Karuna Nand Jha vs General Manager N C Rly

(Reserved on 30.07.2026)

Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench
Allahabad

Original Application No. 955/2018

rd
This is the 03 Day of September, 2026

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Hon’ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)

Karuna Nand Jha, aged about 39 years, son of Sri Rajendra Jha, resident of House No.
623 C, 1 ½ Marg, Smith Road, Allahabad U.P. Presently posted as Senior Catering
Inspector, at the Allahabad Division of the North Central Railway, under the Senior
Divisional Commercial Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad.
………..Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Shyamal Narain

Versus

1. Union of India through the General Manager, North Central Railway,
Allahabad.

2. The General Manager (Personnel), North Central Railway, Allahabad.

3. The Principal Chief Commercial Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad.

4. The Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad.

5. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, North Central Railway,
Allahabad.

6. Sharad Chauhan S/o Shri R.S. Chauhan, a/a 40 years, R/o 2/23 K-2
Yamuna Nagar, Naini Prayagraj.

7. Vivek Kumar S/o late Kashi Nath Singh a/a 40 years office of Chief Catering
Inspector, Commercial Department, Dy CTN Office Kanpur, Central Railway
Station, Kanpur.

8. Krishna Kant Yadav, S/o Late Ram Achal Yadav, a/a 40 years, R/o 989/1
Marg One, Near Diggay School, Rajroopur Kalindipur, Prayagaraj.

rd
9. Atul Kumar Rai S/o late Uma Shankr Rai a/a 42 years, R/o 3 /B-4
Nakshtra Apartment, Near Baba Chauraha, Ashok Nagar, Prayagraj.

……… Respondents

By Advocate: Shri Ashish Kumar Srivastava (Official Respondents)
Shri S.K. Tripathi Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Subodh
Tripathi (Private Respondents)
SUSHIL KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA

2



O R D E R
By Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)

Heard Shri Shyamal Narain, learned counsel for the applicant and
Shri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the official respondents
as well as Shri S.K. Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri
Subodh Tripathi, leaned counsel for the private respondents.

2. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following
relief(s):-
“a. to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 16/17.08.2018
(Annexure No. A-1).

b. to command the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for
being posted at Allahabad Division on the post of Catering Inspector,
strictly in accordance with law and the precedents and provisions for
absorption of medically decategorized employee as contained in
Chapter XIII of the IREM.

c to grant such other and further relief, as the applicant might be found
entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.

d. to award the costs of this Original Application in favour of the
applicant, throughout.”

3. The brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant in his Original
Application are that the applicant was initially appointed as Assistant
Loco Pilot under the North Central Railway on 17.07.2006 and was
subsequently promoted as Assistant Loco Pilot (Goods). While working in
the said capacity, he was medically decategorised on 11.12.2017 and was
found unfit for Loco Pilot duties in A-1 medical category. The Medical
Board recommended that he be provided alternative employment on
medical grounds not involving foot-plate duties, and he was found fit in A-
2 and below medical categories. Thereafter, his case was considered by a
duly constituted Screening Committee on 10.01.2018 for alternative
employment. Vide order dated 21.02.2018, the applicant was posted
against the post of Catering Inspector in Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- (Level-
SUSHIL KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA

3

6). Pursuant thereto, he joined at Allahabad Division on 01.03.2018 and
started discharging duties as Catering Inspector. His pay was also fixed in
the said grade and he continued to work in the said capacity.

3.1 As the cadre of Catering Inspector, Level-6 was under the control of
Headquarters, the Divisional authorities forwarded the matter to
Headquarters vide letter dated 27.02.2018 for allotment of a Division.
Subsequently, the matter was considered by the competent authority at
Headquarters, and vide order dated 16/17.08.2018, the applicant's
adjustment and posting as Catering Inspector, Level-6, at Allahabad
Division was not accepted, while the matter of his adjustment against a
Division-controlled post was left to be considered by the Allahabad
Division. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has filed the present
Original Application for the relief as quoted above.

4. In support of his case, learned counsel for the applicant has advanced
detailed submissions, which are summarized as follows:

4.1 The applicant was medically decategorised from the post of Loco
Pilot (Goods) on 11.12.2017 and, thereafter, his case was considered by a duly
constituted Screening Committee on 10.01.2018 for alternative
employment. Upon consideration of his medical fitness and other relevant
factors, he was found suitable for the post of Catering Inspector, Grade Pay
of Rs.4200/- (Level-6), and was accordingly posted against the said post
vide order dated 21.02.2018. He joined on 01.03.2018 and was permitted to
discharge duties as Catering Inspector, with his pay being fixed in the said
grade. The applicant's placement, therefore, was the result of a formal
process undertaken by the Railway Administration and was not an
unauthorised act on his part.

