SURAJ PRASAD vs NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY

th
Reserved on 15 September, 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
*

Original Application No. 272 of 2025


th
Allahabad this the 27 day of October, 2026


Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member-J


Suraj Prasad S/o Late Basudeo Ram, aged about 62 years, R/o 830 M, Shriram
Nagar Colony, Gaderiya Tola, Basaratpur, District-Gorakhpur, U.P. 273004.
Applicant
By Advocates: Mr. A.D. Singh
Mr. Sadhu Saran

Versus
1. The Union of India, through its General Manager, North Eastern Railway,
Gorakhpur.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Eastern Railway, Varanasi.
3. Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), North Eastern Railway, Varanasi.
4. Imtiyaz Ahmad, Office Superintendent (Commercial) office of Divisional
Railway Manager, North Eastern Railway, Varanasi.
Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Krishna Deo Rai

O R D E R

Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Judicial Member

The applicant has filed this O.A. seeking the relief(s), which are
quoted herein below: -
“(i) Quash the impugned orders dated 01.03.2023 and 24.03.2024
passed by respondent no. 3 which has been signed by the respondent no.
4 (Annexure no. A-1 & A-II to this O.A. in compilation-I.)
(ii) Direct the respondent no. 1 to 3 to pay the leave encashment of
LAP for the period of 04.02.2011 to 23.02.2011, 04.02.2011, 21.11.2006
to 25.11.2006 and RMC period 05.11.2011 to 15.11.2011 and 09.11.2012
to 16.11.2012 should be converted in LHAP and make the payment of the
same which has been illegally deducted from LAP and also make the
payment of 10 & 6 days which have been illegally treated as leave by
impugned order dated 24.07.2024 with panel interest @ 18% per annum
from the date of superannuation to till the date of actual payment is being
made to the applicant.
MANISH
MEHROTRA
(iii) Direct the respondent no. 1, 2 and 3 to pay the interest @ 18% on
the total paid amount of leave encashment on July 2024 of Rs. 2,07,746/-

2

for the period of 105 days which has been paid delayed to the applicant
by rectifying the mistake done by them in leave account of 300 days of
the applicant.
(iv) Pass such other and further order as deem fit, proper under the
facts and circumstances of the case.
(v) Allow the Original Application with cost of the litigation in favour of
the applicant from the respondents.”

2. The facts of the case, as per pleadings in the O.A., are that the
applicant was initially appointed on the post of Ticket Collector on
22.08.1987 and while in service, he was promoted as Chief Ticket
Inspector and retired on 31.01.2023 in the grade pay of Rs. 4800/- on
attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years. The applicant was taken
the leave of LAP for the period of 02.11.2011 to 03.11.2011 and on
04.11.2011 was rest but the respondent no. 4 illegally treated 04.11.2011
as leave of LAP on payment of leave encashment has not been paid to
him for which the applicant is legally entitled after retirement. Applicant
was medically leave on RMC for the period of 05.11.2011 to 15.11.2011
and 18.11.2012 but the aforesaid period have been illegally treated as
leave in account of LAP by respondent no. 4 instead of LHAP as per the
rules which are required to be made in LHAP and accordingly make the
payment of leave encashment after retirement of the applicant but the
same has not been paid to the applicant till date and same has been
denied by means of impugned orders. The respondent no. 4 illegally
made deduction in two time as leave in LAP for the period of 24.11.2006
to 25.11.2006 even actual leave was on 24.11.2006 and 25.11.2006 thus
the same cannot be done one day more and it will not be deducted once
and again as such act of respondent no. 4 is illegal and applicant is
entitled for payment of leave encashment for the period of which
deducted as leave in LAP and one day more has been illegally deducted as
leave in LAP by respondent no. 4. The applicant was on duty for the
MANISH
MEHROTRA
period i.e. 04.02.2011 to 23.01.2011 but the said period has been
illegally treated as leave in LAP by respondent no. 3 and 4 and after
retirement, said period has been deducted from the total leave account of

3

300 of the applicant and after retirement payment of leave encashment
has not been paid for the period of 04.02.2011 to 23.02.2011, thus as per
the rules and law the applicant is legally entitled for payment of the same.
The respondent no. 4 has illegally made deduction in LAP of the leave
account of RMC on 08.07.2015 instead of LHAP which are apparently
illegal. The respondents have paid the leave encashment after retirement
of the applicant of 104 days only without verifying the complete leave
account of the documents but he was entitled for more days of payment.
The respondent no. 3 rejected the claim of leave encashment of the
applicant vide impugned order dated 01.03.2023 by stating that the
rightly payment has been made for the 104 days which has been send by
the respondent no. 4. The applicant made representation dated
06.10.2023 for settlement of dispute in question with regards of the
payment of leave encashment before respondent no. 3 with the copy to
the vigilance department but same has not been settled till date by the
respondents and same has been returned back original to the applicant
without settlement of the dispute which act and conduct of the
respondents is illegal as same cannot be returned back to the applicant
without deciding the controversy as they have the authority to decide the
controversy once the employee has raised his grievance under rules and
law and require to take the decision in the matter for which conduct
respondent No. 3 is liable for coercive action under law. Hence, he has
filed the present O.A.

