SURENDRA SINGH RATHORE vs NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
O.A./1409/2024
(Reserved on 13.10.2026)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Original Application No.1409 of 2024
th
.
Day of October, 2026
Pronounced on this the 16
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Surendra Singh Rathore aged about 62 years S/o Babbu Singh, R/o
H.No.438, Bavar Road, Bholepur, Fatehgarh, District- Farrukhabad UP.
……….. Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Vinod Kumar
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager North Eastern Railway,
Gorakhpur.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager North Eastern Railway, Izzat
Nager, Bareilly.
3. Senior Divisional Finance Manager North Eastern Railway, Izzat
Nagar, Bareilly.
… Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha
ORDER
Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of
the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following
reliefs:-
“i. To issue a suitable order/direction the respondents
department to release the pension of the applicant
treating him regular employee of the department.
i a. Issue an order or direction in the suitable nature
quashing the order impugned dated 17.10.2013
passed by the respondent no.2 (Annexure no.6 of
the OA)
ii. To issue a suitable order/direction direct the respondents
to pay the arrears of the pension alongwith market rate of
interest within a stipulated period of time.
iii. To issue any order or direction, which this Hon’ble
Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
iv. To award the cost of the application to the applicant.”
MADHU
KUMARI
Page 1 of 11
O.A./1409/2024
2. Brief facts of this case are that the applicant was engaged as
mobile booking clerk along with others from 01.03.1986 under the
respondents but was removed after 31.03.1986 and again
re-engaged after the direction of the Principal Bench of this
Tribunal passed on 21.01.1997 in O.A./77/1993 filed by the
applicant which was decided as clubbed with other cases of
similarly situated employees with O.A./2422/1992 (Shri Rajesh
Kumar vs. Union of India and others) being the leading case.
Thereafter, on completion of 120 days, temporary status was also
given to the applicant vide letter dated 06/08.07.1998. The
respondents had conducted a screening test of those employees,
who were re-engaged as booking clerks, on 14.03.2002 and
15.03.2002 in which the applicant remained absent. Thereafter, he
approached the Principal Bench of this Tribunal through
O.A./319/2012 seeking relief therein to direct the respondents to
conduct the screening test of the applicant at par with the other
colleagues. O.A./319/2012 was decided on 10.02.2012 with a
direction to the respondents to ascertain the facts and
circumstances of the case and take a final decision in the matter
and pass appropriate orders. The respondents then conducted a
screening test and passed the order dated 17.10.2013 in which the
Screening Committee found the applicant as suitable for
Commercial Clerk against the DR Quota but because he did not
fulfill the criteria of upper age limit, he was not considered for
regularisation. The applicant superannuated from services on
31.03.2022 but no pensionary benefit has been granted to the
applicant. Aggrieved, the applicant filed the present O.A.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the
applicant superannuated from services on 31.03.2022, after
completing more than 38 years of qualifying service. The
respondents department has already deducted the GPF
subscription from the salary of the applicant throughout his
service career, but at the time of his retirement they illegally
MADHU
KUMARI
Page 2 of 11
O.A./1409/2024
denied release of pension, without having any justification for the
same. He argued that at the time of absorption and regularization
all the colleague employees shown in the screening test result
dated 25.07.2002 had crossed their age of 25 years, meaning
thereby if, regularization/absorption of other similarly situated
colleague employees was made, after crossing the maximum age
limit of 25 years, then why the absorption of the applicant is being
denied. The respondents can not be permitted to adopt different
yardsticks at the time of absorption and regularization of those
similarly situated employees of the department, for which the
respondents did not explain the reason in the order dated
17.10.2013. After retirement, when the applicant sought
information about his pension through RTI Act, he got the reply
dated 26.04.2022 under rule 14 to 32 of the Pension Rules, 1993
which, he contendents, are not applicable upon the applicant
because he was neither casual labour nor daily wager of the
department, but was working as Group-C employee against the
sanctioned post of Mobile Booking Clerk in the pay scale of
975-1540 to 3200-4900, hence his services can not be treated as
that of a labourer or daily wager. The applicant has submitted a
detailed representation on 17/21.08.2024 in the office of
respondent no.2 seeking the pensionary benefit at par with the
similar case decided by this Tribunal in Ο.Α. No.207 of 2020
(Smt. Kamlesh vs. Union of India and others). So far as the age
criteria is concerned, the respondents department have already
regularized the services of other colleague employees of the
applicant, who have already completed more than 40 years of their
respective age, because the age criteria would be relevant at the
time of initial engagement not at the time of issuing the formal
order pursuant to the result of screening test. Thus, it is argued that
the order dated 17.10.2013 is quite illegal because several
colleague's services were regularized after completion of more
than 25 years and no objection was raised by the department.
