ASHOK DEOGAM vs Railway

- 1- OA/050/00214/2017

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA
OA/050/00214/2017

Reserved on: 02.09.2026
Pronounced on: 07.09.2026

CORAM
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, MEMBER (J)
HON’BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, MEMBER (A)

Ashok Deogam, Son of Sri Laxman Deogam, Office Superintendent
(E), Workshop Project, Chamber Bhawan, Judges Court, Patna-
800001 (Bihar).
……..Applicant.

- By Advocate(s): - Shri M.P. Dixit

-Versus-

1. The Union of India through the Chief Administrative Officer,
Workshop Project, Chamber Bhawan, Judges Court Road,
Patna- 800001.
2. The Chief Administrative Officer, Rail Wheel Plant, Ministry of
Railway, Bela, District- Saran, Pin Code- 841221 (Bihar).
3. The Deputy Chief Personnel Officer, Rail Wheel Plant,
Ministry of Railway, Bela, District- Saran, Pin Code-841221
(Bihar).
4. The Senior Personnel Officer, Workshop Project, Chamber
Bhawan, Judges Court Road, Patna-800001.
5. The General Manager, Integral Coach Factory, Indian
Railways, Chennai-600038.
6. The Chief Personnel Officer, Integral Coach Factory, Indian
Railways, Chennai-600038.

…….Respondents.

By Advocate(s):- Shri A.K. Singh, Addl. Standing Counsel





Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OOP KABI

- 2- OA/050/00214/2017

O R D E R

Per Kumar Rajesh Chandra, A.M. :- This OA has been filed
under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
seeking the following relief:-
“(i) That your Lordships may graciously be pleased to quash
and set aside the impugned order dated 01.12.2017 as contained
in Annexure-A/1 whereby the promotion of the Applicant to the
post of Office Superintendent (E) has been cancelled.
(ii) That your Lordships may further be pleased to
direct/command the Respondents to treat the promotion of the
Applicant as Office Superintendent (E) with effect from
03.09.2012 at par with his junior as contained in Annexure-A/4
& A/5 respectively are just and valid and requires no
interference.
(iii) That your Lordships may graciously be pleased to
direct/command the Respondents to grant all consequential
benefits in favour of the Applicant.
(iv) Any other relief or reliefs including the cost of the
proceeding may be allowed in favour of the Applicant.”
2. For the sake of clarity, the brief facts of the case, as stated by
the applicant, is being discussed and delineated as under:-
(i) The applicant is presently working as Office
Superintendent (E) at Workshop Project, Chamber Bhawan,
Patna, with his lien maintained at Rail Wheel Plant, Bela with
effect from 15.01.2015.
(ii) The applicant was initially appointed under Respondent
Nos. 5 & 6, i.e., Integral Coach Factory (ICF), Chennai, and while
working as Senior Clerk at ICF, Chennai, an Administrative
Option dated 13.04.2007 (Annexure-A/2) was issued inviting
willingness from employees for transfer to Rail Wheel Plant,
Bela. In terms of the said option, the applicant submitted his
willingness which was subsequently accepted. The applicant was
relieved from ICF, Chennai on 27.11.2007 (Annexure-A/3) and
joined at Workshop Project, Chamber Bhawan, Patna on
Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OOP KABI

- 3- OA/050/00214/2017

30.11.2007. The said administrative option clearly stipulated
that the lien of the employee will be maintained at their parent
railway and they will seek promotion also before closure of the
cadre at Rail Wheel Plant, Bela.
(iii) Subsequently, the applicant came to know that
Respondent No. 6 (ICF, Chennai] granted benefit of promotion to
his junior, namely, Sri Ram Krishna Naik Bhukya to the post of
Office Superintendent (E) w.e.f. 03.09.2012 but the applicant
was ignored despite the admitted position that his lien
continued with ICF and the cadre of Rail Wheel Plant, Bela had
not yet been closed. On the applicant’s representation,
respondent no. 6 issued office order dated 03.03.3016
(Annexure-A/4) granting promotion to the applicant w.e.f
03.09.2012 at par with his said junior to the post of post of Office
Superintendent (E) but with some rider that he has to come back
within 15 days.
(iv) It is further submitted that in the meanwhile the cadre of
Rail Wheel Plant, Bela has been finally closed w.e.f. 15.01.2015
and the applicant was absorbed permanently with lien at Rail
Wheel Plant, Bela. That being the reason the Workshop Project,
Chamber Bhawan, Patna has given effect the promotion of the
applicant w.e.f. 03.09.2012 at Rail Wheel Plant, Bela vide order
dated 18.03.2016 (Annexure-A/5).
(v) Thereafter, the applicant received the impugned order
dated 01.12.2017 (Annexure-A/1) issued for the Respondent No.
6 whereby the promotion granted to the applicant to the post of
Office Superintendent vide order dated 03.03.2016 w.e.f.
03.09.2012 at par with his junior has been cancelled and the
applicant has been ordered to be reverted back even without
issuance of show cause notice which, according to the applicant,
is not only bad in law, arbitrary, unjust, punitive,
unconstitutional, principle of promissory estoppel but also
discriminatory and contrary to various judicial pronouncements
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble High Courts and different
benches of the CAT.
Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OOP KABI

