Shailendra Dhar Dwivedi vs NORTHERN RAILWAY

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH

Original Application No. 332/00532/2026

rd
This, the 03 day of September, 2026

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J),
HON’BLE MR. PANKAJ KUMAR, MEMBER (A)

1. Shailendra Dhar Dwivedi, aged about 47 years, S/o Late
Girish Dhar Dwivedi, R/o 638/46/2 B, Avadh Vihar Colony,
Sector-11, Indira Nagar, Lucknow-226016.

2. Dinesh Kumar Singh, aged about 51 years old, S/o Shri Ram
Dular Singh, R/o 106, Block-E, Greenwood Apartment,
Gomtinagar Extension, Lucknow-226010.

3. Kumar Devasis, aged about 52 years old, S/o Late Rajendra
Prasad, R/o 54 A, Tulsi Vihar, Sector-14, Indira Nagar,
Lucknow-226016.

4. Anurag Srivastava, aged about 53 years old, S/o Late Prem
Prakash Srivastava, R/o 17, New Tilak Nagar, Aishbagh,
Lucknow-226004.

5. Satya Prakash Yadav, aged about 47 years old, S/o Shri
Ramadhin Yadav, R/o 645A/939, Janki Bihar, Jankipuram,
Lucknow-226021.

6. Ankur Arya, aged about 46 years old, S/o Late Pradeep
Kumar, R/o 798- A, Ashirvad Sector-3, Near DPS School,
Raibareli Road, Eldeco Udhyan-2, Lucknow-226025.

7. Naresh Pal Singh, aged about 51 years old, S/o Late Ram
Sanehi, R/o 41, Alaknanda Estate, Bijnor Road, Ramabai Raily
Sthal, Aurangabad Khalsa, LDA Colony, Lucknow-226012.

8. Kaushal Kishore Yadav, aged about 59 years old, S/o Shri
Ram Kishan Yadav, R/o L-69-B, Grange Road, Charbagh,
Lucknow-226005.

9. Prem Shankar Sahu, aged about 49 years old, S/o Shri Ram
Pyare Sahu, R/o 1/467, Ratan Khand, Sharda Nagar, Lucknow-
226002.

10. Rajesh Kumar, aged about 54 years old, S/o Late Ram Ji
Ram, R/o D- 1/1036, Ratan Khand, Shardanagar Yojna,
Raibareli Road, Lucknow- 226002.

Page 1 of 4

11. Rajesh Prasad Dwivedi, aged about 57 years old, S/o Shri
Bhairo Prasad Dwivedi, R/o Flat No. 2/2, Purva Apartments,
Kanpur Road, Annapurna Market, Sector-H, LDA Colony,
Lucknow-226012.

12. Sanjay Kumar Agnihotri, aged about 58 years, S/o Late
Bansh Gopal Agnihotri, R/o L-2-A, Type-IV, Grange Road,
Charbagh, Lucknow- 226005.

..Applicants
By Advocate: Shri Dhruv Srivastava
VERSUS
1. Union of India Through the General Manager, Northern
Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi-110001.

2. Secretary, Railway Board, Railway Bhawan, Raisina Road,
New Delhi- 110001.

3. Chief Works Manager, Rolling Stock Workshop, Northern
Railway, Charbagh, Lucknow.

4. Deputy Chief Personnel Officer (W), Rolling Stock Workshop,
Northern Railway, Charbagh, Lucknow.

5. Deputy FA & CAO, Rolling Stock Workshop, Northern
Railway, Charbagh, Lucknow.


…..Respondents
By Advocate: Ms. Prayagmati Gupta


O R D E R

PER HON’BLE JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J)
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel
for the respondents and perused the records.

2. Through this Original Application, applicants have prayed
for the following relief (s):

“I. To issue a direction to the respondents/competent authority to
revisit the case of the applicants for grant of financial
upgradation under MACP scheme by counting the qualifying
service for grant of MACP from the date of their appointment
including the training period as qualifying service, granting all
consequential benefits alongwith arrears and interest at the rate
of 12% p.a., from date of its due till the actual date of payment.

II. To issue any other order or directions, which this Hon'ble
Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

Page 2 of 4

III. To allow this original application with costs against the
respondents.”


3. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants
submitted that the instant O.A. may be disposed of as
applicants are only seeking decision on the representations
preferred by them in the light of judgment passed by Cuttack
Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 485 of 2021 (East Coast
Railways Engineers Association & Ors. vs. Union of India &
Ors.) on 15.11.2023 (Annexure No. 2 to the OA), judgment
passed by Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in Writ Petition (C) No.
17872 of 2024 on 27.03.2025 (Annexure No. 3 to the OA) and
judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.
24399 of 2025 on 29.08.2025 (Annexure No. 4 to the OA) and
ends of justice would be served if a direction is given by this
Tribunal to the respondents/competent authority to consider
and dispose of the pending representations of the applicants
attached as Annexure No. A-6 [page 85-96 of the paper-book] to
this O.A. in the light of judgment passed by Cuttack Bench of
this Tribunal in OA No. 485 of 2021 (East Coast Railways
Engineers Association & Ors. vs. Union of India & ors.) on
15.11.2023 (Annexure No. 2 to the OA), judgment passed by
Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in Writ Petition (C) No. 17872 of
2024 on 27.03.2025 (Annexure No. 3 to the OA) and judgment
passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 24399 of 2025
on 29.08.2025 (Annexure No. 4 to the OA) by way of reasoned
and speaking order within a stipulated period of time.

4. To this, learned counsel for the respondents orally
opposed, however, submitted that in case the applicants’
representations, if not decided yet, are directed to be decided in
the manner suggested, then at least three months’ time may be
allowed for the same.
5. In view of the above submission, respondents/ competent
authority are directed to consider and decide the representations
of the applicants, if not decided yet, attached as Annexure No.
A-6 [page 85-96 of the paper-book] to this OA in the light of
judgment passed by Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.
Page 3 of 4

485 of 2021 (East Coast Railways Engineers Association &
Ors. vs. Union of India & ors.) on 15.11.2023 (Annexure No. 2
to the OA), judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in
Writ Petition (C) No. 17872 of 2024 on 27.03.2025 (Annexure
No. 3 to the OA) and judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in SLP (C) No. 24399 of 2025 on 29.08.2025 (Annexure
No. 4 to the OA) and pass a reasoned and speaking order as per
law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order, under intimation forthwith to the
applicants.

6. It is made clear that nothing has been commented upon
the merits of the case.

7. For avoidance of doubts, it is clarified that similarity of
facts and applicability of judgments shall be determined by the
competent authority itself while deciding the representations of
the applicants.

8. The OA is disposed of accordingly.
There is no order as to costs.





(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member (A) Member (J)

JNS
Digitally signed by
Jay Narayan Singh
Date: 2026.09.07
14:48:47 +05'30'
Jay Narayan
Singh
Page 4 of 4