Ram Prakash vs General Manager, N E Rly
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
Open Court
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
*
Original Application No. 767 of 2018
th
Allahabad this the 14 day of October, 2026
Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member-J
Hon’ble Ms. Manju Pandey, Member-A
Ram Prakash S/o Sri Kamaldev Prasad Posted As Electric Fitter, Grade-I, Senior
Section Engineer Electrical, Computer, N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur. R/o 678-I,
Bichhiya Railway Colony, Gorakhpur.
Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Shashi Kant Rai
Vs.
1. Union of India through General Manager, N.E.R. Goarkhpur.
2. The Deputy Chief Electrical Engineer Colony, N.E.R. Gorakhpur.
3. The Assistant Personal Officer, Colony, N.E.R., Gorakhpur.
Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma
O R D E R
Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member [Judicial]
Shri Shashi Kant Rai, counsel for the applicant and Shri Manoj
Kumar Sharma, counsel for the respondents are present and heard.
2. This O.A. has been filed by the applicant challenging the order
dated 11.04.2018 and 05.01.2016 vide which the respondents have
rejected the claim of applicant with regard to re-fixation of his seniority as
per empanelment of the casual labour in pursuance to the screening
conducted and empanelled on 03.02.1984. The applicant has prayed for
following relief(s)
“(ii) Issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal may
deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, so as
MANISH MEHROTRA
to meet the ends of justice.
(iii) To award costs of the application in favour of the applicant.
2
(iv) To quash the order dated 11.4.18 passed by the office of
respondent No. 1 and order dt 5.1.16 passed by respondent No. 2
(Annexure A-4 to this petition)”
3. Counsel for the applicant submitted that initially the applicant has
sought relief for direction upon the respondents to consider his pending
representation and during the pendency of the O.A., his representation
was decided. Hence, on the ground that his representation has been
decided, the relief was amended, after hearing the counsel for parties.
He further submitted that the O.A. is filed within limitation as the
impugned order was passed on the representation, so moved by the
applicant while in service. Counsel for the applicant submitted that while
filing the O.A., the applicant was serving on the post of Technician-II.
The facts, as pleaded by applicant, are that the applicant was appointed
as casual labour/khalasi on 16.03.1981 and worked up to 01.07.1983.
Subsequently, on 03.02.1984, a screening test for empanelment was held
in which the candidates who have been declared suitable for
empanelment against regular Class-IV posts under D.E.E. Colony,
Gorakhpur, however, name of applicant was not shown. Thereafter, one
letter dated 04.02.1984 was issued to him with intimation that the name
of applicant was not found placed in the empanelled screening list
published vide the office notification dated 03.02.1984 because the
service record of applicant has not been verified by the EFO BG unit of
this colony. Therefore, the concerned respondent asked the applicant to
submit the record pertaining to working days so that he may be
empanelled and as per his seniority, his name will be interpolated at
suitable place in the screened and empanelled list dated 03.02.1984.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that to the utter surprise, the
applicant’s name was empanelled in the notification published on
08.10.1990, which was between Tulsi Prasad and Nasir Ali while he did
not appear in the screening conducted in the year 1990. He further
MANISH MEHROTRA
submitted that the applicant has been continuously working with the
respondents’ department and got his pay regularly. After considerable
3
period passed when his seniority position was not corrected and persons
junior to him were promoted to higher post, he has moved one
representation dated 05.01.2016 before the respondents and by the letter
dated 06.03.2017 and 24.07.2017, the respondents have intimated the
applicant to submit the certificate with regard to working period between
16.03.1981 to 01.07.1983 as no record pertaining to said period was
available with the respondents’ department. However, the applicant has
provided the casual labour card which shows engagement of applicant
between 16.03.1981 to 01.07.1983 and on 15.07.1984, he has worked
for 954 days. The dispute is pertaining to the period between 16.03.1981
to 01.07.1983 with regard to ‘823’ days, which was not available with the
respondents, however, the said working period has been observed and
available in the casual labour card and on that basis, his name was placed
in the seniority list for screening conducted in the year 1984. Further, the
representation which has been moved by the applicant does not bring any
relief with regard to considering the fixation of seniority of the applicant
w.e.f. 03.02.1984.