4.2 The contemporaneous record further demonstrates that the
applicant had already been absorbed as Catering Inspector when the
SUSHIL KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA

4

Divisional authorities, vide letter dated 27.02.2018, forwarded the matter
to Headquarters. The said communication recorded that the cadre of
Catering Inspector, Level-6 and Level-7, was controlled by Headquarters
and requested allotment of a Division for the applicant. Thus, the issue
before Headquarters was essentially regarding the allotment of the
Division in which the applicant was to serve, and not initiation of a fresh
process for his alternative employment.

4.3 The contention that the applicant could only be accommodated in
his parent Electrical Department is contrary to the scheme governing
medically decategorised employees. Para 1304 of the IREM does not
impose an absolute requirement that alternative employment must be
provided only in the parent department. The relevant provisions
contemplate consideration of suitable alternative employment in other
Units, Divisions or Departments as well. The requirement that the
alternative post should, as far as possible, be allied to the employee's
previous background and experience is not an inflexible embargo against
placement in another cadre where the employee is otherwise found
suitable.

4.4 In the present case, the applicant's suitability was specifically
considered by the duly constituted Screening Committee and he was found
suitable for Catering Inspector. The respondents cannot, therefore,
subsequently treat the absence of previous experience in catering as an
automatic disqualification, particularly when the applicant was selected
through the very mechanism prescribed for assessing medically
decategorised employees. The scheme governing such employees is
intended to provide suitable alternative employment and cannot be
equated with a process of fresh recruitment from the open market.

4.5 The objection regarding absence of Diploma in Catering is also
misconceived. The qualification prescribed under Para 133(2)(i)(b) of the
SUSHIL KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA

5

IREM is in the context of direct recruitment to the post of Catering
Inspector. The applicant was not seeking appointment through direct
recruitment; his case arose from medical decategorisation and was
governed by the provisions relating to alternative employment. The
qualification prescribed for direct recruitment, therefore, cannot
automatically be treated as an absolute bar to his alternative absorption.

4.6 The applicant has also relied upon Master Circular No.25, which
specifically governs alternative employment of medically decategorised
staff. The said instructions require assessment of the employee's suitability
for the alternative post and, where the employee possesses sufficient
knowledge to discharge the duties efficiently, do not contemplate
insistence upon the educational qualification prescribed for recruitment in
the same rigid manner as applicable to direct recruitment. The applicant's
case was assessed by the Screening Committee and he was found suitable.
The absence of a Catering Diploma or prior catering experience, therefore,
could not by itself invalidate his alternative absorption.

4.7 The subsequent conduct of the Railway Administration is also
material. During the pendency of the Original Application, the competent
authority, vide order dated 28.10.2022, adjusted the applicant as Catering
Inspector, Level-6, subject to the outcome of the present proceedings. The
applicant has thereafter continued to serve in the Catering cadre and has
been promoted to higher levels. According to the record placed on behalf
of the applicant, he was promoted to Level-7 vide order dated 29.03.2023
and further to Level-8 with effect from 01.07.2026. These subsequent
developments demonstrate that the applicant's continuance and
progression in the Catering cadre have subsequently been recognised by
the competent authority.

4.8 The applicant has further relied upon his service record, including six
“Outstanding” and two “Very Good” APAR gradings and the
SUSHIL KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA

6

“Outstanding Award” stated to have been conferred upon him for the year
2023-24. These subsequent service developments, according to learned
counsel, belie the apprehension that the applicant was incapable of
efficiently discharging the duties of Catering Inspector. The private
respondents' contention regarding prejudice to their seniority or
promotional prospects, according to the applicant, is also not sufficient to
invalidate his alternative absorption, particularly when their own
promotions have subsequently been made. Any question of inter se
seniority or consequential benefits can be determined in accordance with
the applicable rules.

