RAJ KUMAR VERMA vs RAILWAY BOARD

1
O.A. No. 050/00420/2024
4

CENTRAL ADMINISTRA
ATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH,
O.A. No. 050/00

Pro
, PATNA
420/2024
Reserved on: - 15.10.2026
onounced on:- 29.10.2026



C O R A M
M
CHANDRA, MEMBER [A]
HO
ON’BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH C

r Verma, Son of late Jiv Nandan
Raj Kumar
n Ram, Resident of Rampur Gari
i
Khana, PO
O+PS- Khagaul, District- Patna, w
working as Orderly/Peon at Ara
a
under the S
Senior Sectional Engineer (P-Way
y), East Central Railway, Danapur
r
Danapur-800012.

Division, D





Applicant
………
Versu
us
Patna
Bench

1. The Uni
ion of India through the Chairma
lhi-110001.
neral Manager, East Central Railwa
neral Manager (P), East Central Rai
an, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan,
,
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
KUMARI
POOJA
KUMARI
New Del
2. The Gen
3. The Gen
4. The Divi
ay, Hajipur-844101.
ilway, Hajipur-844101.
entral Railway, Danapur Division,
isional Railway Manager, East Ce
r-800012.
nior Divisional Personnel Officer,
n, Danapur-800012.
,
Danapur
5. The Sen
, East Central Railway, Danapur
r
Division
6. The Sr.
DEN Co-ordination, East Cent
r-800012.
vision Engineer (HQ), East Cen
tral Railway, Danapur Division,
,
Danapur
7. The Div
ntral Railway, Danapur Division,
,
Danapur
r-800012.


licant:- Mr. S.K. Baria
pondents:- Mr. T.N. Thak
…….. Respondents
ar, ld. Adv.
kur, ld. Sr. CGSC
s
For Appl
For Resp
O R D
E R
Per: Mr. Kumar Rajesh C
Chandra, Member (A):
1.
The ap
plicant has approached this T
Tribunal under Section 19 of
f
the Adm
ministrative Tribunals Act, 19
985 praying for the following
g
relief:
i. The applicant humbly pra
ays that the respondents may be
e
directed to grant benefits
s of Old Pension Scheme under
r
Railway Service (Pension)
) Rules, 1993 in pursuance of RBE
E
No. 41/2023 dated 10.03
.2023 read with Government of
f

2
O.A. No. 050/00420/2024
4

India Department of P
Pension & PW (B), OM No.
.
57/05/2021-P&PW(B) date
ed 03.03.2023.
ii. The Office Order No. E/Co
ourt Cell/OA No. 122/2021 dated
d
13.07.2021 (Annexure A-1
15) may be treated illegal and
d
arbitrary and be qua
ashed and set aside. ( This
s
amendment has been
n made vide order dated
d
05.07.2024 passed in M
MA No. 384 of 2024 ).
iii. Any relief/s be granted to t
the applicant for ends of justice.

e sake of clarity, facts in the ca
2. For the
ase as stated by the applicant
t
der:-

in the O
OA, are delineated herein und
The Railway Board vide letter
r dated 26.08.1977 had decided
d
2.1
that Labours of Quasi Admin
nistrative Offices be treated as
s
Casual Labours for the pur
rpose of regularisation against
t
Patna
Bench
Group-D posts. Pursuant ther
reto, the Chief Personnel Officer
r
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
KUMARI
[IR], Eastern Railway, Kolkat
ta issued directions vide Office
e
POOJA
KUMARI
Order dated 14.12.1999 to su
ubmit details of eligible casual
l
labours of Quasi Administra
ative Offices for screening for
r
absorption. In compliance th
hereto, the Divisional Railway
y
Manager, Eastern Railway
submitted details of eligible
e
casual labours (including the
e applicant) for regularisation,
,
which was placed before Railw
way Board for approval.
Vide letter dated 11.06.2001, t
the Railway Board approved 67
7
2.2
casual labours for regularisa
ation. Out of these, 21 casuals
s
were from Danapur Division,
, including the applicant. Chief
f
Personnel Officer [IR], Easte
ern Railway, Kolkata vide letter
r
dated 12.06.2001 directed th
e Divisional Railway Managers
s
concerned to conduct screen
ning and regularise the said 67
7
casuals. Accordingly, the
Divisional Railway Manager,
,
Danapur issued a list of 21 c
casuals including the applicant
t
vide letter dated 03.01.2002
2 for screening to be held on
n
18.01.2002. However, the sc
creening was cancelled because
e
of litigation filed by 08 u
unapproved casuals (OA No.
.
40/2002, Siya Ram & Others
vs. UOI).
Instead of allowing those
08 unapproved casuals to
o
2.3
participate in the screening
g as per interim order dated
d

