Amit Sen Gupta vs M/o Railways

Reserved on 13.07.2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
st
This the 31 day of August, 2026
Original Application No. 174 of 2018

Present:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member-(Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member- (Administrative)
Amit Sen Gupta, Controller (Group-C Employee), Age-36, S/o Late
Arun Kumar Sen Gupta. Presently posted as Controller (Class-III
Employee) At Operating Department, DRM Office Mughalsarai, East
Central Railway, Mughalsarai, District Chandauli R/o: Quarter No.
1258/D, Manas Nagar, Post Mughalsarai District Chandauli.
…..Applicant
By Adv: Shri R. K. Dixit
V E R S U S
1. The Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Railways, New
Delhi.
2. The Director General, Railway Protection Force (R.P.F.), Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi.
3. The Chief Operating Manager, East Central Railway Hajipur, (Bihar).
4. The Chief Medical Director, East Central Railway, Hajipur, (Bihar)
5. The Chief Vigilance Officer, East Central Railway, Hajipur, (Bihar).
6. The Senior Divisional Operating Manager, East Central Railway,
Mughalsarai, District Chandauli.
7. The Chief Medical Superintendent, East Central Railway,
Mughalsarai District Chandauli.
. . . Respondents
By Adv: Shri Prashant Mathur
Shri N. C. Srivastava

Page 1 of 5

SAHIL SHARMA

O R D E R

Delivered by: Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (A)

Heard Shri R. K. Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri
Prashant Mathur, Shri N. C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the
respondents.
2. The instant Original Application, under section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, has been filed by the applicant,
seeking following reliefs:
1. To issue an order or direction, quashing the impugned orders dated
04/10/2017 & 27/01/2018, passed by Opposite party No. 7, the Chief Medical
Superintendent, East Central Railway, Mughalsarai District Chandauli,
(enclosed as Annexure -A1 & A2) respectively to the Compilation I to the
application.
2. An order or direction, directing the Opposite partys, not to send the
applicant for Re-Medical Examination by the Medical Board in All India
Institute of Medical Science AIIMS) New Delhi, in pursuance of the
impugned order dated 04/10/2017 & 27/01/2018.
3. Issue any other, order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem
fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, if any may also be granted.
4. Award cost of the applicant.”
3.
The brief facts, as stated by the applicant are that he was
appointed as a Goods Guard on 31.05.2008 and is presently working as
a Controller in the Operating Department at DRM Office, Mughalsarai,
East Central Railway. On 25.04.2015, the applicant fell ill and was
issued a sick certificate and was finally declared medically unfit for
train-running duties by the Divisional Medical Committee on
05.11.2015. The Committee recommended an alternative sedentary job
be given to the applicant on medical grounds. Subsequently, a medical
decategorization certificate was issued by the Chief Medical
Superintendent on 09.11.2015 in respect of the applicant.
3.1. Thereafter, the applicant was considered by a Screening
Committee on 09.03.2016, which found him suitable for an alternative
post. Based on the Committee's recommendation and the approval of
the Divisional Railway Manager, he was appointed as a Controller in
the Operating Department on 12.05.2016. However, due to neurological
illness, the applicant remained under medical treatment from
Page 2 of 5

