Ajit Singh vs M/o Railways
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
Item No. 34 (C-VI)
1
OA No. 4034/2018
C
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIV
VE TRIBUNAL
EW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NE
OA No. 4034/201
18
th
This the 18 Day of Au
gust, 2026
Hon'ble M
Mr. B. Anand, Member (A)
Ajit Sing
Son of l
Retired
From th
Kishan
R/o Vill
Post Off
Distt So
gh aged 66 years
late Shri Ranbir Singh
Accounts Assitant Group
he Office of FA & CAO/RCF
‘C’
F/ RBL
Ganj, Delhi 110007
lage Malhamajra
fice Chhatera Bahadurpur
onepat, Haryana
…Applicant
MS Saini)
(By Advoc
cate:-Mr. PS Khare, Mr. M
Versus
n of India, Through the Ch
1. Union
Railway
Govt of I
Rail Bha
2. The G
Western
Churchg
3. The P
Western
4. The P
Modern
Rae Bar
airman
al Secretary
s
Board, Ex- Officio Principa
India, Ministry of Railways
awan, New Delhi
General Manager
n Railway, HQ Office
gate, Mumbai, Maharashtr
ra
Principal Financial Advisor
n Railway, Ajmer, Rajasthan
n
Principal Financial Advisor
Coach Factory, Lalganj
reilly, UP
…Respondents
(By Advoc
cate: Mr. Gyanendra Singh
h)
ANJALI NEGI
ANJALI
2026.09.01
10:37:09+05'30'
NEGI
Item No. 34 (C-VI)
2
OA No. 4034/2018
OR D E R (ORAL)
The a
applicant is seeking th
he following reliefs by
filing th
his OA under Section
19 of the Central
Administ
trative Tribunal’s Act:-
“8.1 to allow the OA
and set-aside th
orders/PPO dated 04
dated 06.10.2017
13.10.2017 (Anns. A-
all consequential b
direct the respondents
pension and release
the basis of his ba
25,630/- with
difference and interes
yearly compound
01.02.2012 till the a
payment; and
A and quash
e impugned
4.04.2013 and
and dated
-1 to A-3) with
benefits and
s to revise the
the same on
asic pay Rs.
consequential
st @ 18% p.a.
ded from
actual date of
8.2 to grant any oth
appropriate relief as
and proper by this Ho
as per facts and circ
the case, besides
expenses of the prese
the petitioner to e
55,000/-.”
her or further
deemed just
on'ble Tribunal
cumstances of
s cost and
ent litigation to
extent of Rs.
2. The b
brief facts of the case,
as pleaded by the
applican
nt, are that he was work
king in the Railway
Departm
ment and was attracted
d by the incentive
scheme
introduced by the R
Railway Board vide
ANJALI NEGI
ANJALI
2026.09.01
10:37:09+05'30'
NEGI
Item No. 34 (C-VI)
3
OA No. 4034/2018
letter
dated 25.02.2009,
whereby railway
employee
es opting to join the R
Rail Coach Factory,
Rae Bar
eli, were offered, inter
alia, the benefit of
three ad
dvance increments. Pu
rsuant to the said
scheme,
the applicant exercised
d his option to join
the Rail
Coach Factory, Rae Ba
areli, and joined the
said esta
ablishment on option b
basis. The incentive
scheme
was subsequently exte
ended from time to
time.
3. It is
not in dispute that
the applicant was
working
at Kishanganj, Delhi,
and, pursuant to
the afore
esaid scheme, exercised
d his option to join
the Rai
il Coach Factory at
Rae Bareli. The
applican
nt submits that the
fact that he was
subsequ
uently posted by the Ra
ail Coach Factory at
Kishanga
anj, Delhi, does not de
etract from the fact
that he
had exercised his optio
on pursuant to the
incentive
e scheme and had
acted upon the
represen
ntation held out by the r
respondents.
