Batti Lal Mahawar vs M/o Railways

1


CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

OA No. 1650/2021


Reserved on: 14.08.2026
Pronounced on: 01.09.2026


Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)

Sh. Batti Lal Mahawar,
Age about 61 years,
S/o Sh. Tulsi Ram,
R/o C/o Trilok Singh,
E/344, Mittal colony, Gali No.10,
Pul Prahladpur, New Delhi-110044 - Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. R.K. Shukla)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through
The General Manager,
Western Central Railway,
Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh

2. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Kota Division, DRM Office,
WCR Kota,

3. The Sr. Div. Personnel Officer,
Kota Division, WCR Kota, Rajasthan

4. Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer,
Loco Shed, WCR Tkd., New Delhi – 110044

5. Kartar Singh, H.No.302/A-2,
Western Central Railway Colony,
Tuglakabad, New Delhi

6. Service through Sr. Divisional
Electrical Engineer (Loco Shed),
Tuglakabad, WCR New Delhi-110044 - Respondents

(By Advocate: Mr. Piyush Gaur)
2026.09.02
LALIT
12:54:19
GOSAIN
+05'30'
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

OA No.198/2017

Reserved on: 14.01.2026
Pronounced on: 04.02.2026
Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway,
Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
2. Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi General Manager (P),
3. Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad)
Through its Chairman,
4. DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad DRM (P)
5. Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad,
Working as Lab. Supdt. Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP
6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt.,
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP
7. Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt.,
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents
(Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr.
Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5

2


ORDER
Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi:
The brief facts of the case, as submitted by learned counsel for
the applicant, are that the applicant was appointed as a Railway
Khalasi in Western Railway with effect from 03.07.1986. He was
thereafter promoted as Fitter Grade-III in the year 1990, Fitter
Grade-II and subsequently Fitter Grade-I in the year 1996. He was
further promoted as Senior Technician in the year 2013. On
14.06.2019, the Railway Board issued instructions regarding the
objective type multiple-choice promotional examination. Learned
counsel submitted that, as stated in the said instructions, the
purpose of the competitive examination was not to eliminate or
exclude employees but to ensure that senior staff who were
competent in their normal duties were facilitated in their career
progression. It was further stipulated that the result of the
examination was required to be declared within five days from the
date of issuance of the result.
2. Learned counsel submitted that on 30.07.2020 the applicant
was nominated to appear in the examination for the post of JE-II,
Level-6, Grade Pay Rs.4200, under the 25% ranker quota. In the said
nomination list, the applicant's name appeared at Serial No.19 in
order of seniority. The examination was conducted on 22.10.2020 as
per the scheduled programme. The result of the written examination
was declared on 21.01.2021, wherein the applicant was declared
successful. However, the final result was ultimately declared only on
22.04.2021, by which time the applicant had already retired from

3


service on 31.01.2021. The applicant's name was not included in the
final panel, whereas his juniors, including respondent No.5, were
promoted. The applicant had submitted a representation dated
22.01.2021 requesting declaration of the final result and thereafter
submitted a comprehensive representation dated 27.01.2021, but no
action was taken by the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
respondents acted contrary to the instructions contained in RBE
No.97 dated 14.06.2019, according to which the final result was
required to be declared within five days. Since the written
examination result was declared on 21.01.2021, the final result
ought to have been declared by 26.01.2021. However, the final result
was declared only on 22.04.2021. It was argued that the unexplained
and inordinate delay in declaration of the final result had the effect of
depriving the applicant of his legitimate claim and resulted in
accommodation of respondent No.5, who was junior to the applicant.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that, in reply to the
applicant's contention regarding the delay, the respondents stated
that the final result could not be declared because a supplementary
selection/suitability test had to be conducted in respect of Shri
Mohammad Yusuf Khan, who could not appear in the examination
held on 22.10.2020 on account of illness. It was contended on behalf
of the applicant that, under the applicable instructions, in the event
of sickness, information regarding inability to appear in the
examination was required to be furnished within the prescribed
period of four weeks from the date of the examination. However, the

4


request of Shri Mohammad Yusuf Khan was received only on
25.01.2021, whereas the prescribed period of four weeks from
22.10.2020 had already expired on 19.11.2020. Learned counsel
therefore submitted that acceptance of such belated request and
conducting a supplementary examination could not justify the
prolonged delay in declaration of the final result. According to the
applicant, the respondents failed to furnish any satisfactory
explanation as to why the request submitted after expiry of the
prescribed period was entertained and why the final result was
withheld for nearly three months.
5. Learned counsel further relied upon the applicable instructions
contained in the Master Circular, according to which an employee
securing the prescribed minimum of 60% marks in professional
ability and 60% marks in aggregate could be placed in the panel and
the names of the selected candidates were required to be arranged
according to seniority. It was submitted that the applicant had
secured the requisite marks and was admittedly senior to respondent
No.5. It was therefore contended that, once the applicant had
qualified in the written examination and satisfied the prescribed
eligibility criteria, his seniority was required to be duly considered
while preparing the panel. Learned counsel argued that the delay in
finalisation of the panel, particularly when the applicant had already
qualified and was due to retire on 31.01.2021, had seriously
prejudiced his rights.
6. It was further submitted that the applicant had retired from
service on 31.01.2021, whereas the result of the written examination

