Ravindra Pratap Singh vs General Manager, N E Rly

RESERVED ON 07.10.2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD
th
Dated: This the 15 of October 2026
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Original Application No. 330/00576/2019

Ravindra Pratap Singh aged about 60 years, S/o Avadh Narayan Singh, at
present R/o Village Dulahpur, P.O. Dulahpur, P.S. Dulahpur, District
Faizabad, U.P.
. . . Applicant
By Adv: Shri Anurag Mishra/Shri Prashant Mishra/Shri Durga Pd. Singh
V E R S U S

1. Union of India through General Manager, N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur.
2. Zonal Railway Manager, N.E. Railway Varanasi Division, Varanasi.
.Respondents
By Adv: Shri Ajay Kumar Rai
O R D E R
MANISH KUMAR
The present O.A has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of
SRIVASTAVA
the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to give all the
consequential benefits as admissible and permissible to the Railway Employee with
temporary status since 1983 as per order dated 15.02.2002 of the Hon’ble Tribunal as
well as per order dated 10.11.2012 of the Hon’ble High Court.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction directing the respondents to give all seniority
and regular pensionary benefits and entire arrears to the applicant since 2002 after
his retirement as per order of the Hon’ble Cout and following to the permanent
establishment of the Railway.
(iii) Issue any other relief or reliefs under the facts and circumstances of the case
be awarded.
(iv) Cost of application be awarded”.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant worked as a casual
labourer under the respondents from 09.01.1982 to 20.11.1989 in different

2

spells at different stations. He claimed temporary status with effect from
29.08.1983 and the consequential benefits under paragraph 25(ii)(a) of
Chapter XXV of the IREM. As the benefits were not granted to him, he
filed OA No. 307 of 1995, which was allowed by this Tribunal on
15.02.2002. The respondents’ writ petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble
High Court on 10.01.2012 and their SLP was also dismissed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court on 07.05.2013. Accordingly, the respondents recognised his
temporary status with effect from 29.08.1983 vide order dated 30.08.2013
and posted him as a Hamal at Deoria vide order dated 10.09.2013. He
continued in service until his retirement on 31.12.2018. Thereafter, he
sought consequential seniority benefits in terms of this Tribunal’s order
dated 15.02.2002. However, the benefits were not granted despite his
representation dated 18.03.2019, compelling him to approach this Tribunal
for the reliefs claimed in the OA.
3. Per contra, respondents have filed counter affidavit stating therein
that the judgment dated 15.02.2002 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 307
of 1995 was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated
10.01.2012, and the SLP filed by the Railway administration was dismissed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 07.05.2013. Accordingly, the applicant
MANISH KUMAR
was granted temporary status with effect from 29.08.1983 vide order dated
SRIVASTAVA
30.08.2013 and was posted as Substitute Hamal at Deoria vide order dated
10.09.2013. The respondents have further contended that the applicant was
granted all the benefits admissible to him under the rules and he did not
raise any objection regarding compliance with the Tribunal’s order during
his service. They have stated that the applicant retired on 31.12.2018 and
has already been granted all admissible post-retirement benefits. Therefore,
no further relief is due to him, thus, prayer has been made to dismiss the
OA.
4. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the applicant, in which
the facts stated in the Original Application have been reiterated and the
contents of the counter affidavit have been denied. Nothing new has been
stated in the rejoinder affidavit.

3

5. I have heard Shri Prashant Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant
and Shri Ajay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents and perused
the record.
6. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that this Tribunal,
vide judgment dated 15.02.2002 passed in OA No. 307 of 1995, had
allowed the claim of the applicant for temporary status and consequential
benefits. The said judgment was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court, and the
SLP filed by the Railway administration was also dismissed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that,
although the respondents granted temporary status to the applicant with
effect from 29.08.1983 in compliance with the aforesaid judgment, they
failed to extend all the consequential benefits flowing from the same. He
further submitted that the applicant retired from service on 31.12.2018, but
the benefits of seniority, regular pension and other admissible retirement
benefits, along with the arrears, have not been granted to him in accordance
with the earlier orders. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that
the respondents are bound to implement the judgment of this Tribunal in its
true letter and spirit and cannot deny the consequential benefits admissible
to the applicant under the rules. Thus he prayed that the O.A. be allowed
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
and the respondents be directed to grant all the consequential benefits
claimed by the applicant.
7. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
judgment dated 15.02.2002 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 307 of 1995
has already been complied with by the Railway administration. He pointed
out that, after dismissal of the writ petition by the Hon’ble High Court and
the SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondents granted temporary
status to the applicant with effect from 29.08.1983 vide order dated
30.08.2013. Thereafter, the applicant was posted as Substitute Hamal at
Deoria vide order dated 10.09.2013 and continued in service until his
retirement on 31.12.2018. Learned counsel for the respondents further
submitted that the applicant has already been granted all the benefits
admissible to him under the applicable rules, including his post retirement
benefits. He contended that the applicant did not raise any objection