4. Counsel for the applicant submitted that earlier he has filed the
O.A. for deciding the representation, however, during the pendency of
O.A., representation was rejected. Hence, the applicant has filed the
Amendment Application (MA No. 1925/2018) challenging the order dated
11.04.2018 and 05/06.01.2016, which was allowed vide Order dated
10.01.2019.
5. Counsel for the respondents has filed the counter reply wherein it is
submitted that the applicant was appointed on 16.03.1981 and worked up
to 15.05.1981. The Committee of three officers conducted the screening
for empanelment of 47 candidates on 16.10.1990 in which applicant
appeared and found suitable with the condition that his empanelment is
MANISH MEHROTRA
subject to confirmation of his appointment dated 16.03.1981 and in this
regard they have filed the result of screening test conducted in the year
4
1990. It is further pleaded that after the screening conducted on
04.10.1990 and 16.10.1990, the applicant’s seniority was enlisted
between Tulsi Prasad and Nasir Ali and he was shown at serial No. 31 and
on the basis of that seniority, his seniority has been fixed by letter dated
03.01.1995, which is also filed along with the O.A. The respondents have
pleaded that the service record of applicant as substitute Khalasi has not
been verified by his E.F.O.B.G. of the Colony, Gorakhpur, therefore, his
claim in the year 1984 was not considered and moreover the relief sought
by the applicant pertaining to the seniority w.e.f. 1984 is highly time
barred. Counsel for the respondents argued that once the seniority
shown by letter dated 03.01.1995 w.e.f. 08.11.1990 published and the
applicant has not redressed his grievance before the competent authority,
now at the present stage the O.A. is highly belated and deserves to be
dismissed as time barred. He further submitted that the record with
regard to working period of applicant from 16.03.1981 to 15.05.1981 was
not available with the respondents and on that account his seniority was
rightly fixed by order dated 03.01.1995.
6. Heard, counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available
on record.
7. From the records, it appears that while filing the O.A. in the year
2018, the applicant was aged about 55 years and sought a relief for
taking decision on the representation dated 09.05.2018 in pursuance of
Railway Board Circular dated 20.10.1963. However, later on relief was
modified and the applicant has challenged the impugned order dated
11.04.2018 (page 32) and order dated 05.01.2016 (page 26). From
perusal of record, there is no dispute with regard to engagement of
applicant w.e.f. 16.03.1981 as a casual khalasi and on the basis of his
working as a casual khalasi, the working days was maintained by the
MANISH MEHROTRA
competent authority and 953 days was verified till 15.04.1984 as a
working period and on that basis, his name was enlisted in the seniority
5
list for the purpose of screening to be held in the year 1984. From
perusal of letter dated 04.02.1984 of E.F.O.B.G. of the Colony,
Gorakhpur, the persons who screened, were empanelled on 03.02.1984.
However, name of applicant was not found place only on account that the
period of substitute khalasi was not verified by the E.F.O.B.G. of the
Colony, Gorakhpur. Therefore, he was asked to produce the said
document hence, his position may be fixed in the seniority and
accordingly his name will be interpolated in the panel dated 03.02.1984.
The said letter dated 04.021984 is quoted below: -
“It is to inform you that your name has not been find a place in the
empaneled screening list published vide this office Notification No.
E/A/227/1/275 dated 3-2-84 because of the fact that your service record
of subs. khalasi has not been verified by your EFO BG unit of this colony.
You are hereby asked to submit your verified subs. working record
very soon so that your candidature be clarified keeping in view the duty
days and seniority and accordingly your name be interpolated at
suitable place in the screened and empaneled list dated 3-2-84 .”