4.9 As regards the communication dated 18.12.2024 relied upon by the
private respondents, learned counsel contends that the same merely
records certain observations regarding the manner in which the applicant's
case was processed at the Divisional level and directs examination of the
alleged procedural lapses and fixation of responsibility. It does not
constitute a final order cancelling the applicant's subsequent adjustment as
Catering Inspector. Likewise, the complaint made before the Central
Vigilance Commission by one of the private respondents has no bearing
upon the applicant's legal entitlement in the absence of any final
adjudication arising therefrom. The applicant has also relied upon
instances of similarly situated medically decategorised employees who
were accommodated in the Catering cadre without insisting upon the
qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment, and contends that denial
of similar treatment to him would be discriminatory and violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

4.10 Learned counsel accordingly prays that the impugned order dated
16/17.08.2018 may be quashed and set aside and the applicant's
absorption/continuance as Catering Inspector, Level-6, at Allahabad
Division be recognised in accordance with the governing provisions, with
all consequential benefits as may be admissible under the applicable rules.
SUSHIL KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA

7


5. Per contra, learned counsel for the official respondents, opposing the
Original Application, has placed reliance upon the pleadings contained in
the Counter Affidavit, Supplementary Counter Affidavits and the written
submissions filed on behalf of the official respondents and has advanced the
following submissions:

5.1 The applicant, while working as Loco Pilot (Goods) under the North
Central Railway, was medically decategorised on 11.12.2017. His case was
thereafter considered by a duly constituted Screening Committee for
alternative employment. Although the Screening Committee allotted the
post of Catering Inspector, Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- (Level-6), the said post
was a Headquarters-controlled post and the applicant was not finally
absorbed against it, as the approval of the competent authority at
Headquarters was necessary.

5.2 The applicant's placement as Catering Inspector by the Divisional
authorities could not confer upon him a legal right to continue against a
Headquarters-controlled post without approval of the competent
authority. The Screening Committee could consider and recommend an
alternative post, but where the post was controlled by Headquarters, the
prescribed approval had to be obtained before final absorption. The
competent authority, namely the Principal Chief Commercial Manager,
did not accept the proposal for the applicant's adjustment and posting as
Catering Inspector, Level-6, at Allahabad Division.

5.3 The respondents have relied upon Para 1304 of the IREM and the
instructions governing alternative employment of medically
decategorised employees. According to the respondents, the alternative
post has to be one which the employee is capable of adequately filling and,
as far as possible, should broadly correspond to his background and
previous experience. The applicant had throughout worked as Loco Pilot
SUSHIL KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA

8

(Goods) and possessed experience of running/foot-plate duties, whereas
the duties of Catering Inspector are entirely different in nature and involve
inspection and supervision of catering units, quality and hygiene of food
and related responsibilities.
5.4 The applicant did not possess a Diploma in Catering, which,
according to the respondents, is the prescribed qualification for the post of
Catering Inspector under Para 133(2)(i)(b) of the IREM. He also did not
possess the experience in catering referred to in Para 133(2)(i)(c).
Consequently, according to the respondents, the applicant was neither
qualified nor suitably experienced for the post in question and his
placement against the Catering Inspector post could not be sustained
merely on the basis of the Screening Committee's recommendation.

5.5 The respondents have disputed the applicant's contention that his
previous experience was immaterial. The duties of Catering Inspector
involve supervision and inspection of catering and vending units,
maintenance of food quality and hygiene and other responsibilities
connected with catering services. The applicant's experience as Loco Pilot
(Goods), according to the respondents, has no nexus with such duties. The
Screening Committee was therefore required to take into account not
merely medical fitness but also the suitability of the applicant for the
particular alternative post.

5.6 The respondents have further relied upon the fact that other
medically decategorised employees had been provided alternative
employment in the Electrical Department, including against posts of Office
Superintendent. According to them, the applicant's placement in the
Catering cadre, despite his background being in the Electrical Department
and his lack of catering qualification and experience, was not comparable
with those cases. They have also contended that the interests of employees
already working in the Catering cadre cannot be adversely affected by an
unauthorised absorption.
SUSHIL KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA

9


5.7 The respondents had offered the applicant alternative employment
as Chief Commercial-cum-Reservation Clerk in Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-
in Allahabad Division, with protection of his last pay drawn. According to
them, such offer was in consonance with the scheme governing medically
decategorised employees and provided the applicant suitable alternative
employment without disturbing the cadre structure or the rights of other
employees. The applicant, however, did not accept the said offer, taking
shelter of the interim order passed by this Tribunal.