- 4- OA/050/00214/2017

(vi) The applicant further submits that there are various
instances of other Railways whose employees have come to
Workshop project, Rail Wheel Plant, Bela on similar fashion and
they have been granted due promotion in their parent Railway
before the closure of the Cadre of Workshop Project, Rail Wheel
Plant, Bela.
(vii) The applicant has referred to the decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Gajanan L. Pednekar Vs. The State
of Goa and Others reported in 2000 SCC (L&S) page 57 wherein
it is clearly held that opportunity of Show Cause to adversely
affected person before recalling an administrative order passed
in his favour be afforded. It is further stated that the same view
has been expressed by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in
the case of Smt. Gurdip Kaur & Others Vs. State of Haryana and
Others stating that “Reversion without show cause is bad”. In the
instant case even no show cause has been issued prior to
issuance of impugned order. When the applicant’s
representation dated 14.12.2017 (Annexure-A/6) was not
considered, the instant OA has been filed.

3 . Per contra, the respondents in their written statement have
submitted that the applicant was originally appointed as Junior
Clerk in the Mechanical Department of Integral Coach Factory
(ICF), Chennai against the Direct Recruitment quota and was
promoted as Senior Clerk w.e.f 30.06.2017. While working at ICF,
the applicant submitted his option for transfer to CWP/Bela and
CRWP/Harnaut in response to AC Circular No. 27/2007 dated
13.04.2007, calling for willingness from employees for transfer to
the newly created factory.
3.1 It is further submitted that the applicant was relieved to
CWP/Bela on option transfer vide Office Order dated
Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OOP KABI

- 5- OA/050/00214/2017

15/26.11.2007, with the condition that his lien and seniority
would be retained in the parent cadre at ICF, and he would seek
promotion in the parent cadre only till the closure of the cadre of
CWP/Bela, and during the lien period, he could return to the
parent unit if he so desired.
3.2 Respondents have further submitted that the applicant
while working in his new post at Bela, some of his juniors in ICF
were promoted in the normal course. The applicant represented
that he should also be considered for promotion at par with his
juniors in ICF stating that his lien is being maintained in ICF.
It is submitted that although the applicant’s lien was
maintained at ICF, he was normally not entitled for promotion
together with retention in the new unit. However, if at any point
of time within his lien period if he chose to return to ICF or is
transferred in administrative interest back to ICF, he would be
considered for promotion at par with his juniors duly retaining
his seniority.
Since the promotion order has been issued erroneously
promoting the applicant as Office Superintendent, the same has
been reviewed and cancelled with the approval of the competent
authority vide office order dated 01.12.2017 (Annexure-A/1)
which is challenged in the instant OA.
3.3 It is further contended by the respondents that as per
settled service jurisprudence, promotion in the parent
organization can be considered only when the employee returns
Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OOP KABI

- 6- OA/050/00214/2017

to the parent unit during the lien period, either on administrative
grounds or on his own request.
3.4 The respondents have further averred that that the concept
of lien merely confers a right to hold a post in the parent cadre to
enable repatriation, and does not entitle an employee to be
promoted in the parent organization while continuing to serve in
another unit. Lien becomes operative only upon repatriation to
the parent cadre, at which stage the employee may be placed
appropriately in seniority and considered for promotion with
reference to the date of promotion of his juniors.
3.5 The respondents have further submitted that the applicant,
while working at Bela, represented for promotion at par with his
juniors in ICF. Based on a misinterpretation of the administrative
conditions, promotion orders dated 17.05.2010 and 26.10.2015
were issued erroneously, granting the applicant promotion as
Senior Clerk w.e.f. 02.06.2009 and Office Superintendent (E) w.e.f.
01.11.2013, even though he had not returned to ICF.
3.6 It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the respondents that
the promotion order dated 03.03.2016 (Annexure-R/1) was
issued as a special case even after the closure of the cadre of
CWP/Bela and contained a clear and categorical condition that the
applicant must report back to ICF within 15 days, failing which
the order would lose its sanctity. The applicant neither reported
back to ICF within the stipulated period nor submitted any
request for retention in the promoted post, thereby rendering the
Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OOP KABI

- 7- OA/050/00214/2017

promotion order inoperative. The same order was accordingly
cancelled with the approval of the competent authority.
3.7 In view of the applicant’s failure to comply with the
conditions attached to the promotion orders, the competent
authority rightly reviewed and cancelled the erroneous
promotion orders vide Office Order dated 01.12.2017, which is
under challenge in the present OA.
3.8 It is contended that similarly placed employees cannot
claim parity as a matter of right, and promotions granted by other
Railways or Production Units do not create any enforceable
precedent. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Tribunal in
OA No. 783/2012 (CAT, Patna Bench) , wherein no relief was
granted to similarly situated employees.
3.9 The respondents have submitted that the administration
has no objection in RWP/Bela issuing promotion office order in
favour of the applicant from the date of promotion of his erstwhile
junior at ICF. They have pointed out that despite non availability
of any rules to consider him for promotion at ICF end, there is no
feasibility for issuing promotion order from ICF due to non
availability of his service records, his DAR/Vigilance history and
information regarding availability of higher grade vacancies at
RWP/Bela. In view of the above, only RWP/Bela has to consider
the applicant for promotion to the next higher grade and issue
promotion order based on the details furnished by ICF from the
date of promotion of his junior at ICF.
Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OOP KABI

- 8- OA/050/00214/2017

3.10 It is further contended that despite cancellation of the
promotion orders by ICF, RWP/Bela has not implemented the
cancellation, and the applicant continues to enjoy the promotional
benefits. ICF has not insisted upon cancellation by RWP/Bela,
leaving it open to the said unit to take an independent
decision.
3.11 Respondents have accordingly submitted that the impugned
order dated 01.12.2017 is legal, justified, and issued in accordance
with rules to rectify an administrative error, and does not violate
any constitutional or statutory provisions.
4 . In reply to the Written Statement filed by the respondents,
the applicant has filed his rejoinder affidavit, reiterating the
submissions made in the Original Application. He has further
submitted that the respondents Workshop Project has issued
promotion order dated 31.12.2018 and 09.01.2019 (Annexures-
P/1 and P/2) whereby applicant has been promoted to the post of
Chief OS in Grade Pay of Rs. 4600 and that para-11 of the written
statement clearly shows that ICF has no objection if Workshop
Project promotes the applicant. The applicant has, accordingly,
submitted that the impugned orders are fit to be set aside.
5 . We have heard the rival contention of the parties, perused
material on record and considered the matter in its entirety.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant during the course of
argument has produced a copy of order dated 15.01.2026 passed
Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OOP KABI

- 9- OA/050/00214/2017

by this Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 051/00216/2017 wherein
in a similar matter same office order dated 01.12.2017 was
challenged.
7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and
perused the pleadings and documents available on record.
Thereafter, we have considered the matter in its entirety and
come to the following conclusion:-
7.1 The action of the respondents in cancelling the promotion
has to be tested on the principles of administrative fairness,
competence, natural justice and the consequences flowing from
an order which had already been acted upon.
There is no allegation in the present case that the applicant
obtained the promotion by fraud, misrepresentation, suppression
of material facts or manipulation of the service record. On the
contrary, the promotion was granted by the competent authority
after the applicant had represented his claim and after the
respondents had considered the relevant service position.
The respondents themselves granted the benefit and the
Workshop Project/Rail Wheel Plant, Bela subsequently acted
upon the promotion. The promotion, therefore, was not a mere
proposal which remained unimplemented. It had been given effect
to and had altered the applicant's service position.
7.2 It is a settled principle of administrative law that even
where an administrative authority discovers that an earlier order
may have been erroneous, the power to correct an error is not
Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OOP KABI

- 10- OA/050/00214/2017

necessarily synonymous with an unrestricted power to
retrospectively undo the rights and consequences flowing from
such order.
In the present case, the impugned order cancelling a
promotion which had already been granted to the applicant and
implemented was issued without giving him an opportunity to
explain, inter alia , the circumstances in which he could not report
to the administration of Integral Coach Factory, Chennai. Whether
he was relieved by Rail Wheel Factory, Bela for the same has
never been considered. Nor was the fact taken into account that
the applicant had accepted the promotion and the effect of the
conditions of his transfer, the subsequent closure of the RWP, Bela
cadre and his permanent absorption therein.
The principle of natural justice assumes particular
significance where an administrative decision, though described
as corrective or administrative in character, produces adverse
civil consequences for an individual. The nomenclature of the
order cannot determine the applicability of natural justice; its
substance and effect are relevant.
The respondents have relied upon the condition attached to
the promotion order requiring the applicant to report to ICF
within fifteen days. In view of the non-consideration of the factors
stated above, we are unable to accept that this condition, by itself,
validates the subsequent retrospective cancellation in the
circumstances of the present case.
Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OOP KABI

- 11- OA/050/00214/2017

7.3 The applicant's position had materially changed by the time
the impugned order dated 01.12.2017 was passed. The cadre at
Bela had already been closed with effect from 15.01.2015 and the
applicant had been permanently absorbed therein. Thus, the
factual and administrative circumstances existing when the
promotion was initially granted were no longer the same when
the impugned cancellation was made.
7.4 More importantly, the respondents have themselves taken a
stand in their written statement that they have no objection to the
Workshop Project/Rail Wheel Plant, Bela considering the
applicant for promotion to the higher grade. They have also
acknowledged that the Workshop Project had not cancelled the
benefit already extended to the applicant. This stand materially
weakens the justification for retrospectively nullifying the
applicant's promotion from the previous establishment (ICF,
Chennai).
7.5 The present case is not one where the applicant seeks a
fresh promotion solely on the ground of equality with another
employee. The applicant challenges the subsequent retrospective
withdrawal of a promotion which had already been granted by the
competent authority and acted upon by the administration.
The respondents' reliance upon alleged administrative
error must therefore be considered along with the fact that the
error, if any, was attributable to the administration and was not
Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OOP KABI

- 12- OA/050/00214/2017

occasioned by any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the
applicant.
7.6 It is also relevant that the applicant subsequently received
promotion in the Workshop Project/Rail Wheel Plant. The record,
as placed before us, further shows that the Workshop Project
issued orders dated 31.12.2018 and 09.01.2019 promoting him to
the post of Chief Office Superintendent in the higher grade. This
subsequent development reinforces the fact that the applicant's
service status had thereafter been dealt with by the establishment
where he stood absorbed.
7.7 This Bench has already considered a substantially similar
controversy in O.A. No. 051/00216/2017, wherein the same order
dated 01.12.2017 issued by ICF was under challenge. By order
dated 15.01.2026, the Tribunal quashed the said order and
restored the promotions granted to the applicant therein, holding,
inter alia , that the promotion had been granted by the competent
authority, had been acted upon, there was no allegation of fraud
or misrepresentation, and that after closure of the Bela cadre and
permanent absorption, the subsequent cancellation by ICF could
not be sustained in the circumstances of that case.
We have considered the said decision. The factual
foundation of the present case is materially similar. Indeed, in the
present case, the applicant has an additional circumstance in his
favour inasmuch as, according to the pleadings before us, no
Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OOP KABI

- 13- OA/050/00214/2017

show-cause notice whatsoever was issued before the impugned
cancellation and reversion.
The respondents have not placed before us any material
which would justify taking a different view in the present matter.
8. We, accordingly hold that the original grant of promotion by
the respondents could not have retrospectively been cancelled in
the manner adopted, without affording the applicant an
opportunity of hearing and without adequately addressing the
subsequent closure of the Bela cadre, permanent absorption of
the applicant and the fact that the promotion had already been
acted upon.
The impugned order dated 01.12.2017 is, therefore,
unsustainable on the grounds of violation of principles of natural
justice and administrative fairness. In the facts of the present case,
the exercise of power also cannot be sustained merely by
describing the impugned action as rectification of an
administrative error.
Consequently, the Original Application deserves to be
allowed.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.12.2017
(Annexure-A/1) is quashed to the extent of setting aside insofar
as it cancels the applicant's promotion to the post of Office
Superintendent (E) with effect from 03.09.2012 and
consequentially seeks to revert him.
Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OOP KABI

- 14- OA/050/00214/2017

The promotion granted to the applicant to the post of Office
Superintendent (E) with effect from 03.09.2012, as reflected in
the relevant promotion orders and given effect to by the
Workshop Project/Rail Wheel Plant, Bela, shall stand restored.
The respondents shall issue necessary consequential orders
and carry out consequential corrections in the applicant's service
records. The consequential monetary benefits, if any, shall be
worked out in accordance with law after adjusting the benefits
already paid to the applicant.
The above exercise shall be completed within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order.
Before parting with the matter, we clarify that this order
proceeds on the peculiar and undisputed facts of the present case,
namely, that the promotion was granted by the respondents, was
acted upon, there is no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation
against the applicant, the applicant was subsequently absorbed
after closure of the Bela cadre, and the promotion was cancelled
without affording him an opportunity of hearing. This order shall
not be construed as laying down a proposition that an employee
acquires an indefeasible right to promotion merely because an
erroneous promotion order has been issued.
The Original Application is accordingly allowed in the
aforesaid terms.
9. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Kumar Rajesh Chandra) (Justice Narendra Kumar Johari)
Member (A) Member(J)

Srk.
Digitally signed
SURYAR
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OOP KABI