Since the screening test of the applicant has already been
conducted on 19.06.2012 in compliance with the Tribunal’s order
MADHU
KUMARI
Page 3 of 11
O.A./1409/2024
passed in OA no. 319/2012 in which the applicant was found fit
but at the time of issuing the formal order of regularization the
respondents have taken plea that no relaxation of upper age limit
can be granted to the applicant, whereas at the time of conducting
the screening test no such objection was raised, hence, order dated
17.10.2013 is quite illegal and deserves to be quashed and set
aside by this Tribunal.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to the counter
affidavit and argued that the screening test of all the mobile
booking clerks was conducted in the General Manager’s office,
Gorakhpur on 14.03.2002 & 15.03.2002, in which Shri Surendra
Singh Rathore (the applicant) was absent on his own mistake due
to which his screening test could not be conducted. Thereafter, in
compliance with the decision of this Tribunal in O.A./319/2012
dated 10.02.2013, the applicant’s screening test was conducted in
which he was not found suitable for regularisation as he did not
fall within the eligibility criteria for relaxation in upper age limit.
The speaking order to this effect was made available to the
applicant through this office’s letter dated 17.10.2013. It is
submitted that the applicant had served a total of 24 years, 04
months and 08 days in the railways till his retirement on
31.03.2022. Since the applicant remained in Time Scale during the
service period, therefore, as per rules, the total qualifying service
of the applicant till the date of retirement on 31.03.2022 has been
decided as 12 years 02 months and 04 days. It is further stated that
the applicant is given an identity card in the form of pensioner’s
identity card which contains the employees service details but
since the applicant was not regularised during the service period,
the PPO has not been issued and he is not being given the benefit
of pension after retirement.
6. I have considered the averments made by learned counsel for the
parties and perused the entire documents on record.
7. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant has
placed reliance on the following case laws:-
MADHU
KUMARI
Page 4 of 11
O.A./1409/2024
(i) Judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 1835 of 2012 decided on
14.09.2026 ( Balkrishna Sharma vs. State of U.P. and others). The
relevant portion of the same is quoted below:-
18. The Apex Court in the case of Bholanath Versus State of
Jharkhand and others3 , expressed their disapproval on the
mechanical application of precedents without engaging with the
core constitutional issues involved, thereby reducing the dispute
to one of the acceptance of contractual terms, divorced from its
larger constitutional context. In the facts of the said case, the
contention before the Apex Court was that, the appellants
therein were appointed by the respondent-State, against
sanctioned post, which were contractual in nature and
extendable after end of the contract period; which was also
granted from time to time; and referring to the judgment by the
Constitutional Bench in Basheshar Nath vs . Commissioner
4
Income Tax , reiterated the principle that fundamental rights
guaranteed under the Constitution are incapable of waiver and
consequently, if the action of the respondent-State is found to be
in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the mere
fact that the incumbents’ engagement was governed by
contractual terms and conditions, cannot constitute as a waiver
of their fundamental rights.
19. The principle deducible was that Article 14 is intended to
secure social and economic justice and conforms to the mandate
of the great equality clause in Article 14.
20. The petitioner with a bona fide believe that his appointment
is against a sanctioned post, went through the rigors of the
selection process and was even given an appointment letter; and
as such he has every legitimate expectation that the State would
recognize the services as permanent; and thereafter for an
inherent defect of their own decision, the petitioner after
rendering a long tenure in service, cannot be pushed into a
dilemma and uncertainty, after serving for almost 30 years;
without being given the benefit of the long service tenure of
almost thirty years.