5.8 During the pendency of the Original Application, the competent
authority subsequently adjusted the applicant as Catering Inspector,
Level-6, vide order dated 28.10.2022, but expressly made the same subject
to the final outcome of the present Original Application. According to the
respondents, such subsequent adjustment does not render the applicant's
original absorption valid retrospectively and the legality of his placement
has still to be determined in accordance with the applicable rules.

5.9 The respondents have also placed reliance upon the communication
dated 18.12.2024 issued by the Principal Chief Personnel Officer, wherein
certain procedural lapses in the applicant's redeployment were noticed,
including deployment against a Headquarters-controlled post without
prior Headquarters permission and commencement of pay fixation and
salary without such approval. The Divisional authorities were directed to
examine the lapses and fix responsibility upon the concerned officials.
According to the respondents, this communication reinforces their
contention that the applicant's initial placement had not followed the
prescribed procedure.

5.10 The subsequent promotions or service benefits received by the
applicant cannot, according to the respondents, cure the foundational
defect in his initial absorption, if the same was contrary to the governing
rules. Likewise, the applicant's APAR gradings or award received during
SUSHIL KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA

10

his subsequent service may reflect his performance, but they cannot
substitute the statutory requirements governing his initial appointment or
absorption.

5.11 The respondents have opposed the allegation of discrimination
under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. According to them, the
applicant's case cannot be equated with other employees unless the
relevant facts, qualifications, cadre, authority competent to make the
appointment and circumstances of absorption are identical. Mere reference
to other instances of medically decategorised employees being
accommodated in the Catering cadre cannot, therefore, establish a right in
favour of the applicant.

5.12 Learned counsel has accordingly prayed for dismissal of the
Original Application, contending that the impugned order dated
16/17.08.2018 was passed after consideration of the applicant's case by the
competent authority and that the applicant has no vested right to insist
upon absorption against the particular post of Catering Inspector, Level-6.
The alternative employment offered to him in the same Grade Pay in
Allahabad Division, according to the respondents, sufficiently protected
his entitlement to alternative employment on medical grounds.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents No.6 to 9,
who were impleaded during the pendency of the Original Application,
have opposed the claim of the applicant. Relying upon the Counter
Affidavit dated 14.11.2024 and the Supplementary Counter Affidavit
dated 04.05.2026, they have advanced the following submissions:

6.1 The applicant's absorption as Catering Inspector, Grade Pay of
Rs.4200/- (Level-6), was not permissible as the said post is controlled by
Headquarters. The Divisional Screening Committee could not finally allot
or absorb the applicant against a Headquarters-controlled post without
SUSHIL KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA

11

prior approval of the competent authority at Headquarters. The
subsequent decision of the Principal Chief Commercial Manager not to
accept the applicant's adjustment and posting against the said post,
therefore, justified the impugned order dated 16/17.08.2018.

6.2 Para 1304 of the IREM requires that alternative employment of a
medically decategorised employee should, as far as possible, be in a post
which he can adequately fill and which broadly corresponds to his
background and experience. The applicant had throughout served as Loco
Pilot (Goods) in the Electrical Department and possessed experience of
running/foot-plate duties, whereas the duties of Catering Inspector
involve inspection and supervision of catering and vending units, food
quality and hygiene and related responsibilities. There was, therefore, no
nexus between the applicant's previous experience and the duties of
Catering Inspector. According to the private respondents, the applicant
was consequently not suitable for the post in question.

6.3 The applicant did not possess the Diploma in Catering prescribed
under Para 133(2)(i)(b) of the IREM and also lacked the experience referred
to in Para 133(2)(i)(c). According to the private respondents, the Screening
Committee's recommendation could not override the requirements
governing the post or confer jurisdiction upon the Divisional authorities to
absorb the applicant against a Headquarters-controlled post.

6.4 The private respondents have further relied upon the fact that other
medically decategorised employees had been accommodated in the
Electrical Department against posts such as Office Superintendent.
According to them, the applicant was treated differently by being placed
in the Catering cadre despite having no catering qualification or
experience. Such placement, according to the private respondents,
adversely affected the seniority, promotional prospects and working
SUSHIL KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA

12

interests of employees already serving in the Catering cadre, including
Respondents No.6 to 9.

6.5 The Railway Administration had offered the applicant alternative
employment as Chief Commercial-cum-Reservation Clerk in Grade Pay
of Rs.4200/- in Allahabad Division, with protection of his last pay drawn.
The private respondents contend that the applicant had no vested right to
insist upon a particular post of Catering Inspector and that the offer of
suitable alternative employment was consistent with the scheme
governing medically decategorised employees.