SAHIL SHARMA

16.05.2016 to 14.08.2017 and finally joined the post of Controller on
15.08.2017 after being declared medically fit for the alternative post.
3.2. After a lapse of about five months of working of the applicant as
Controller, the Railway Administration issued orders directing the
applicant to undergo a re-medical examination before a Medical Board
at AIIMS, New Delhi. According to the applicant, no reasons were
given for ordering this re-medical examination except a reference of
letter from the Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer.
3.3 The applicant contends that the Indian Railway Establishment
Manual provides that once a railway employee is medically
decategorised and absorbed in a suitable alternative post, there is no
provision for sending such an employee for a re-medical examination.
He also submits that several similarly situated employees, whose
names were also mentioned in the impugned orders, have challenged
the same before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and were granted
interim protection. Feeling aggrieved by the actions of the respondents,
the applicant has approached this Tribunal by filing the instant Original
Application.
4. Short counter affidavit dated 06.08.2018 as well as Counter
affidavit dated 04.03.2019 have been filed by the respondents, wherein
it has been stated that by way of instant Original Application, the
applicant has challenged impugned orders dated 04.10.2017 and
27.01.2018, whereby the applicant was directed to appear for re-medical
examination in AIIMS, New Delhi. It is further stated that while
examining the old cases of medical board for decategorization of staff
w.e.f. 2015-16 conducted at Mughalsarai, the Vigilance department
suspected the act of one of the doctors in board being suspicious and on
that ground it was advised that 6 cases be medically examined by
AIIMS, New Delhi to confirm previous recommendations of the
medical board. Further, it is well settled position that if earlier medical
examination or fitness certificate is found to be doubtful, the concerned
employee may be required to appear for re-medical examination.
Page 3 of 5

SAHIL SHARMA

Therefore, the respondents have not committed any illegality or
infirmity in the case of the applicant.
5. The applicant has filed rejoinder affidavit reiterating his
averments.
6.
Submissions of learned counsel for the parties have been heard
and records have been gone through.
7. The records indicate that the applicant was working as a Goods
Guard and was suffering from some neuron problem. Thereafter, the
applicant was examined by the Divisional Medical Committee on
05.11.2015. The committee observed that the applicant was not fit for
train running and passing duties and was recommended for alternative
employment on medical ground with sedentary nature of job.
Following the recommendations of the committee, the applicant was
assigned alternative employment as Controller vide order dated
12.05.2016, which was joined by the applicant on 15.08.2017.
8. However, during scrutiny of the earlier medical decategorization
cases, the Vigilance Department found the medical assessment in
certain cases, including that of the applicant, to be doubtful.
Consequently, after 5 months of his service as controller vide order
dated 04.10.2017, he was directed to appear before the Medical Board at
AIIMS, New Delhi for re-medical examination to verify the correctness
of his earlier medical fitness/medical decategorization.
9. It is the contention of the applicant that there is no rule to the
effect that once an employee has been declared medically unfit, he can
again be sent for re-medical examination. Whether there is any rule for
re-medical examination or not, the employer can always get his
employees medically examined at any point of time to ascertain his
physical fitness or otherwise. Therefore, there is no legal infirmity in the
order of the respondents directing him to appear before a medical
board at AIIMS, New Delhi.
Page 4 of 5

SAHIL SHARMA

10. Moreover, when correctness of an earlier medical examination is
found to be doubtful, the Railway Administration is justified in having
the employee medically examined again by a competent Medical Board.
The purpose of such medical re-examination is only to verify the
correct status of fitness of the employee whether he was fit for the
post that was being held by him. Therefore, the fact that the applicant
had already been declared medically decategorized and given an
alternative post would not prevent the Railways from directing him to
undergo re-medical examination when the correctness of the earlier
medical assessment is doubtful.
11
. Further, we are of the opinion that the suitability of the
employees, as per laid down medical standards, for a post in the
respondents’ departments has to be left entirely to the experts and
doctors in the medical board. The Tribunal would refrain from
commenting on medical fitness of the applicant. Since in the present
case, the applicant’s medical decategorization has been found doubtful
by the respondents, it is within their competence to direct the applicant
to undergo medical re-examination.
12. In view of above, no interference of this Tribunal is warranted in
dismissed
the present case. The Original Application is, accordingly,
being devoid of merit .
13. Interim Order, if any, stands discharged.
All the related MAs stand disposed of.

( Anjani Nandan Sharan ) ( Justice Rajiv Joshi )
Member (A) Member (J)
SahilSharma/-
Page 5 of 5

SAHIL SHARMA