21. The legitimate expectation operates in the realm of public
law, i.e., a plea of legitimate action can be taken when the public
authority breaches a promise or deviates from a consistent past
practice, without any reasonable cause; and as such for no fault
of the petitioner, the court cannot close its eyes to the long
service rendered by the petitioner and thus depriving him of the
consequential benefits. The Court is also duty bound to balance
the equities between the parties. Now after the retirement, the
question of ‘Post’ will lose it’s importance; and the examination,
is to be confined to the right of the Petitioner, to the retirement
benefits, which he claims by virtue of the service rendered by
him, un-disputedly.
22. The accrual of the right to the retirement benefit is by virtue
of the length of service and it is not attached to the post; and as
such after taking service for almost 30 years, the denial to the
MADHU
KUMARI
Page 5 of 11
O.A./1409/2024
retirement benefit, will be in-equitable; and as such this Court
has no hesitation, in molding the relief, in order to do
substantial justice between the parties, for the grant of
retirement benefit, to the Petitioner.
23. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that now
since the petitioner on the verge of retirement, after having
served for almost thirty years, without there being any complaint
against his discharge of duties; and since this Court also
exercises it’s powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, while deciding the intra-court appeal; therefor
accordingly, in exercise of the said extraordinary powers, direct
the respondent authorities to calculate the retirement benefits of
the petitioner including the pension, gratuity, etc., which is
normally admissible to a Government employee; and release the
same within a period of thirty days from the date of service of
certified copy of this order and consequentially the order of the
learned Single Judge dated 31.08.2012, is hereby set aside.
24. With the aforesaid observation and direction the Special
Appeal stands allowed.”
(ii) Judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhola
Nath vs The State of Jharkhand & Ors [2026 INSC 99]. The
relied upon portion is quoted below:-
“13.6.This Court has, on several occasions, deprecated the
practice adopted by States of engaging employees under the
nominal labels of “part-time”, “contractual” or “temporary” in
perpetuity and thereby exploiting them by not regularizing their
10
positions. In J aggo v. Union of India , this Court underscored
that government departments must lead by example in ensuring
fair and stable employment, and evolved the test of examining
whether the duties performed by such temporary employees are
integral to the day-to-day functioning of the organization.
11
13.7.In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, and Vinod Kumar v. Union
12
of India , this Court cautioned against a mechanical and blind
reliance on Umadevi (supra) to deny regularization to
temporary employees in the absence of statutory rules. It was
held that Umadevi (supra) cannot be employed as a shield to
legitimise exploitative engagements continued for years without
undertaking regular recruitment. The Court further clarified that
Umadevi itself draws a distinction between appointments that
are “illegal” and those that are merely “irregular”, the latter
being amenable to regularization upon fulfilment of the
prescribed conditions .
13
13.8.In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P . , this Court strongly
deprecated the culture of “ad-hocism” adopted by States in their
capacity as employers. The Court criticised the practice of
outsourcing or informalizing recruitment as a means to evade
regular employment obligations, observing that such measures
perpetuate precarious working conditions while circumventing
fair and lawful engagement practices.
MADHU
KUMARI
Page 6 of 11
O.A./1409/2024
13.9.The State must remain conscious that part-time employees,
such as the appellants, constitute an integral part of the edifice
upon which the machinery of the State continues to function.
They are not merely ancillary to the system, but form essential
components thereof. The equality mandate of our Constitution,
therefore, requires that their service be reciprocated in a manner
free from arbitrariness, ensuring that decisions of the State
affecting the careers and livelihood of such part-time and
contractual employees are guided by fairness and reason.
13.10. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to persuade
ourselves to accept the respondent-State’s contention that the
mere contractual nomenclature of the appellants’ engagement
denudes them of constitutional protection. The State, having
availed of the appellants’ services on sanctioned posts for over a
decade pursuant to a due process of selection and having
consistently acknowledged their satisfactory performance,
cannot, in the absence of cogent reasons or a speaking decision,
abruptly discontinue such engagement by taking refuge behind
formal contractual clauses. Such action is manifestly arbitrary,
inconsistent with the obligation of the State to act as a model
employer, and fails to withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of the
Constitution.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
14. In light of our discussion, in the foregoing paragraphs, we
summarize our conclusions as follows:
I. The respondent-State was not justified in continuing the
appellants on sanctioned vacant posts for over a decade under
the nomenclature of contractual engagement and thereafter
denying them consideration for regularization.