3
O.A. No. 050/00420/2024
4

16.01.2002, the responden
nts cancelled the scheduled
d
screening. Later, screening w
was conducted on 19.02.2003
3
only for the approved 21 casua
als, including the applicant who
o
was duly empanelled. Due to
o interim order of “status quo”
”
passed on 24.02.2003 in OA
No. 40/2002, the appointment
t
process of the 21 empanelled c
candidates of Danapur Division
n
remained pending.
OA No. 40/2002 filed by
y 8 unapproved casuals was
s
2.4
eventually dismissed on 20.1
10.2004, and the dismissal was
s
confirmed by the Hon’ble Patn
na High Court on 07.12.2005 in
n
CWJC No. 15483/2004. Th
hereafter, the 21 empanelled
d
candidates of Danapur, includ
ding the applicant, were finally
y
appointed on 08.08.2005. A
All other candidates from the
e
same approved panel of 67 ca
asuals were regularised in 2001-
-
Patna
Bench
02 itself and were granted the
e benefit of the Railway Service
e
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
KUMARI
(Pension) Rules, 1993 (Old P
Pension Scheme). However, the
e
POOJA
KUMARI
applicant and 20 others of Da
anapur Division were appointed
d
only in August 2005 and
were thus placed under the
e
National Pension System (N
NPS) popularly understood as
s
New Pension Scheme.
Government of India, Depart
tment of Pension & PW issued
d
2.5
OM dated 17.02.2020 {No. 57
7/04/2019-P&PW(B)} allowing
g
employees recruited against
t vacancies advertised/notified
d
prior to 01.01.2004 to switch
h to the Old Pension Scheme.
.
The Railway Board adopted
d the same through RBE No.
.
28/2020 dated 03.03.2020.
. The applicant exercised his
s
option under the above OM an
nd RBE, and the Head of Office
e
duly forwarded the same v
vide letter dated 09.05.2020.
.
However, his request was
rejected by the respondents
s
through a non-speaking orde
er dated 13.07.2021 merely on
n
the ground that his selectio
on was not finalized prior to
o
01.01.2004.
ubmits that:
3.
Learne
d Counsel for the applicant su
The applicant belonged to th
he same panel of 67 approved
d
3.1
casuals issued by Railway Boa
ard vide letter dated 11.06.2001.
.
While others from this panel
l were regularised in 2001- 02
2

4
O.A. No. 050/00420/2024
4

and granted Old Pension Sch
heme, only the 21 candidates of
f
Danapur, including the app
plicant, were denied the same
e
s arbitrary.
benefit. Such discrimination i
The delay in appointment
t was entirely due to non-
-
3.2
compliance of interim ord
der dated 16.01.2002 by the
e
respondents and the resultan
nt litigation. The applicant was
s
already screened and empan
elled on 19.02.2003, i.e., prior
r
to the introduction of NPS
on 01.01.2004. It is a settled
d
principle of law that delay
caused due to administrative
e
lapses or interim orders of
courts cannot be used to the
e
mployees.
detriment of interest of the em
As per para 3(ii) of the OM
M dated 17.02.2020, employees
s
3.3
whose recruitment process w
as initiated prior to 01.01.2004
4
are entitled to Old Pension Sc
cheme, even if appointment was
s
Patna
Bench
made later. Since Railway Bo
oard had approved the panel on
n
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
KUMARI
11.06.2001 and the applicant
t was screened on 19.02.2003,
,
POOJA
KUMARI
his recruitment process c
clearly commenced prior to
o
01.01.2004.
The disposal order dated 13
3.07.2021 rejecting applicant’s
s
3.4
option is arbitrary, cryptic,
and devoid of reasoning. It
t
simply states that selectio
on was not finalized before
e
01.01.2004, without consider
ring the fact that screening was
s
conducted in 2003 and delay
y in issuing appointment letter
r
was solely due to respondent
ts’ lapses and interim orders of
f
court.