3. The respondents have filed their counter reply and pleaded that the
applicant did not apply at that time of regularization of the RMC period
from 05.11.2011 to 15.11.2011 and 09.11.2012 to 18.11.2012 into
commuted leave. As a result, the aforesaid period was not regularized
into commuted leave as per rules. It is submitted that the applicant has
MANISH
MEHROTRA
been wrongly credited two days leave for the period from 24.11.2006 to
25.11.2006 and no deduction has been made from the leave account of
applicant for the period from 04.02.2011 to 23.02.2011 and of

4

08.07.2015. The competent authority after sympathetically considering
the applicant’s application, approved the RMC period submitted by the
applicant as commuted leave. It is further submitted that the
regularization of RMC period could not be done previously due to
applicant’s failure to submit the application on time. It is submitted that
to regularize an employee's RMC (Railway Medical Sickness) period into
commuted leave, a timely application must be submitted along with a
railway ID. The applicant did not submit the application on time and for
this reason the applicant itself responsible for not submitting application
within time then the answering respondents in accordance with existing
rules of department taken decision which is just, proper and legal in the
eye of law. It is also submitted by the respondents that from the facts
and submissions mentioned above, it is clear that the respondents have
not committed any illegality or infirmity in the case of applicant hence,
the O.A. is liable to be dismissed.

4. The applicant has also filed the rejoinder, reiterating the facts as
contended in the pleadings of O.A.

5. Heard, counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available
on record.

6. The reliefs prayed by the applicant are to direct the respondent no.
1 to 3 to pay the leave encashment of LAP (Leave on Average Pay) for the
period of 04.02.2011 to 23.02.2011, 04.02.2011, 21.11.2006 to
25.11.2006 and RMC (Railway Medical Certificate) period 05.11.2011 to
15.11.2011 and 09.11.2012 to 16.11.2012 should be converted in LHAP
(Leave on Half Average Pay) and make the payment of the same which
has been illegally deducted from LAP. In support of his contention, the
applicant has provided leave register and sickness certificate. However,
MANISH
MEHROTRA
no such application has been provided by the applicant of the relevant
period for considering the LAP/RMC/LAHP. Certain pleas have been taken
by the applicant regarding his working or on actual leave, which has not

5

been duly registered in the leave register. This O.A. has been filed after
the retirement of applicant, in the year 2025, as the applicant was retired
on 31.01.2023. The said cause of action arose to the applicant only after
getting the knowledge that after retirement the due amount, which other
employees received for LAP/LAHP for number of days, was not made to
him. Thereafter, he has moved an application on 06.10.2023 before the
respondents mentioning therein that he has received only 104 days LAP
and 196 days LAHP. The respondents’ contention is that the applicant has
not moved any application during the relevant time to regularize the RMC
leave medical sickness period into commuted leave as there is no such
application along with railway ID of the applicant. Therefore, whatever
pay of the absence period on account of his sickness, cannot be
considered. However, after making an application approved the RMC
period submitted by the applicant as commuted leave, as the
regularization of RMC period could not be done previously due to
applicant’s failure to submit an application on time. From record, it
appears that the applicant has pleaded LAP for the period from
24.11.2006 to 25.11.2006 and RMC period from 05.11.2011 to
15.11.2011 and 09.11.2012 to 18.11.2012, which has been treated as
leave on account of LAP instead of LAHP. However, I am not convinced
with the argument made by the applicant’s counsel and in the absence of
any material that any such application was moved by the applicant for
that period, the claim of applicant after retirement cannot be acceded to
and accordingly there is no merit in the O.A., which deserves to be
dismissed.

7. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that
there is no merit in the O.A. and the same is hereby dismissed. No order
as to costs. All the pending MAs shall be deemed to have been disposed
MANISH
MEHROTRA
of.
(Rajnish Kumar Rai)
Member (Judicial)

/M.M/