances and promotion etc. at par with his juniors. He submitted that the applicant was initially appointed on 24.05.1981 and after completing 120 days of continuous service, on 29.09.1981, he got temporary status. Counsel for the applicant submitted that some juniors to the applicant had been regularized in the year 1987, after screening, and in the same screening the applicant was also participated but the result of same was not communicated to him. However, for ulterior motive, the services of applicant were orally terminated vide order dated 03.08.1988. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant had approached the CGIT and after exchange of pleadings, the learned CGIT passed the Award dated 30.04.1993 in MANISH MEHROTRA favour of the applicant with direction to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits and full back wages. Counsel for the applicant further submitted that an O.A. No. 793/1994 was filed by the respondents, which was remanded back to the CGIT for awarding fresh 4 award. He further submitted that the Order passed by this Tribunal is erroneous and he accordingly moved a Writ Petition No. 29665 of 2001 (Hori Lal V. Union of India and others). The Hon'ble High Court was pleased to allow the Writ Petition vide Order dated 09.05.2001 and quashed the Order passed by this Tribunal and restore the Award of CGIT with full consequential benefits. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has approached this Tribunal for limited grievance regarding regularization of services of applicant, from the date when his juniors were regularized with all consequential benefits. He submitted that the issue with earlier adjudication before the CGIT or by the Hon'ble High Court has attained the finality and only controversy left that the applicant has not been given the benefits of regularization at par with some of juniors who were screened and regularized and in this regard, he has mentioned the names of some employees in his O.A., which are S/Shri Ganesh Chandra Das, Hari Lal, Sarfaraj Ahmad, Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, Angad Ram, J. Mangal, Ashok Kumar Gupta, Rakesh and Ashok Kumar.
4. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the reinstatement of applicant vide order dated 10.04.2012 is erroneous and according to him, he is entitled for reinstatement w.e.f. 03.08.1988 to the post of Khalasi at par with his juniors who were screened and regularized.
5. Counsel for the respondents replied and submitted that as a policy matter and in pursuance to the direction issued by the Railway Board, a screening was done in the year 1987 and a panel dated 25.11.1987 was formed in which the name of applicant was not find place and almost after one year, the applicant was orally terminated. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that in pursuance to the Award passed by MANISH MEHROTRA the CGIT and Judgment and Order of the Hon'ble High Court, the applicant was reinstated on 10.04.2012, which has not been challenged by the applicant and moreover with regard to regularization, the Railway Board prescribed the maximum age limit for General candidate is 40 5 years, for OBC candidate the age limit is 43 years and for SC/ST candidate the age limit is 45 years and at the time when the O.A. was filed the age of applicant was 58 years accordingly it was not feasible to regularize him as per extent rules for regularization. Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the paragraphs No. 14, 15 and 17 of the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ A No. 1006/2016 Union of India and others V. Ashok Kumar and 8 others and also relied upon some other cases, mentioned in the Counter Reply. He again submitted that as per extant rules, the applicant cannot be regularized in the services.
6. Heard, counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings on record. As per request of applicant's counsel, he was allowed two days' time to file the Written Arguments. However, the Written Argument was filed by the applicant's counsel on 09.03.2026.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts of case and submissions of counsel for the parties, I have gone through the relief(s) claimed by the applicant regarding regularization of services of the applicant on the post of Khalasi from the date when juniors to the applicant have been regularized along with consequential benefits including entire arrears of salary along with 18% interest. The facts pleaded by the applicant are that initially he was engaged as a casual labour w.e.f. 24.05.1981 and has completed 120 days of continuous service and got temporary status. In the year 1988, screening test was done by the respondents' department for regularization of casual labour, though applicant participated in the screening, however, he was not regularized and the respondents' department has orally terminated the services of the applicant w.e.f. MANISH MEHROTRA 03.08.1988. Thereafter, he has approached the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Kanpur Id Case No. 250/1990 and the said Reference was allowed by the Industrial Tribunal with direction for reinstatement of the applicant and consequential benefits, which was subject to further 6 litigation bearing O.A. No. 783/1994, Writ Petition No. 29665/2001 and thereafter, the applicant was reinstated vide Order dated 10.04.2012 by the Office of Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), North Central Railway, Allahabad. The relevant part of the letter is quoted herein below: -
"आई डी केस सं या 250/1990 ी होर लाल, VOI/मंडल रे ल ब धक, उ.म.रे /इलाहाबाद म सीजीआईट / कानपु र वारा पा रत अवाड के अनु पालन म हाई कोट इलाहाबाद के ड लू पी नं0 29665/2001/ होर लाल / बनाम VOI आदे श दनांक 9- 8-2001 एवं धान कायालय, उ म रे , इलाहाबाद के प सं या 797ई/8/ एन जी -
11/ इले द / कोट केस / 10-11 दनांक 9-2-2011 के वारा दये गये नणय के अनु सार ी होर लाल को दनांक 3-8-88 सेवा समाि त क त थ के पद एवं ि थत के अनु सार पु न था पत (Re instate) कया जाता है । उपरो त पर म डल रे ल बंधक का अनु मोदन ा त है ।
सं या ई एम 1/ व०सा०/ ना0र0/2011 दनांक 10-04-2012 कृ ते म डल रे ल ब धकः (का.) उ०म०रे ०, इलाहाबाद"
From the above letter, it is apparent that in pursuance to Id Case No. 250/1990 as well as Hon'ble High Court's Order dated 09.08.2001, the Headquarters Office of North Central Railway has accorded approval vide Order dated 09.08.2011 for compliance and the applicant was reinstated w.e.f. 03.08.1988. As the applicant has not challenged the order of reinstatement vide which simple observation was made that the applicant is reinstated on the same post and status as on 03.08.1988. There was no benefit given of the past period, as claimed by the applicant that the learned Industrial Tribunal has directed for reinstatement with all consequential benefits and complete back wages meaning thereby the MANISH MEHROTRA applicant has accepted the spirit of Order dated 10.04.2012, and joined to the post and status as on 03.08.1988.