II. Abrupt discontinuance of such long-standing engagement
solely on the basis of contractual nomenclature, without either
recording cogent reasons or passing a speaking order, is
manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution.
III. Contractual stipulations purporting to bar claims for
regularization cannot override constitutional guarantees.
Acceptance of contractual terms does not amount to waiver of
fundamental rights, and contractual stipulations cannot
immunize arbitrary State action from constitutional scrutiny.
IV. The State, as a model employer, cannot rely on contractual
labels or mechanical application of Umadevi (supra) to justify
prolonged ad-hocism or to discard long-serving employees in a
manner inconsistent with fairness, dignity and constitutional
governance.
V. In view of the foregoing discussion, we direct the
respondent-State to forthwith regularize the services of all the
appellants against the sanctioned posts to which they were
initially appointed. The appellants shall be entitled to all
consequential service benefits accruing from the date of this
judgment.
MADHU
KUMARI
Page 7 of 11
O.A./1409/2024
15. Accordingly, the present appeals are disposed of and all writ
petitions are allowed and the judgments dated 17th September,
2024, 15th October, 2024 and 2nd December, 2024, in LPA Nos.
390 of 2024, 356 of 2024 and 368 of 2024, respectively, passed
by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi are set aside.
16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
(iii) Judgement dated 29.10.1992 passed by the Principal Bench
of this Tribunal in connected O.A. nos.2277/1990, 2278/1990,
2279/1990, 2283/1990, 395/1991, 775/1991, 1818/1991,
2413/1991 and 1094/1992 in which the termination of the booking
clerks who were the applicants was set aside and the respondents
were directed to confer temporary status on the applicants therein
after completion of four months of service and the applicants who
had become overaged by then were directed to be given age
relaxation for the purpose of regularisation.
(iv) Judgement of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in
O.A./3202/2013 (Mohd. Qasimuddin vs UOI and others)
pronounced on 18.10.2024 wherein the respondents were directed
to consider the applicant’s case for regularisation exactly w.e.f.
The date when he completed three years of service as Mobile
Booking Clerk, if he is otherwise found suitable.
(v) Judgement of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Rukhiben
Rupabhai vs Union of India (UOI) [(2005)3GLR2378 ] decided
,
on 01.05.2005 in which the Gujarat High Court held that the
widow of a railway casual labourer granted temporary status was
entitled to family pension. The operative portion is reproduced
below:-
“39. In the backdrop of these circumstances and the submissions
advanced for our consideration, the irresistible and legitimate
conclusion is that when casual labourer has served for requisite
period continuously, he has to be treated temporary, in other
words, he is a `temporary railway servant'. This is incidence of
statutory provisions and judicial pronouncements. Having
acquired this status, he is entitled to pension and other
consequential benefits on superannuation, and on his demise in
harness or after superannuation his widow becomes entitled to
family pension. Regularisation against a permanent post made
on availability or creation of a permanent post, may be there,
but pensionary right do not depend on
regularisation/confirmation, of course, whether such posts are
MADHU
KUMARI
Page 8 of 11
O.A./1409/2024
available or not, employee should be deemed to have become
permanent, since laxity in this regard on the part of the employer
should not militate against the right of the employee. Describing
of an employee `casual/temporary status' and depriving him
pension and his/her widow/widower family pension amounts to
negation of his statutory and Constitutional rights under Articles
14, 16, 21 , 41/42. Therefore, having become `temporary railway
employee', he should be considered for appointment against
permanent post along with colleagues as per seniority in the
Department, which, he is deemed to be appointed against the
available post. Circular dated September 11, 1986 is against
decision of Apex Court in Inder Pal Yadav case (supra),
therefore, illegal, and cannot be given effect to by the Railways
changing the position of `casual labour' from `temporary casual
labour' to `casual labour with temporary status'.