4. The fu
urther case of the appli
cant is that he was
granted
the benefit of three a
advance increments
ANJALI NEGI
ANJALI
2026.09.01
10:37:09+05'30'
NEGI
Item No. 34 (C-VI)
4
OA No. 4034/2018
pursuan
nt to the incentive sch
heme and that the
said inc
crements were liable
to be taken into
account
for fixation of his pay
and consequential
pensiona
ary benefits. According
g to the applicant,
his last
pay, after taking into a
account the benefit
of the th
hree advance increment
ts, was Rs.25,630/-
However
r, while finalising his p
pensionary benefits,
the resp
pondents did not rec
ckon the aforesaid
three
increments and c
consequently his
pensiona
ary benefits were fixed o
on a lower pay.
5. Learn
ned counsel for the appl
licant submits that
the resp
pondents cannot deny
the benefit of the
three ad
dvance increments mer
rely on the ground
that the
applicant was not for
rmally absorbed in
the Rail
Coach Factory before h
his superannuation.
It is con
ntended that the applic
cant had exercised
his optio
on under the incentive
scheme, joined the
Rail Coa
ach Factory and was gra
anted the benefit of
three ad
dvance increments. Th
here is nothing on
record to
o show that the applica
ant was responsible
for the
non-completion of th
he process of his
ANJALI NEGI
ANJALI
2026.09.01
10:37:09+05'30'
NEGI
Item No. 34 (C-VI)
5
OA No. 4034/2018
regular
absorption. On th
he contrary, the
correspo
ondence placed on rec
cord, including the
letter da
ated 15/17.02.2012 add
dressed by the Rail
Coach F
actory to the F.A. & C.A
A.O., indicates that
the matt
ter relating to his regu
ular absorption was
under co
onsideration of the resp
pondents.
6. Learn
ned counsel for the
applicant further
submits
that the applicant ha
ad acted upon the
incentive
e scheme and had a
altered his service
position
on the basis of the be
enefits held out by
the res
spondents. Therefore,
the respondents
cannot
subsequently deny
the consequential
benefit
of the three adv
vance increments,
particula
arly when the applican
nt had fulfilled the
condition
ns required of him
and there is no
material
to show that the delay
y in his absorption
was attri
ibutable to him.
7. To bu
uttress his submission
ns, learned counsel
for the
applicant has placed
reliance upon the
decisions
s of the Coordinate
Benches of this
l in Pratha Sarathy Se
en Gupta (Dead) vs.
Tribunal
ANJALI NEGI
ANJALI
2026.09.01
10:37:09+05'30'
NEGI
Item No. 34 (C-VI)
6
OA No. 4034/2018
Union o
of India , OA No. 332
2/2014 decided by
2024, and B. Durga
the Luck
know Bench on 04.09.2
Prasada
a Rao vs. M/o Ra
ailways , OA No.
20/2016
6 decided by the Hyd
derabad Bench on
14.09.20
021.
8. In Pra
atha Sarathy Sen Gu
upta (Dead) (supra) ,
the Luck
know Bench of this Trib
bunal, while dealing
with the
e benefit of three ad
dvance increments
granted
under the incentive s
scheme relating to
the Rail
Coach Factory, Rae B
Bareli, recorded as
under:-
“3. Tersely, put the
applicant is that app
employee of the
Department who joined
on 13.02.1976
superannuated on 30.0
case of the
plicant was
Respondent
d the service
and
04.2013.
While, Rail Coach
Raebareli was being
the Railway Board in
scheme to assist the P
incentives were prop
options were invite
interested staff. Rail
offered 03 advance in
non-gazetted staff,
either joined or will be
h Factory,
established,
ntroduced a
Project. Some
oposed and
ed to the
lway Board
ncrements to
who have
e joining the
ANJALI NEGI
ANJALI
2026.09.01
10:37:09+05'30'
NEGI
Item No. 34 (C-VI)
7
OA No. 4034/2018
Rail Coach Factory, R
the existing grade. App
up the option form
allowed to absorb. Ap
given three advance
w.e.f. 01.06.2012, ho
superannuation grant
aforesaid three incre
withdrawn and
Commutation and
Retirement Gratuity etc
to the applicant on t
last pay drawn w
aforesaid three increme
Raebareli in
plicant filled
m and was
pplicant was
increments
wever, after
ting of the
ements was
Pension,
Death-cum-
c. were paid
the basis of
without the
ents.”