The respondents have ext
tended Old Pension Scheme
e
3.5
benefits to vocational cours
se students who only passed
d
examinations prior to 01.01.2
004 though their appointments
s
were subsequent. Denial o
of similar treatment to the
e
applicant, despite his case be
eing stronger, is discriminatory
y
and arbitrary.
The judicial precedents
have held that where
e
3.6
recruitment/selection proc
ess commenced prior to
o
01.01.2004, appointees cann
ot be deprived of Old Pension
n
Scheme merely because the f
formal appointment order was
s
issued after 01.01.2004.

5
O.A. No. 050/00420/2024
4

respondents submits that:
4. Per con
ntra, learned Counsel for the r
The applicant was initially
y engaged by the Managing
g
4.1
Committee of a Quasi-Adm
ministrative Office, Danapur,
,
which was a recreation club
managed by a private body for
r
railway employees. All wages
and remuneration were paid by
y
the private Managing Comm
mittee and not by the Railway
y
Administration. Thus, there
e existed no relationship of
f
employer and employee be
etween the Railways and the
e
applicant. Staff of Quasi-A
Administrative Offices cannot,
,
therefore, be treated as cas
sual labourers of the Railway
y
Administration. The content
tion of the applicant declaring
g
himself as a casual labourer is
s misconceived and untenable.
Vide RBE No.103/2000 da
ated 30.05.2000, the Railway
y
4.2
Patna
Bench
Board allowed, as a one-tim
me relaxation, consideration of
f
absorption of only those
staff of Quasi-Administrative
e
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
KUMARI
POOJA
KUMARI
Offices/Organisations who ha
ad been continuously on roll for
r
at least three years as on 10.
.06.1997 and were still on roll,
,
subject to educational quali
ifications, age-limit, and after
r
exhausting Live Casual Labo
our Registers. These directions
s
were circulated by the CPO (I
IR)/Eastern Railway vide letter
r
dated 12.06.2001 to all D
Divisions including Danapur.
.
Screening of such staff was t
to be conducted strictly as per
r
Railway Board’s directives, no
ot as casual labour absorption.
That the screening was initi
ially scheduled on 18.01.2002.
.
4.3
However, due to interim orde
er dated 16.01.2002, prior to the
e
scheduled date for screening
g, passed in O.A. No.40/2002
2
(Siya Ram & Ors. vs. U.O.I.
& Ors.), the respondents were
e
directed to allow 8 applicants
s provisionally to appear in the
e
screening but restrained fr
from publishing their results
s
without leave of the Tribun
nal. Owing to this order, the
e
screening could not be compl
leted on 18.01.2002 and had to
o
be postponed. The process
was delayed due to judicial
l
constraints and not because o
of any mala fide on the part of
f
the respondents. Although
h screening was held on
n
19.02.2003, the result could
d not be declared due to the
e
Tribunal’s interim order of
f 16.01.2002 and subsequent
t

6
O.A. No. 050/00420/2024
4

status-quo order dated 2
24.02.2003, which remained
d
operative till disposal of O.A
A. No.40/2002 on 20.10.2004.
.
The Tribunal dismissed O.A.
No.40/2002 on merits holding
g
there was no employer-empl
oyee relationship. The Hon’ble
e
High Court also affirmed this
view in CWJC No. 15483/2004
4
on 07.12.2005, observing th
hat no writ could be issued to
o
perpetuate an illegality. Since
e the judicial orders restrained
d
the Railway Administration
n, the delay was beyond its
s
control. But for such orders
, the results would have been
n
declared prior to 31.12.2003
3. The applicant cannot derive
e
any advantage from such dela
ay caused by pending litigation.
Further, as per Para-4 of the D
DOP&T O.M. dated 17.02.2020
0
4.4
(adopted by Railways vid
de RBE No.28/2020 dated
d
03.03.2020), only those c
candidates whose results for
r
Patna
Bench
recruitment were declared
d before 01.01.2004 against
t
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
KUMARI
vacancies occurring on or be
fore 31.12.2003 are eligible for
r
POOJA
KUMARI
coverage under CCS (Pens
sion) Rules, 1972 / Railway
y
Services (Pension) Rules, 199
93. In the applicant’s case, the
e
result of screening held on
19.02.2003 was not declared
d
before 01.01.2004 due to su
ubsisting interim orders of the
e
Tribunal. Thus, the conditi
on prescribed in O.M. dated
d
2020 is not satisfied.
17.02.2020 and RBE No.28/2
The case of the applicant i
s not comparable to cases of
f
4.5
vocational course trainees or
other categories where results
s
were declared before 0
01.01.2004. The applicant’s
s
interpretation that initiat
ion of recruitment before
e
01.01.2004 is sufficient is w
wholly misconceived. The O.M.
.
dated 17.02.2020 categorica
ally mandates declaration of
f