40. Substitutes, if absorbed against regular posts, would be
entitled to pensionary benefits. In case they were holding
temporary status before appointment as substitutes, they shall be
treated `temporary railway servants'. The period spent by them
as casual labour, before appointment as substitute, shall be
counted for acquiring status of `temporary railway servant',
thereby, becoming at par with other temporary railway servants
for pensionary benefits and his widow to family pension. The
contentions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners are
accepted and those of the respondents rejected. The casual
workers attain the status of `temporary railway servant' and are
further entitled to regularisation against available posts as per
seniority, however, non-regularisation against permanent posts
would not deprive them of retiral pension. Their
widows/widowers, on his/her demise, whether during service or
after superannuation, would be entitled to family pension, same
would be the position of substitute, in the circumstances
discussed above.
42. No other point was urged by the parties.
Accordingly, all the Petitions are allowed in terms aforesaid.
Respondents are directed to pay family pension to the petitioners
from the date of death of the concerned employee within a
period of two months. Parties shall bear their own costs. Rule is
made absolute.”
(vi) Judgement of the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in
O.A./207/2020 (Smt. Kamlesh vs UOI & ors) decided on
14.03.2023 in which it was observed that the “ 12. It is admitted
fact that deceased was temporary status employee and died while
working in the department as temporary status employee. As per
settled law, pronounced by various courts that temporary status
employee are also entitled for pension and after death of deceased
employee, family is entitled for family pension.”
MADHU
KUMARI
Page 9 of 11
O.A./1409/2024
8. While the applicant has arduously contended that he should be
allowed the pensionary benefits as he had been granted temporary
status and after that he has served the department for more than 24
years. He argued that the respondents have rejected the claim of
the applicant on the ground that he could not be granted
regularisation since he was overaged at the time of screening test
conducted under the circumstances as narrated above in the facts
of the case. The applicant has also averred that his colleagues
were also over 25 years of age but they were not denied
regularisation of service on account of overage. The applicant
could not appear in the screening test held in the year 2002 and
after the Tribunal’s direction the respondents conducted another
screening test for the applicant in the year 2012 in which he was
declared unsuitable for being overaged. The precise calculation is
that the upper age limit is 21 years and the age relaxation that can
be granted is 25 years plus number of days worked, which, for the
applicant, comes out as 39 years 09 months and 26 days when the
applicant was 50 years old at the time of screening test as per the
speaking order dated 17.10.2013.
9. Although the fact of the case laws relied upon by the applicant are
different, yet, taking into account the ratio decidendi that once an
employee, who has been conferred a temporary status, has served
the department for a considerable period of time after that, he
cannot be suddenly denied the pensionary benefits just because his
services could not be regularised for some reason. It is not
disputed that the applicant was granted temporary status vide letter
dated 06/08.07.1998. Since then the applicant had discharged his
duties till his superannuation on 31.03.2022 which calculates to
more than 24 years of service. Having served the department for
such a long time and that too on a sanctioned post and when the
respondents department has already deducted the GPF
subscription from the salary of the applicant throughout his
service career, the applicant cannot be now denied pensionary
benefits just because a formality of regularization could not be
completed in his case for being overaged and not eligible for age
MADHU
KUMARI
Page 10 of 11
O.A./1409/2024
relaxation. The state or a government department cannot keep an
employee on a temporary, casual, or daily-wage basis indefinitely
for decades while extracting regular, full-time duties from them,
and then deny them social security upon retirement. When a
temporary or casual worker performs duties identical to those of a
regular employee over a prolonged period (such as 10 to 20+
years) against available or substantive work requirements, denying
pension solely on a technical or formal classification is but an
unjust oversimplification of employment.
10. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the O.A. stands
allowed. The impugned order dated 17.10.2013 is hereby quashed
and the respondents are directed to grant the pensionary benefits
including the arrears thereof to the applicant as would be
admissible to a regular employee within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order failing
which interest at the GPF rate shall also apply on the delayed
payment. All associated M.A.s also stand disposed of. No order as
to costs.
( Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (J)
Madhu
MADHU
KUMARI
Page 11 of 11