Raviraj Singh Yadav vs M/o Railways

A 200/1145/2017
O
1


Reserved

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
(Hybrid Mode)

Original Application No.200/1145/2017

th
Jabalpur, this Tuesday, the 13 day of October, 2026


HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

HON’BLE MRS. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

Raviraj Singh Yadav, S/o Shri Khemsing Yadav, aged about 39 years,
presenting working as Office of General Manager, West Central Railway,
Near Indira Market Civil Line, Jabalpur (M.P.) – 482001.
-Applicant

(By Advocate – Shri Adeetya Banerjee)
V e r s u s

1. Union of India through General Manager, West Central Railway, Near
Indira Market, Jabalpur (M.P.) – 482001.
2. Chief Personnel Officer, West Central Railway, Office of General
Manager, Near Indira Market, Jabalpur (M.P.) – 482001.
- Respondents
(By Advocate – Shri D.S. Baghel)


(Date of reserving order : 17.09.2026)






Page 1 of 8
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:25:27
+05'30'
MISHRA

A 200/1145/2017
O
2

O R D E R

By Mallika Arya, AM.-
The applicant is aggrieved that though his pay has been stepped up at
par with his junior Tinku Kumar Choudhary but he has not been paid
arrears of the pay consequent upon such stepping up of pay.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was selected as Junior
Clerk by RRB Bhopal on 12.03.2009 and he was placed at Sr. No.343 in the
select list. Out of the candidates selected through the same selection
process, 13 candidates got posted in Headquarter, i.e. in the office of
General Manager. Out of 13 candidates, 3 were posted in Personnel
Department, 6 in Stores Department and 4 candidates including the
applicant got posted in MOCG Department. The respective seniority of
employees posted in three different Departments was maintained separately.
However, in all other cases, seniority position has been adopted based on
their respective panel position in the RRB, whereas in the case of applicant,
he has been assigned seniority from the date of joining.
2.1 Shri Tinku Kumar Choudhary, who was an immediate junior to the
applicant got promoted as Senior Clerk from Junior Clerk in the year 2011.
The applicant represented for rectification of the seniority position and for
Page 2 of 8
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:25:27
+05'30'
MISHRA

A 200/1145/2017
O
3
grant of proper seniority to him based on the RRB panel. Since the
representation remained pending with the authorities, the applicant
preferred an Original Application No.155/2014 before this Tribunal. The
Original Application was disposed vide order dated 02.05.2014 (Annexure
A-4) directing the respondents to consider the representation of the
applicant by passing a speaking order. Although the respondents have
rectified the seniority position of the applicant, his pay could not be
enhanced or stepped up at par with his juniors. Shri Tinku Kumar
Choudhary is getting more pay than the applicant. The applicant got
promoted as Office Superintendent on 31.01.2015, whereas Shri Tinku
Kumar Choudhary got promoted on 28.06.2013 due to incorrect seniority
position.
2.2 The applicant again represented the matter before the respondents
requesting to step up his pay at par with his junior and also pay arrears.
Since no action was taken by the respondents, he filed an Original
Application No.1048/2016 before this Tribunal. Vide the order dated
10.11.2016 (Annexure A-8), the Original Application was disposed with the
direction to the respondents to consider and decide the applicant’s
representations within three months. In pursuance thereof, the respondents
Page 3 of 8
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:25:27
+05'30'
MISHRA

A 200/1145/2017
O
4
have passed an order dated 06.03.2017 (Annexure A-9) stating that pay of
the applicant has been notionally fixed equal to that of his junior
w.e.f.16.05.2011. However, arrears have not been paid since the applicant
has not actually worked in the post entailing higher responsibility.
3. In their reply, the respondents have stated that vide the order dated
06.03.2017 (Annexure A-9), the claim of the applicant has been rejected
relying on Para 228(i) of IREM, Vol.I. This order has not been challenged
by the applicant. The issue with respect to stepping up his pay at par with
Shri T.K. Choudhary stands settled. However, the arrears of pay cannot be
paid in terms of the Para 228(i) of IREM, Vol.I. It is a settled law that the
enhanced pay can be allowed from the actual date of promotion and if the
promotion is antedated, then notional fixation can be done. But in absence
of shouldering the higher duties and responsibilities, the person concerned
cannot be extended salary/arrears in this regard.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
pleadings and the documents available on record.
5. There is no factual dispute that the applicant and Shri Tinku Kumar
Choudhary got selected through the same recruitment process conducted by
Page 4 of 8
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:25:27
+05'30'
MISHRA