6.6 The subsequent order dated 28.10.2022, whereby the applicant was
adjusted as Catering Inspector, Level-6, was expressly made subject to the
final outcome of the present Original Application and, therefore, could not
retrospectively validate the initial absorption if the same was contrary to
the prescribed procedure. Similarly, the subsequent promotions, APAR
gradings and award relied upon by the applicant relate to his service after
such placement and cannot cure any defect in his initial absorption.

6.7 Reliance has also been placed upon the communication dated
18.12.2024 issued by the Principal Chief Personnel Officer, wherein the
manner in which the applicant's case was processed was questioned,
including redeployment against a Headquarters-controlled post without
prior Headquarters permission and commencement of pay fixation and
salary without such approval. The Divisional authorities were directed to
examine the lapses and fix responsibility upon the concerned officials.
According to the private respondents, the said communication supports
their contention regarding the irregularity in the applicant's initial
placement. The complaint/reminder dated 03.04.2026 addressed to the
Central Vigilance Commission has also been placed on record in this
context.

SUSHIL KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA

13

6.8 Learned counsel for the private respondents has accordingly prayed
for dismissal of the Original Application, contending that the applicant has
no enforceable right to insist upon absorption against the particular
Headquarters-controlled post of Catering Inspector and that the
impugned order dated 16/17.08.2018 was passed in accordance with the
applicable procedure and after consideration by the competent authority.

7. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the pleadings and
documents available on record, including the Original Application along
with its annexures, the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the official
respondents, the Counter Affidavit dated 14.11.2024 filed by the private
respondents No.6 to 9, the Rejoinder Affidavit dated 03.04.2025 filed by
the applicant thereto, the Supplementary Counter Affidavit dated
19.12.2022 and the subsequent Supplementary Counter Affidavit filed on
behalf of the official respondents, the Supplementary Counter Affidavit
dated 04.05.2026 filed by the private respondents No.6 to 9, the
supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant pursuant to the order dated
08.01.2026 bringing on record the promotion orders of the private
respondents.

8. We have also perused the Written Submissions filed on behalf of the
applicant on 30.08.2026, the official respondents on 04.08.2026 and the
private respondents on 03.08.2026, wherein they have largely reiterated
the facts and contentions already set out in their respective pleadings and
have also placed certain relevant documents on record.

9. The principal controversy in the present Original Application arises
from the order dated 16/17.08.2018, whereby the applicant's adjustment
and posting as Catering Inspector, Level-6, at Allahabad Division was not
accepted. However, during the pendency of the Original Application,
subsequent developments have materially altered the factual position.
SUSHIL KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA

14


10. The record shows that the applicant was initially screened for
alternative employment on medical decategorisation, was posted as
Catering Inspector, Level-6, and joined the said post on 01.03.2018. More
importantly, during the pendency of the present proceedings, the
competent authority, vide order dated 28.10.2022, adjusted the applicant
as Catering Inspector, Level-6, subject to the outcome of the present
Original Application. Thus, the applicant has subsequently been
continued in the very cadre and post which form the subject matter of the
present dispute. The relevant portion of the aforesaid order dated
28.10.2022 reads as under:
“
उ ƣ र म Ú य रेलवे

काया [ लय आदेश

797 02
Ĥ धान काया [ लय का प ğ सं. ई/ è था/उमरे/वा ͨ ण Ï य/को Ǒ ट प ǐ रवत न/ [
11.10.2022/ 234/2022
Ǒ दनांक काया [ लय आदेश सं.- ɮ वारा मंडल रेल Ĥ बंधक
831-E/TTI/MED/2017 21.02.2018
(का ͧ म क) / इलाहाबाद के प [ ğ ांक Ǒ दनांक- एवं
340 5/ 27.02.2018 ,
ई/ईसी मे ͫ ड/कटे Ǒ दनांक के ɮ वारा Į ी क ǽ णा न Û द झा
LPG/ALD
को ͬ च ͩ क × सा ͪ वको Ǒ टकृत ͩ कये जाने के उपरांत मु É यालय Ǔ नयं ǒğ त
, 6
खानपान Ǔ नर ȣ¢ क लेवल- म Ʌ समायोिजत करने के उपरांत वा ͨ ण Ï य ͪ वभाग /
, 6
उ म रे म Ʌ खानपान Ǔ नर ȣ¢ क लेवल म Ʌ समायोिजत ͩ कया गया है। कम चार [ ȣ
I REM 1310
के व ǐ र ç ठता का Ǔ नधा [ रण के पैरा म Ʌ Ǔ न Ǒ हत Ǔ नद ȶ श ɉ के तहत होगी।