result before the cut-off date.
The applicant’s representa
ation was reconsidered. Vide
e
4.6
reasoned order dated 13.07.2
2021, his claim was rejected on
n
the ground that the selection
n process could not be finalized
d
before 01.01.2004. This reje
ection was in conformity with
h
O.M. dated 17.02.2020, RB
BE No.28/2020, and judicial
l
pronouncements.

7
O.A. No. 050/00420/2024
4

In conclusion, the applicant
t was never a Railway casual
l
4.7
labourer, his absorption proce
ess could not be finalized before
e
01.01.2004 due to subsisting
g court orders, and he is not
t
covered under the condition
s of RBE No.28/2020. Hence,
,
the instant Original Applicati
ion is liable to be dismissed as
s
sustainable in law.
being devoid of merit and not
5. In reply
y to the Written Statement f
filed by the respondents, the
e
applica
ant filed his rejoinder re
butting the claim of the
e
dents as under:-

respond
Railway Board has issued
d RBE No. 41/2023 dated
d
5.1
10.03.2023 (Railway Board
d Letter No. D-43/12/2016-
-
F(E)III) adopting the Office M
Memorandum No. 57/05/2021-
-
P&PW(B) dated 03.03.2023 o
of the Department of Pension &
&
Patna
Bench
Pensioner’s Welfare, Governm
ment of India. By virtue of this
s
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
KUMARI
POOJA
KUMARI
circular, employees who wer
re otherwise covered under the
e
National Pension System (NP
PS) were allowed to exercise an
n
option to be governed under
the Railway Services (Pension)
)
Rules, 1993/Old Pension Sch
heme, subject to fulfillment of
f
the conditions laid down there
ein.
Since the applicant fulfilled th
he eligibility criteria under RBE
E
5.2
No. 41/2023, he submitted
d a representation/option on
n
25.03.2023 requesting covera
age under the Railway Services
s
(Pension) Rules, 1993. The s
said representation has already
y
been forwarded by the Head
of the Office to the competent
t
authority and the matter is sti
ill pending final disposal.
The applicant has strong and v
valid grounds for being covered
d
5.3
under para-4 of OM No.
57/05/2021-P&PW(B) dated
d
03.03.2023. The recruitment
process of the applicant had in
n
fact commenced with the sc
creening examination held on
n
19.02.2003. However, issuan
nce of appointment order was
s
delayed solely due to an int
terim order dated 24.02.2003
3
passed in OA No. 40/2002
[Siya Ram & Others vs. UOI].
.
Hence, for the purpose of app
plicability of RBE No. 41/2023
3
read with the above OM, the
e case of the applicant squarely
y
falls within its ambit. The ap
pplicant also comes within the
e

8
O.A. No. 050/00420/2024
4

scope of para-3(ii) of DoP&PW
W letter dated 17.02.2020 read
d
with RBE No. 28/2020 dated
d 03.03.2020, which specifically
y
provided that employees who
ose appointments were delayed
d
beyond 01.01.2004 due to a
dministrative reasons or court
t
cases, despite having been se
elected earlier, shall be covered
d
under the Old Pension Schem
me.
6. In reply
y to the rejoinder filed by th
he applicant, the respondents
s
filed th
heir supplementary written st
tatement in which they have
e
reiterat
ted the same facts as stated in
n their written statement and
d
submitt
ted that as per Railway Boa
ard clarification letters dated
d
06.02.2
2024 and 12.04.2024, indiv
viduals whose appointments
s
were n
ot initiated through a regula
ar notification/advertisement
t
Patna
Bench
prior to
o 22.12.2003 cannot claim th
he benefit of the Old Pension
n
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
KUMARI
POOJA
KUMARI
ted 10.03.2023.
Scheme
e under RBE No. 41/2023 dat
7.
Moreov
ver, in terms of Railway Boar
rd letter no. 2004/AC-II/21/1
1
New D
Delhi dated 19.11.2004 (RBA
A 43/2004), engagement in
n
quasi-a
administrative offices or tem
mporary/casual status service
e
does no
ot confer any right available t
to the holder of a regular post
t
under
the Government. Service
rendered prior to regular
r
appoint
tment cannot be counted or
combined to extend benefits
s
the Old Pension Scheme.