8. Now, considering the relief for regularization w.e.f. his juniors who were regularized in the year 1988, at the fag end of his services, i.e. 58 7 years in the year 2016, with benefit of regularization to the post of Khalasi from the date when juniors were regularized, i.e. 1988, along with same scale of pay, allowances, promotion, selection grade, time scale and revision of pay scale. This Tribunal is not an executing Court for direction issued by the Learned Industrial Tribunal regarding Award dated 23.04.1993 passed in Id No. 250/1990 or of the Judgment and Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court dated 08.09.2001, as applicant has accepted the order dated 10.04.2012 and he was reinstated to the post and status as on 03.08.1988 and, there was no post benefit was granted by the order dated 10.04.2012. The averment of the respondents regarding regularization of persons after screening and the panel so declared on 25.11.1987, the applicant was not found successful and he was reinstated in pursuance to the Award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal. Moreover, the respondents have relied upon the Judgments of Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 21799/2006 (Union of India and others V. Ajay Kumar and another), decided on 03.08.2006 as well as Writ A No. 1006/2016 (Union of India and four others V. Ashok Kumar and 08 others), decided on 04.02.2016, which were arising out of the Judgment and Order passed by this Tribunal. The Hon'ble High Court was pleased to held in Ashok Kumar's case (supra) as follows: -
"In view of above, the Court is of the considered opinion that Railway Board being the competent authority has issued various instructions time to time in respect of service conditions of Group D' and Group 'C' staffs, in continuation of the same the matter of age relaxation in respect of Ex- Casual Labourers and working Casual labour was considered and number of Railway Board letters has been issued for granting age relaxation as well as regarding eligibility criteria. As per the Railway Board Circular dated 28.2.2001 in continuation of the Railway Board's letter dated MANISH MEHROTRA 25.7.1991, age relaxation was further fixed as upper age limit of 40 years in case of General- - - - - - - - -43 years in case of OBC and the same has also been granted in case of Casual/ substitute Group 'C' and Group 'D' posts. As such the Ex-Casual Labours are entitled to be considered in the light of the aforesaid Railway Board Letters and the incumbents' claims are liable to be considered for absorption with prospective effect. The Railway Board is rule making authority for Group 'C' and 'D' employees in 8 view of Rule 157 of the Railway Establishment Code, Volume-I, thus, above Instructions, which have been issued for 'absorption/ regularisation of ex-causal labours/ Group 'D' employees and once the Hon'ble Apex Court in series of judgments had categorically held that Railway Board has got rule making authority, then the same has statutory force and having binding effect.
Consequently, we are of the opinion that the contesting respondents are over age and as such no positive directives can be issued by the Tribunal for absorption under the existing Rules. Once the report of Screening Committee has already been brought on record through supplementary affidavit, whereby all the contesting respondents have failed and relying on the judgment passed by this Court in Ajai Kumar (Supra), we are of the considered opinion that the directions issued by the Tribunal are in futility and issuance of such direction is not permissible in law and as such the contesting respondents are not entitled for any relief. The direction issued by the Tribunal is in contravention of the scheme framed by the petitioners and the Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal cannot pass such an order, which is impermissible in law.
In view of above, the writ petition is allowed and the Impugned order dated 06.11.2015 is quashed and set aside."
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and case laws, discussed above, regarding claim of applicant for regularization w.e.f. his juniors were regularized and consequential benefits of salary, allowances, pay scales, promotion (selection grade and time scale), this Tribunal finds no merit in the O.A. Accordingly, the O.A. stands dismissed being devoid of merits. All the pending MAs shall be deemed to have been disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Rajnish Kumar Rai) Member (Judicial) /M.M/ MANISH MEHROTRA