, 6
कम चार [ ȣ का समायोजन खानपान Ǔ नर ȣ¢ क लेवल के पद पर
CAT/ALD O.A No. 955/2018
म Ʌ दायर के पा ǐ रत होने वाले Ǔ नण य [ Ǔ नभ र होगा। [

(
चं ġ शेखर कुमार)

सहायक का ͧ म क अ [ ͬ धकार ȣ
,
उ ƣ र म Ú य रेलवे Ĥ यागराज

940 5/ 2 25-10-2022
प ğ ांक - ई/इसी- केट. पाट [ - Ǒ दनांक-


ĤǓ त ͧ ल ͪ प :-

1.
अपर महा Ĥ बंधक / उमरे/ Ĥ यागराज
2.
Ĥ É य का ͧ म क अ [ ͬ धकार ȣ / उमरे/ Ĥ यागराज
धान मु
3.
मंडल Ĥ É य वा ͨ ण Ï य Ĥ बंधक/उमरे/ Ĥ यागराज
धान मु
4-
मंडल रेल Ĥ बंधक // उमरे/ Ĥ यागराज
5-
व ǐ र. मंडल का ͧ म क अ [ ͬ धकार ȣ /उमरे/ Ĥ यागराज
SUSHIL KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA

15

6-
व ǐ र. मंडल वा ͨ ण Ï य Ĥ बंधक/उमरे/ Ĥ यागराज
7
É य ͪ व ͬ ध सहायक/ Ĥ यागराज
मु
8--
महामं ğ Ĥ यागराज
ी एनसीआरईएस/एनसीआरएमयू उमरे/
9- ,
जोनल स ͬ चव एससी/एसट ȣ /उमरे/ Ĥ यागराज
10-
स à बं ͬ धत कम चार [ ȣ ।

Thus, the subsequent order dated 28.10.2022 clearly shows that the
competent authority subsequently adjusted the applicant in the post of
Catering Inspector, Level-6, though subject to the final outcome of the
present Original Application.

11. The subsequent course of events is also significant. The applicant has
continued to serve in the Catering cadre for several years and has
thereafter been promoted to higher levels, including Level-7 vide order
dated 29.03.2023 and Level-8 with effect from 01.07.2026. These
subsequent developments show that the Railway Administration has
continued to recognise the applicant's service in the Catering cadre and has
acted upon his further career progression.

12. During the pendency of the proceedings, two of the impleaded
private respondents were also promoted from Catering Inspector, Level-6,
to Chief Catering Inspector, Level-7 vide order dated 01.01.2026. Their
promotions, having already been granted, also form part of the subsequent
factual position and there is no occasion to disturb the same in the present
proceedings.

13. In view of the aforesaid subsequent developments, particularly the
order dated 28.10.2022 whereby the applicant was adjusted as Catering
Inspector, Level-6, followed by his continued service in the Catering cadre
and subsequent promotional advancement, the controversy arising from
the impugned order dated 16/17.08.2018 has been substantially overtaken
by events. In these changed circumstances, we do not consider it necessary
to enter into the larger questions raised by the parties regarding the
validity of the applicant's initial placement, the qualification prescribed
SUSHIL KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA

16

for direct recruitment, the alleged procedural lapses at the Divisional level
or the other objections raised by the private respondents. These issues need
not be adjudicated at this stage when the applicant has subsequently been
adjusted in the same cadre by the competent authority and has continued
therein for several years with further advancement.

14. We also make it clear that the subsequent continuance and
promotions of the applicant shall remain subject to the applicable service
rules and instructions. Likewise, the promotions already granted to the
private respondents shall not be disturbed merely on account of the present
proceedings. Any question relating to inter se seniority or consequential
service benefits, if arising, shall be governed by the applicable rules and
shall be dealt with by the competent authority in accordance with law.

15. In view of the above, the Original Application is disposed of in terms
of the observations made hereinabove.

16. There shall be no order as to costs.

All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.


(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (Administrative) Member (Judicial)


Sushil
SUSHIL KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA