RAM CHANDRA vs NORTH CENTRAL RAILWAY

th
Reserved on 18 September, 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
*

Original Application No. 722 of 2022


th
Allahabad this the 27 day of October, 2026


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


Ram Chandra aged about 59 years S/o Gajraj posted as Track Maintainer under
S.S.E. (P.W.) Chitrakoot R/o Gaya Prasad Ka Purwa, Attarra, District-Banda.
Applicant
By Advocate: Shri S.M. Ali

Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager Head Quarter North Central
Railway, Allahabad.
2. Chief Personnel Officer Head Quarter, North Central Railway, Allahabad.
3. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Jhansi.
4. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North Central Railway, Jhansi.
5. Assistant Divisional Engineer, North Central Railway, Banda.
6. Senior Section Engineer (P-Way) Chitrakoot, North Central Railway,
Chitrakoot Dham Karvi.
Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Arun Kumar Gupta

O R D E R

The applicant has filed this O.A. seeking the relief(s), which are
quoted herein below: -
“i. To issue order and direction to the respondents for coverage of old
pension under Railway Pension Rules-1993 in the light of R.B.E. No.
28/2020 and R.B.E. 69/2022 with all consequential benefits.
ii. To issue order and direction to the respondents for counting 50%
past service period in his qualifying service period under Board’s letter
dated 27.04.2017 and to grant all other consequential benefits, and to
mention past service period in the service book of the applicant, or to pass
MANISH
MEHROTRA
any such order and further order as deem fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

2

iii. To decide the pending representation dated 08.07.2022 in the light
of Railway Board R.B.E. No. 28/2020 dated 03.03.2020 by a reasoned and
speaking order within time bound period as deem fit in the interest of
justice.
iv. Award the cost of the Petition in favour of the applicant.”

2. The facts of the case, as per pleadings in the O.A., are that the The
applicant was initially appointed on 02-03-1983 as casual labour and
acquired temporary status w.e.f. 05-12-1989 and worked up to 22-07-
1991 at various places. It is submitted that the applicant was eligible for
regularization in year-2003-04 with other similar casual labourers in the
light of Circular dated 28-02-2001 and the name of the applicant was
registered at Serial No. 2301 in the Casual Labour live register in Jhansi
Division. However, he was not called for screening and regularization.
The applicant had already acquired MRCL status w.e.f. 05-12-1989 as per
rules of I.R.E.M. on completion of 120 working days in continuous service,
therefore, the applicant filed O.A. 735 of 2008 along with other six
candidates for regularization in the service as per the Railway Board
scheme dated 28-02-2001 and 20-09-2001. The above O.A. was decided
by judgment dated 01-06-2012 with direction to recalculate the working
days of applicants and regularize them. However, all regularized casual
labourers were wrongly classified under New Pension Scheme (NPS)
instead of Old Pension Scheme (OPS), because the past service period
was not counted in the qualifying service for pensionary benefits on
absorption in regular employment on Railways as per Para-2005(a) of
I.R.E.M, and also not mentioned the initial date of appointment in pay slip
but mentioned date of regularization as date of appointment in pay slip.

3. Thereafter, another O.A. No. 1606/2016 was filed for relief to
include 50% casual service and 100% MRCL service period. The said O.A.
was decided with direction to the respondents to take a decision on the
MANISH
MEHROTRA
representation dated 16.03.2016 of the applicant. In pursuance thereto,
the Senior D.P.O. Jhansi has considered the representation and rejected

3

the prayer of the applicant by order dated 12-05-2017 for counting past
service period and for coverage under old pension scheme. However, the
applicant has not challenged the order dated 12-05-2017.

4. In the meantime, the Central Government DOPT issued O.M. dated
17-02-2020 for coverage under old pension The Central Government
issued O.M. dated 17-02-2020 for coverage under OPS in place of NPS,
for those employees whose selection for appointment was finalized before
01-01-2004 but appointed after 01-01-2004. Therefore, the applicant
along with others further filed O.A. 200 of 2020 with the prayer to
consider the case of the applicant in the light of O.M. dated 17-02-2020.
The above O.A was decided by judgment dated 02-11-2020 with direction
to consider the case of the applicants in the light of O.M. dated 17-02-
2020. However, the A.P.O. Jhansi has rejected the prayer of the
applicants by order dated 05-02-2021 for coverage under O.P.S. and
ignored the O.M. dated 17-02-2020. In the meantime, the Railway Board
issued R.B.E. No. 28/2020 but they have also not consider the case of
applicant as per R.B.E. No. 28/2020. The applicant filed representation
dated 08-07-2022 to the authorities in reply of letter dated 21-02-2022,
wherein he clearly states that due to mistake committed by the
respondents in counting the number of days of the applicant, he could not
appear in the screening in year 2003 for regularization, but when the
applicant filed O.A. No. 735 of 2008, which was decided on 01-06-2012.
It is further submitted by the applicant that the number of working days
of the applicant was calculated properly and he was found eligible for
screening and regularization. The applicant was regularized on 29-08-
2013 in compliance of CAT judgment dated 01-06-2012. Therefore, the
applicant will be treated as regularized with other casual labour in year-
2003-04 for grant of similar benefits of old pension as granted to the
similarly situated casual labour on or after regularization and even after
MANISH
MEHROTRA
retirement. The applicant is due for retirement on 31-12-2022 hence, he

4

has prayed to direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant
in the light of Railway Board orders dated 03-03-2020.

5. Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the Judgments of the
Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 56057 of 2004
Babu Singh V. State of U.P. and others 2006 (8) ADJ 371 as well as
in Writ A No. 66755 of 2013 Ram Jatan Tiwari and others V. U.P.
Power Corporation Ltd. thru Chairman and 4 Ors. with connected
Writ, decided on 09.08.2024. He further relied upon the Judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6865/2022 Punjab School
Education Board and another V. Satnam Singh and others , decided
on 08.09.2026. An Order of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 811/2022
Sukhdev V. Union of India and others decided on 18.05.2026 by this
Bench of Tribunal is also relied upon by the applicant.

6. The respondents have filed their counter reply and pleaded that the
applicant was initially engaged in different spells as temporary casual
labour during summer period. He has worked from 30.12.1982 to
08.01.1993 for 10 days, from 03.02.1983 to 18.03.1983 for 44 days,
from 19.04.1983 to 18.05.1983 for 40 days and from 19.05.1983 to
25.05.1983 for 17 days and under SSE/PW/CONS/KATNI for 26 days
hence, total number of working days is 127 days. It is admitted by the
respondents that as per record, the name of applicant was recorded at
Serial No. 2301 in Casual Labour Live Register. The respondents have
submitted that the applicant was appointed as Trackman vide letter dated
27.08.2013. The date of appointment of the applicant is 02.09.2013 and,
as such, the applicant is under New Pension Scheme and same is also
mentioned in the applicant’s pay slip. It is also submitted that earlier
representation for screening was rejected due to non-fulfillment of the
instructions and directions issued in Railway Board letters dated
MANISH
MEHROTRA
28.02.2001 and 20.09.2001. The respondents have submitted that the
applicant was appointed on 02.09.2013 and the screening of applicant

5

was not held in 2003, therefore, he is not entitled for Old Pension
Scheme. It is submitted by the respondents that the judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court relied upon by the applicant is not applicable on casual
labour, but, the judgment relied upon by the applicant is applicable only
on substitute who has completed 120 days continuous working and are in
service. It is noteworthy to mention here that, the applicant has not
worked continuously but he had worked in broken spells on different
dates. It is submitted that the case of applicant is different with the other
who have given Old Pension Scheme. 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.

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

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

9. The relief sought by the applicant for coverage of OPS under
Railway Pension Rules, 1993 as well as in the R.B.E. No. 28/2020 and
R.B.E. No. 69/2022 with further direction of counting of 50% past service
period in his qualifying service period and other consequential benefits.
The facts, which pleaded by the applicant, are that he was accorded
temporary status w.e.f. 05.12.1989 as Monthly Rated Casual Labour (for
short MRCL) and thereafter in pursuance to the Railway Board Policy
initiated the casual labour whose names are placed in the Live Register,
were called for screening and for regularization. Subsequently, office of
North Central Railway, Jhansi Division has issued the notification for those
who have fulfilled the condition as per instruction dated 28.02.2001 and
20.09.2001 and were called for screening. Further, the applicant was not
MANISH
MEHROTRA
called for screening on account that he does not meet out the criteria
prescribed in the instruction dated 28.02.2001 and 20.09.2001.

6

Thereafter, the O.A. was filed in the year 2008 bearing O.A. No. 735 of
2008, which was allowed vide Order dated 01.06.2012 and subsequently
appointed on 02.09.2013 to the post of Gangman (Track Maintainer).

10. The claim of applicant that he was regularized w.e.f. 02.09.2013
cannot be accepted as this was the appointment letter issued after fresh
screening, which is apparent from Annexure -3. In the Casual Labour
Register applicant’s working has been stated as ‘102’ days in the Office of
S.S.E. Chitrakoot Dham Karvi and for 26 days in the Office of S.S.E./P.
Way/Const. at Katni. As prior to his appointment on 02.09.2013 to the
post of Gangman (Track Maintainer), the applicant has in past worked for
only ‘128’ days and his appointment was made in pursuance to the Order
dated 01.06.2012 passed by this Tribunal, therefore, plea taken by the
applicant with regard to his entitlement for the OPS in pursuance to the
RBE No. 28/2020 and RBE No. 69/2022, cannot be sustained.

11. This fact has also not been controverted by the applicant regarding
his past service days and his only reliance is that he was awarded MRCL
status w.e.f. 05.12.1989. In the absence of any evidence/record with
regard to his past working days, prior to date of appointment as Gangman
(Track Maintainer) i.e. 02.09.2013, this Tribunal is of the opinion to rely
upon the entry in the Casual Labour Register wherein his total working
days have been stated as ‘128’ days. He is only entitled for reckoning of
past working period as casual labour to the tune of 50% for the purpose
of pension, which has already been considered by the respondents vide
order dated 05.02.2021 (annexure A-9 of the O.A.), passed in pursuance
to the O.A. No. 200/2020 filed by the applicant along with three others,
which is not under challenge.

12. So far as relied prayed regarding benefits of R.B.E. No. 28/2020
(annexure A-10) and R.B.E. No. 69/2022 (annexure A-14), I have also
MANISH
MEHROTRA
gone through the same. From bare perusal of the same and facts of case,
it appears that said Railway Board RBEs are not applicable to the facts as

7

applicant’s appointment was made in pursuance to the Order passed by
this Tribunal w.e.f. 02.09.2013 and in past he has worked only for 128
days. Hence, the aforesaid RBEs are not applicable in the case of
applicant. The law relied upon by the applicant with regard to substitute
worker is also not applicable as the applicant has never worked as
substitute and has rendered only 128 days work prior to his appointment
as Gangman (Track Maintainer). The applicant has also failed to provide
any evidence regarding working of more than 128 days, prior to his
appointment on 02.09.2013.

13. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that
there is no merit in the O.A. and the same deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, O.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs. All the pending MAs
shall be deemed to have been disposed of.


(Rajnish Kumar Rai)
Member (Judicial)

/M.M/
MANISH
MEHROTRA