4

regarding the implementation of the Tribunal’s judgment during his service
and has not established his entitlement to any further benefits. Learned
counsel for the respondents further argued that the grant of temporary status
does not entitle the applicant to every benefit claimed by him unless such
benefit is admissible under the relevant rules. Therefore, no further
direction is required to be issued against the respondents. He accordingly
prayed that the O.A. be dismissed as devoid of merit.
8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both
parties and have perused the material available on record.
9. The main question for consideration is whether the applicant is
entitled to the consequential seniority and pensionary benefits claimed by
him in view of the judgment dated 15.02.2002 passed by this Tribunal in
OA No. 307 of 1995.
10. It is not disputed that this Tribunal allowed the earlier O.A. filed by
the applicant and that the challenge made by the Railway administration
before the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court was
unsuccessful. It is also not disputed that the respondents granted temporary
status to the applicant with effect from 29.08.1983 vide order dated
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
30.08.2013 and thereafter posted him as Substitute Hamal at Deoria vide
order dated 10.09.2013. The applicant continued in service until his
retirement on 31.12.2018.
11. The grant of temporary status and the grant of consequential service
benefits are distinct matters. However, the respondents cannot deny the
benefits specifically granted under the earlier judgment or those admissible
to the applicant under the applicable rules. The applicant’s claim must,
therefore, be examined in the light of the earlier judgment and the relevant
service rules.
12. In this regard, it is important to note that the Hon’ble High Court, in
its judgment dated 10.01.2012, specifically rejected the contention of the
Railway administration that the applicant was not entitled to the benefits
available to casual labourers having temporary status. The Hon’ble High
Court observed that the applicant had worked for more than 120 days and

5

was entitled to temporary status and the benefits available to persons having
such status. The said judgment was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
and the SLP filed by the Railway administration was dismissed on
07.05.2013. Therefore, the respondents were bound to implement the
judgment in its true letter and spirit and grant the benefits admissible to the
applicant in accordance with law.
13. So far as the claim for seniority is concerned, the relevant provisions
of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual governing casual labour with
temporary status and regular absorption have to be considered. The grant of
temporary status does not confer seniority in a regular cadre. However, the
applicant’s entitlement to any consequential benefit arising from the earlier
judgment cannot be denied without examining the specific directions
contained therein and the applicable rules.
14. The applicant’s claim for pensionary benefits also requires
consideration under the applicable pension rules. In Union of India v.
Rakesh Kumar , (2017) 13 SCC 388 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court
considered the counting of casual service for pensionary purposes under the
applicable rules. The respondents must, therefore, examine the applicant’s
service record and determine the qualifying service admissible to him under
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
the relevant rules. His claim cannot be rejected merely on the ground that
he initially worked as a casual labourer.
15. The respondents have contended that the applicant has already been
granted all admissible benefits, including post-retirement benefits.
However, they have not sufficiently demonstrated, on the basis of the
material referred to in the pleadings, whether all the consequential benefits
flowing from the earlier judgment have been extended to him. The mere
grant of temporary status in 2013 does not, by itself, establish that all such
benefits have been granted. Similarly, the applicant’s claim to seniority and
pensionary arrears from 2002 must be determined in accordance with the
earlier judgment and the applicable rules.
16. In view of the specific findings recorded by the Hon’ble High Court,
the respondents cannot deny the benefits available to the applicant as a

6

casual labourer having temporary status. At the same time, the extent of
such benefits, including seniority, qualifying service for pension and
consequential arrears, must be determined in accordance with the earlier
judgment and the applicable rules. The respondents are, therefore, required
to examine the applicant’s claim afresh and determine whether any further
benefit remains due to him.
17. In view of the above discussion, the Original Application is disposed
of with a direction to the competent authority of the respondents to examine
the applicant’s claim in the light of the judgment dated 15.02.2002 passed
by this Tribunal in OA No. 307 of 1995, the judgment dated 10.01.2012
passed by the Hon’ble High Court and the applicable provisions of the
Indian Railway Establishment Manual and the relevant pension rules. The
competent authority shall specifically examine the applicant’s entitlement
to consequential service benefits, seniority, qualifying service for pension
and arrears, if any, in accordance with the aforesaid judgments and rules. If
any benefit is found due, the same shall be granted to the applicant in
accordance with law. It is clarified that applicant will also be given
opportunity of hearing for placing the entire facts in his favour before
passing the order on the representation pending before the respondents. A
MANISH KUMAR
reasoned and speaking order shall be passed within three months from the
SRIVASTAVA
date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and communicated to the
applicant. There shall be no order as to costs. All associated MAs stand
disposed of.

(Justice Om Prakash –VII)
Member (J)

Manish/-