9. Learn
ned counsel for the app
plicant has further
relied up
pon the decision of the
e Hyderabad Bench
Tribunal in B. Durga
Prasada Rao vs.
of this T
M/o Ra
ailways , OA No. 20/
/2016 decided on
14.09.20
021, wherein it was held
d as under:-
“VII. Thus, from the
evident that the resp
fixing the pension of
by reckoning the last
not in accordance wi
law. Therefore, the im
dated 07.01.2016 is
set aside.
respondents are direc
pension of the applica
pay drawn i.e. Rs.2
consequential benefits
refund the amou
above, it is
spondents not
the applicant
pay drawn is
ith rules and
mpugned order
quashed and
Consequently,
cted to fix the
ant on the last
21,660/- with
s thereof and
unt already
ANJALI NEGI
ANJALI
2026.09.01
10:37:09+05'30'
NEGI
Item No. 34 (C-VI)
8
OA No. 4034/2018
recovered from the app
3 months, if not, inter
annum shall be paid o
due from due date ti
payment. Interim ord
absolute. Time allowed
the judgment is 3 mo
date of receipt of this ju
plicant, within
rest @ 9% per
on the amount
ill the date of
der is made
d to implement
onths from the
udgment.
VIII. With the above d
OA is allowed, with n
costs.”
directions, the
no order as to
r contra , learned
counsel for the
10. Pe
responde
ents has opposed t
the claim of the
applican
nt. The main con
ntention of the
responde
ents is that the ben
nefit of the three
advance
increments could
be retained for
pensiona
ary purposes only if
the applicant had
been for
mally absorbed in the
Rail Coach Factory
before h
his superannuation. H
He has sought to
distingui
ish the decision render
red by the Lucknow
of this Tribunal in Pra
atha Sarathy Sen
Bench o
Gupta (D
Dead) (supra), and has
submitted that the
said dec
cision cannot be applie
ed mechanically to
the facts
s of the present case
. According to the
responde
ents, since the applican
nt was not formally
ANJALI NEGI
ANJALI
2026.09.01
10:37:09+05'30'
NEGI
Item No. 34 (C-VI)
9
OA No. 4034/2018
absorbed
d in the Rail Coach
Factory before his
retireme
nt, the benefit of th
he three advance
incremen
nts could not be take
n into account for
determin
ning his last pay fo
r the purpose of
pensiona
ary benefits.
11. I h
ave heard the learne
d counsel for the
parties a
and perused the pleadin
ngs and documents
available
e on record. The short
issue which arises
for consi
ideration is whether th
he applicant can be
denied
the benefit of the
e three advance
incremen
nts, which were grante
ed pursuant to the
incentive
e scheme, while
calculating his
pensiona
ary benefits merely b
ecause his formal
absorptio
on in the Rail Coach
h Factory was not
complete
ed before his superannu
uation.
12. The
material available on
record shows that
the appl
licant had exercised hi
is option pursuant
to the in
ncentive scheme introdu
uced by the Railway
Board an
nd had joined the Rail
l Coach Factory on
option b
basis. It is also not in
n dispute that the
applican
nt was subsequently pos
sted at Kishanganj,
ANJALI NEGI
ANJALI
2026.09.01
10:37:09+05'30'
NEGI
Item No. 34 (C-VI)
10
OA No. 4034/2018
Delhi. Su
uch subsequent posting
g does not alter the
fact that
t the applicant had ex
xercised his option
under th
he incentive scheme an
nd had acted upon
the repre
esentation made by the
e respondents.
13. It is
significant that the res
spondents have not
placed o
on record any materia
al to establish that
the app
plicant was responsib
ble for the non-
completi
ion of the process
of his regular
absorptio
on well in tun
ne before his
superan
nuation. There is no m
material before this
Tribunal
l to show that his absor
rption was withheld
on accou
unt of any act or omiss
sion attributable to
him or o
on account of any discip
plinary, vigilance or
other im
mpediment on his part
. On the contrary,
the corr
respondence placed on
n record, including
the lette
er dated 15/17.02.2012
2 addressed by the
Rail Coa
ach Factory to the F.A.