under t
8. During
the pendency of the OA, the
e counsel for respondents has
s
filed O
Office Order No. E/NPS-OP
PS/09/2026 Danapur, dated
d
at:
14.10.2
026 in which it was stated tha

“As per record and this
office letter (i.e., speaking
g
order)
dated 13.07.2021 & CPO/E
Eastern Railway vide letter
r
dated
12.06.2001, the cases h
have been examined and
d
compa
ared, it appears that both ca
ases are similar.”

9
O.A. No. 050/00420/2024
4

9. I have h
heard rival contentions of the
parties and perused material
l
on reco
ord. I have considered the ma
atter in its entirety and come
e
following conclusion:
to the f
The applicant was one of the
e 67 approved casual labourers
s
9.1
whose names were duly recom
mmended by the Railway Board
d
vide letter dated 11.06.2001. H
He was subjected to the process
s
of screening on 19.02.2003,
which clearly establishes that
t
his recruitment process had c
commenced prior to the cut-off
f
date of 01.01.2004.
The sole reason for the delay
in issuance of his appointment
t
9.2
letter beyond 01.01.2004 w
was the interim order dated
d
24.02.2003 passed in O.A. N
No. 40/2002, filed by certain
n
unapproved casual labour
rers, which restrained the
e
Patna
Bench
authorities from issuing appoi
intment orders.
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
KUMARI
POOJA
KUMARI
It is further material to note
that other candidates from the
e
9.3
same panel of 67 approved
d casual labourers, who were
e
screened along with him an
nd whose appointments were
e
finalized before 01.01.2004, w
were extended the benefit of the
e
Railway Services (Pension)
) Rules, 1993 (Old Pension
n
Scheme). Denying the same
benefit to the applicant, who
o
stood on identical footing bu
t for the Court’s interim order,
,
amounts to invidious discrimi
ination.
The position of law has
since been clarified by the
e
9.4
Government of India, Depart
tment of Pension & Pensioner’s
s
Welfare vide OM dated
17.02.2020 and OM dated
d
03.03.2023, which have been
n duly adopted by the Railway
y
Board through RBE No. 28
8/2020 dated 03.03.2020 and
d
RBE No. 41/2023 dated
10.03.2023. These circulars
s
categorically provide that e
employees whose recruitment
t
process had commenced pr
ior to 01.01.2004, but whose
e
appointment was delayed o
on account of administrative
e
lapses or court orders, are t
to be governed under the Old
d
Pension Scheme instead of
f being compelled under the
e
National Pension System (NP
S).

10
O.A. No. 050/00420/2024
4

In spite of these facts, the r
representation of the applicant
t
9.5
was rejected vide impugned o
order dated 13.07.2021, which is
s
not only cryptic and non-spea
aking, but also runs contrary to
o
the binding instructions con
ntained in the aforementioned
d
RBEs and OMs. Such r
rejection is thus arbitrary,
,
unreasonable, and unsustaina
able in law.
However, vide order
dated 14.10.2026, the
e
9.6
respondents have adm
mitted that this OA No.
.
420/2024 (Sri Raj Kumar
r Verma vs. UOI & Ors.) is
s
exactly similar to the ord
der of OA No. 465 of 2021
1
duly affirmed by the Hon
n’ble High Court of Patna.
.
Accordingly, it is concluded
d that the applicant is fully
y
entitled to coverage under t
the Railway Services (Pension)
)
Rules, 1993 (Old Pension
n Scheme) along with all
l
Patna
Bench
consequential benefits. The d
denial of such benefit is a clear
r
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
KUMARI
miscarriage of justice which
h deserves to be rectified by
y
POOJA
KUMARI
setting aside the impugned
d order dated 13.07.2021 and
d
directing the respondents to
extend the benefit of the Old
d
Pension Scheme to the applica
ant.
Accordingly, O.A. stands allow
wed . No order as to cost.
9.7






pk/-
(



(Kumar Rajesh Chandra)
)
Member (A)