A 200/1145/2017
O
5
RRB, Bhopal. It is also not in dispute that on account of the manner in
which seniority was initially assigned in their respective Departments, the
applicant was placed below his actual position in the RRB panel. The
applicant thereafter approached this Tribunal and, pursuant to the directions
issued in O.A. No.155/2014, his representation was considered and his
seniority position was rectified. It is evident from the order dated
06.03.2017 (Annexure A-9) that the respondents have accepted the
consequence of such rectification to the extent that the applicant's pay has
been notionally fixed at par with his junior with effect from 16.05.2011.
Thus, the applicant has already been granted the benefit of correction of
seniority position and consequential pay fixation on notional basis. The
grievance of the applicant in this Original Application is confined to
payment of arrears for the period preceeding his actual promotion.
6. Para 228(i) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Vol. I
(Annexure R-1), deals with erroneous promotion on account of
administrative errors. The said provision contemplates cases where an
employee is overlooked for promotion because of an administrative error,
including an error in assignment of relative seniority. It inter alia provides
that the employee should be assigned the correct seniority vis-à-vis his
Page 5 of 8
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:25:27
+05'30'
MISHRA

A 200/1145/2017
O
6
juniors already promoted and his pay in the higher grade may be fixed on
proforma basis. However, the enhanced pay is to be allowed from the date
of actual promotion and arrears are not payable for the earlier period
because the employee has not actually shouldered the duties and
responsibilities of the higher post.
7. In the case of Union of India & Anr. vs. Tarsem Lal & Ors., (2006)
10 SCC 145, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically considered Para
228 of IREM and has held that the claim for arrears from the date of
proforma promotion are not sustainable where the employee had not
actually worked in the promotional post. The same principle has been
reiterated in the case of Paluru Ramakrishnaiah & Ors. vs. Union of
India & Anr., (1989) 2 SCC 541 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that where an employee is deemed to have been promoted from an
earlier date because his junior was promoted, but he did not actually
perform the duties of the higher post during that period, he is entitled to
refixation of pay on the basis of such notional promotion but not to arrears
of salary for the period during which he did not work on the higher post.
Page 6 of 8
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:25:27
+05'30'
MISHRA

A 200/1145/2017
O
7
8. In the present case, the applicant got actually promoted as Office
Superintendent only on 31.01.2015, whereas Shri Tinku Kumar Choudhary
had been promoted earlier on 28.06.2013. Merely because the applicant's
seniority was subsequently corrected and his pay was notionally brought at
par with that of his junior, it cannot be the case of the applicant that he had
discharged the duties and responsibilities of the higher post during the
intervening period. The applicant has not placed on record any order
showing that he was actually posted against the higher post with effect from
the date on which his junior was promoted, or the fact that he has
discharged the duties and responsibilities of the higher post during the
period for which arrears are claimed. The benefit granted to him is
specifically described by the respondents as notional fixation. Therefore, the
essential factual foundation for claiming actual arrears is absent. It is also
relevant that the applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal in O.A.
No.155/2014 regarding correction of his seniority position and thereafter in
O.A. No.1048/2016 regarding consideration of his claim for stepping up of
pay. The directions in both matters were complied with by the respondents
by considering his representations and passing a speaking order. The order
dated 06.03.2017 (Annexure A-9) has specifically recorded the notional
Page 7 of 8
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:25:27
+05'30'
MISHRA

A 200/1145/2017
O
8
fixation of pay with effect from 16.05.2011. Thus, the applicant cannot
claim that his grievance regarding correction of seniority and notional pay
fixation has remained unattended.
9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we do not
find any merit in the claim of the applicant. Hence, this Original
Application is dismissed being devoid of any merit. No costs.


(Mallika Arya) (Rajinder Singh Dogra)
Administrative Member Judicial Member

am/-




Page 8 of 8
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:25:27
+05'30'
MISHRA