The respondents in their counter reply have submitted that as per
the order dated 03.01.1995, the applicant was screened and empanelled
in the list dated 08.11.1990 by fixing his seniority at serial No. 31. From
perusal of said letter, it is also evident that the applicant has produced
the relevant document with regard to his working and after verifying, the
said order has been passed. The order dated 03.01.1995 is quoted herein
below: -
“ : 4.10 16.10.
Ǒदनांक .90 एवं 90 को स àपाǑदत èĐȧǓनंग के फल èवǾप Įी राम
16-3-81
Ĥकाश पु ğ Įी कमलदेव एवजी Įͧम क को के पूव [ का Ĥमाण प ğ Ĥèतुत न
करने के कारण अयो Êय नह ȣ घो ͪषत ͩकया जा सकता उ ÛहɅ अब उ Èत अव ͬध के पूव [ का
:
Ĥमाण प ğ Ĥèतुत करने पर यो Êय पाया जाता है। इनक ȧ वर ȣयता Ǒदनांक 8.11.90 को
- / /227/11/ /24 -
Ĥकाͧशत अ ͬधसूचना सं० इ ए èĐȧǓनंग के Đ o सं० ३० Įी तुलसी Ĥसाद
- 32 -3
के नीचे एवं Đ o सं० Įी ना ͧसर अल ȣ के उपर Đ o सं० । पर होगी।
मं० ͪवएइ कालोनी
MANISH MEHROTRA
गोरखपुर।
- 3-1-95”
Ǒदनांक
6
”
8. Considering the records, various letters as well as contents made in
the counter affidavit, it appears that the respondents have repeatedly
asked for verification of period from 16.03.1981 to 01.07.1983 by
addressing Deputy CEE/Electrical/BG/Construction (personnel) on
18.09.2017 as well as subsequent letter dated 12.10.2017 for the
purpose of fixation of seniority at right position. Though the seniority has
been fixed by the respondents vide order dated 03.01.1995 w.e.f.
08.11.1990, however, the claim of applicant is solely relied upon letter
dated 04.02.1984 (annexure -2 of the O.A.) vide which the screening of
applicant was conducted. However, on account of non-verification of
service record, his name was not found place in that list and they have
placed the burden of evidence upon the applicant to verify the service
period and to bring the record regarding working period of the said dates
for the purpose of fixation and interpolation of seniority in the seniority
list of 1984. The applicant has never appeared in the year 1990 as he
had already appeared in the screening test held in the year 1984 and his
seniority was not fixed in the panel of 03.02.1984 only on account that
the period of service rendered in the past was not available. It further
appears that vide annexure CR-2, the respondents have intimated the
applicant vide letter dated 03.01.1995, quoted above, that due to non-
availability of certificate during the period between 16.03.1981 to
01.07.1983, the applicant cannot be declared as non-eligible and after
getting the certificate, he was empanelled in the screening list dated
08.11.1990 between Tulsi Prasad and Nasir Ali. From the above, it is
clear that for the purpose of fixation of seniority of applicant, contrary
view has been taken by the respondents. Therefore, the case of applicant
for fixation of his seniority at right place, as per letter dated 04.02.1984,
needs to be corrected by interpolating his name in the empanel list dated
MANISH MEHROTRA
03.02.1984.
7
9. In view of the above discussion, the O.A. deserves to be allowed
and is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.04.2018 and 05.01.2016
are quashed. The respondents are directed to correct the said empanel
list dated 03.02.1984 by interpolating the name of applicant at correct
position and notionally fixed his seniority w.e.f. 03.02.1984. Since the
applicant has retired now, therefore, the respondents are further directed
that after fixing his notional seniority, revised PPO shall be issued in
favour of applicant within a period of four months from the date of receipt
of a certified copy of this Order and pay the arrears for which the
applicant is entitled. All the pending MAs shall be deemed to have been
disposed of. No order as to cost.
(Manju Pandey) (Rajnish Kumar Rai)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judicial)
/M.M/
MANISH MEHROTRA