& C.A.O., indicates
that th
he matter relating to
o the applicant's
absorptio
on was under cons
sideration of the
responde
ents. The applicant, th
herefore, cannot be
made to
suffer for the failure of
f the respondents to
ANJALI NEGI
ANJALI
2026.09.01
10:37:09+05'30'
NEGI
Item No. 34 (C-VI)
11
OA No. 4034/2018
complete
e the process of regular
r absorption within
the relev
vant period.
14. The
applicant exercised his
s option and joined
the Rail
Coach Factory pursua
ant to the incentive
scheme
with the legitimate ex
xpectation that the
benefits
expressly held out u
under the scheme,
includin
g the three advance in
crements and their
consequ
ential effect on his pe
ensionary benefits,
would b
e duly protected. Once
e the benefit of the
three adv
vance increments had b
been granted to the
applican
nt pursuant to th
he scheme, the
responde
ents cannot, in the fa
acts of the present
case, d
deny its consequentia
al effect on his
pensiona
ary benefits merely
on the technical
ground
that formal absorptio
on had not been
complete
ed before his retirement
t.
15. The
contention of the res
spondents that the
benefit o
of the three advance
increments would
become
available only upon
formal absorption
before re
etirement, therefore, c
cannot be accepted
in the f
facts and circumstanc
ces of the present
ANJALI NEGI
ANJALI
2026.09.01
10:37:09+05'30'
NEGI
Item No. 34 (C-VI)
12
OA No. 4034/2018
case. S
uch a technical obj
ection cannot be
allowed
to defeat a substantive
e benefit which had
been ex
xtended to the app
plicant under the
incentive
e scheme and upon whi
ich he had acted.
16. I ha
ave also considered th
he decisions relied
upon by
y the applicant. The is
sue relating to the
effect of
f the three advance in
ncrements granted
under th
he incentive scheme
of the Rail Coach
Factory,
Rae Bareli, and their c
consequential effect
on pen
nsionary benefits ha
as already been
consider
red by the Coordinate
e Benches of this
Tribunal
l in the aforesaid case
s. The facts of the
present
case are substantially
y similar. I find no
distingui
ishing circumstance wh
hich would warrant
taking a
different view.
17. In
view of the afor
resaid facts and
circumst
tances, I am of the co
onsidered view that
the appl
icant is entitled to hav
ve the benefit of the
three ad
dvance increments take
en into account for
determin
ning his pensionary
y benefits. The
responde
ents cannot deny su
uch benefit merely
ANJALI NEGI
ANJALI
2026.09.01
10:37:09+05'30'
NEGI
Item No. 34 (C-VI)
13
OA No. 4034/2018
because
the process of his form
mal absorption was
not co
mpleted before his
superannuation,
particula
arly when no fault
t or impediment
attributa
able to the applicant ha
as been established.
18. Acc
cordingly, the Origin
nal Application is
allowed.
The impugned o
orders/PPO dated
04.04.20
013, 06.10.2017 and
d 13.10.2017 are
hereby q
quashed and set aside
e. The respondents
are direc
cted to revise the pen
nsionary benefits of
the appl
licant by taking into ac
ccount his last pay
of Rs.25
5,630/- including the b
benefit of the three
advance
increments, and to ca
alculate and release
the con
nsequential pensionary
y arrears arising
therefrom
m.
19. The
respondents shall also
pay interest on the
arrears ar
rising on account of revis
ion of the pensionary
benefits. S
Such interest shall be pay
yable at the applicable
GPF rate,
from the date on which th
he respective amounts
became d
due till the date of actual
l payment. The entire
exercise,
including revision of pe
ension, calculation of
consequen
ntial arrears and paym
ment thereof along
with appl
licable interest, shall be
e completed within
ANJALI NEGI
ANJALI
2026.09.01
10:37:09+05'30'
NEGI
Item No. 34 (C-VI)
14
OA No. 4034/2018
a period
of eight weeks from th
he date of receipt of
a certifie
ed copy of this order.
20. The
respondents shall com
mplete the aforesaid
exercise
without requiring the a
applicant to submit
any furth
her representation in th
his regard.
21. The
e Original Applicatio
on is accordingly
allowed
in the aforesaid terms.
. There shall be no
order as
to costs.
(B Anand)
Member(A)
/an/
ANJALI NEGI
ANJALI
2026.09.01
10:37:09+05'30'
NEGI