NORTH CENTRAL RAILWAY vs RAM SINGH RATHORE

Court
Central Administrative Tribunal

1


Open Court
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
*

st
This is the 31 day of August, 2026

Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member-J
Hon’ble Ms. Manju Pandey, Member -A

Review application No.24 of 2026
In
Original Application No.526/2026


1. ​ Union of India through the General Manager, North
Central Railway, Headquarter's Office, Subedarganj,
Prayaraj-211015.

2. ​ Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, State Entry
Road, New Delhi-110001.

3. ​ Deputy Chief Engineer/Construction, North Central
Railway, Kanpur.

4. ​ Senior Personnel Officer/Construction, North Central
Railway, Prayagraj-211015.

On behalf of Union of India through General Manager, North
Central Railway, Headquarter’s office, Subedarganj, Prayagraj
and Others (Except respondent No.2)

....... Review Applicants.
By Advocate – Shri Anil Kumar

V E R S U S

ARPITA
SRIVASTAV

2

Ram Singh Rathore, aged about 62 years (Senior Citizen),
Resident of 18-B/3-A, Shiv Katra Road, Lal Bunglow
District-Kanpur Nagar, Pincode-208007.

.... Review Respondent.
By Advocate : Shri Rajesh Kumar

O R D E R
By Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J):
Shri Anil Kumar, counsel for the review applicants and
Shri Rajesh Kumar, counsel for the review respondents are
present and heard.
2. ​ This Tribunal, by its judgment dated 14.05.2026, had
issued the following directions:-
​
​ “6. Considering the above submissions and upon
perusal of the record and contents of the impugned
order, we are of the opinion that the Original
Application deserves to be allowed at the admission
stage. The impugned order dated 02.03.2026 is hereby
quashed. The General Manager, North Central Railway,
Allahabad is directed to look into the matter and
reconsider the case of the applicant after examining his
entitlement on the basis of the service record as well as
the MACP Scheme, in accordance with law, and to pass a
reasoned and speaking order within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order. Accordingly, the present Original Application is
allowed.. ”

3. ​ The instant Review Application has been filed seeking
modification of the directions contained in paragraph 6 of the
order dated 14.05.2026, whereby this Tribunal quashed the
impugned order dated 02.03.2026 passed by the Senior
Personnel Officer/Construction, North Central Railway,

3

Prayagraj–211015, and directed the General Manager, North
Central Railway, to look into the matter and reconsider the
case of the applicant in the Original Application for grant of
3rd MACP.
4. ​ Shri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the review
applicants, submitted that the applicant in the Original
Application is holding lien with Northern Railway. However,
he was working under North Central Railway in the
Construction Unit. Therefore, his lien as well as his entire
service record is maintained by the office of Northern
Railway. In such circumstances, it was submitted that the
order may be modified to the extent that, instead of the
General Manager, North Central Railway, the competent
authority may consider the grievance of the applicant with
regard to the grant of 3rd MACP.
​
5. Per contra, Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the
review respondents (applicant in the Original Application),
submitted that the 1st and 2nd MACP benefits were
considered by North Central Railway and, accordingly, the
decision with regard to the 3rd MACP ought also to be taken
by North Central Railway. He further submitted that, in the
speaking order dated 02.03.2026, the Senior Personnel
Officer had taken note of the letter dated 23.09.2025 issued

4

by the Chief Administrative Officer/Construction, as well as
the letter of Northern Railway bearing Letter No.
726-E/16/Misc/P-4 dated 30.10.2025. In such circumstances,
if the Senior Personnel Officer was not the competent
authority, the matter ought to have been referred to the
competent authority for taking a decision with regard to the
grant of 3rd MACP.
6. ​ Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for
the parties and the limited grievance raised by the review
applicants with regard to the grant of 3rd MACP, which has
been denied by the respondents on account of a pending writ
petition before the Hon’ble High Court, we are of the view
that the pendency of such writ petition cannot, by itself, be
relied upon for denying the claim of the applicant in the
present case. The competent authority ought to have referred
the matter to the appropriate authority or considered the
applicant’s service record in light of the relevant provisions of
the MACP Scheme. However, the respondents failed to do so.
7. ​ In view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel
for the review applicants that a direction be issued to the
competent authority to consider the grievance of the
applicant, the order is modified to that extent that the
competent authority shall look into the grievance of the

5

applicant with regard to grant of 3rd MACP after considering
the service record of the applicant as well as the relevant
provisions of the MACP Scheme, in accordance with law.
8. ​ Accordingly, the instant Review Application is disposed
of.


(Manju Pandey) ​ ​ ​ ​ (Rajnish Kumar Rai)
Member (A) ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Member (J)



/Arpita/ ​