5


had already been declared on 21.01.2021. Learned counsel relied
upon the relevant provision that an employee selected before
retirement was required to be included in the panel if the prescribed
conditions were satisfied. According to the applicant, the final panel
having been issued only on 22.04.2021, the delay attributable to the
respondents could not be used to deprive him of the benefit of his
selection. It was contended that, had the applicant been duly
empanelled before his retirement or had the final result been
declared within the prescribed period, his promotion would have
resulted in corresponding enhancement of his pension and other
pensionary benefits.
7. Learned counsel also submitted that the respondents'
explanation regarding the supplementary examination did not
satisfactorily account for the delay, particularly when the request for
such examination was made after expiry of the prescribed period.
The applicant therefore contended that the delay in declaration of the
final result was arbitrary and had adversely affected his legitimate
claim vis-à-vis his juniors. It was argued that the applicant ought not
to suffer on account of administrative delay or an action taken by the
respondents contrary to the prescribed instructions.
8. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the
applicant placed reliance upon the decision of this Tribunal in OA
No.2802/2019, Bishambar v. Union of India & Ors. , wherein,
according to the applicant, the issue of delayed declaration of
panel/result was considered and the matter was disposed of with a
direction that the applicant therein be extended the consequential

6


benefits in terms of the result notice. Learned counsel also relied
upon the decision in Bishamber v. Ministry of Railways , OA
No.2118/2018, decided on 28.05.2019, and submitted that the
principles laid down therein supported the applicant's claim for
consideration of his case in accordance with the result of the
promotional examination and for grant of consequential benefits.
9. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that the applicant had qualified in the examination, was
senior to respondent No.5, and had retired only after declaration of
the written examination result. The subsequent delay in finalisation
of the panel was attributable to the respondents and could not
lawfully operate to the applicant's prejudice. It was accordingly
prayed that the applicant be granted the benefit of the
selection/promotion in accordance with his merit and seniority,
along with all consequential benefits, including revision of pension
and pensionary benefits, as admissible under the rules.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed the counter
affidavit and submitted that the Applicant, Shri Batti Lal Mahawar,
was appointed in Railway Service as Khallasi in the scale of Rs. 196-
232/750-940 (RSRP) on 03.07.1986. Thereafter, he was promoted as
ELF Grade III in the scale of Rs. 950-1500 (RSRP) on 02.03.1990,
ELF Grade II in the scale of Rs. 1200-1800 (RSRP) on 10.05.1994,
and ELF Grade I in the scale of Rs. 1320-2040 (RP)/4500-700 (RSRP)
on 08.11.1996. Subsequently, he was promoted to the Senior
Technician scale of Rs. 9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200 on
01.11.2013. Upon attaining the age of 60 years, the Applicant retired

7


from Railway Service on superannuation on 31.01.2021. It is further
submitted that he panel was notified only after completion of the
selection process, which was under consideration at the time of
receipt of the Applicant’s representation dated 27.01.2021. In the
meantime, the Applicant had retired from Railway Service on
superannuation on 31.01.2021.
11. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the
Applicant had retired from Railway Service on superannuation on
31.01.2021 and was, therefore, no longer in Railway Service at the
time when the panel was prepared. Consequently, his name could
not be considered for inclusion in the panel which was issued on
22.04.2021, subsequent to his retirement.
12. It is submitted that one of the employees, namely Shri Mohd.
Yusuf Khan, Sr. Tech./TRS/TKD, whose name figured in the
eligibility list, could not appear in the written test held on 22.10.2020
on account of sickness and treatment. The action in respect of
supplementary examination was taken in accordance with the extant
instructions contained in Para 223 of the IREM, Vol. I, relating to
Supplementary Selection/Suitability Test. The said provision
contemplates a supplementary selection, inter alia, where a
candidate is unable to appear in the selection on account of sickness
or any other reason beyond his control, subject to the conditions
prescribed therein. It further provides that the supplementary
meeting of the Selection Board should, as far as possible, be attended
by the same officers who were present at the first Selection Board
and should ordinarily be held within one month of the first selection

8


or the return to duty of the employee concerned, subject to the
prescribed conditions. The instructions further provide that
ordinarily not more than one supplementary selection should be held
for such cases, with a second supplementary selection being resorted
to only rarely and with the personal approval of the Chief Personnel
Officer on the merits of each case. In view of the said provisions and
the circumstances necessitating the conduct of a supplementary
written examination, the result could not be declared immediately.
The contention of the Applicant that the result ought to have been
declared within four weeks is, therefore, not relevant in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, particularly when a
supplementary written examination was required to be conducted in
accordance with the extant rules and instructions.
13. It is further submitted that, in the circumstances narrated
hereinabove, the Applicant’s name could not be placed in the panel
for the post of JE, Level-6, as the panel was ultimately issued on
21/22.04.2021, by which time the Applicant had already retired from
Railway Service on superannuation on 31.01.2021.
14. It is also submitted that Shri Mohd. Yusuf Khan, Sr.
Tech./TRS/TKD, whose name figured in the eligibility list, could not
appear in the written test held on 22.10.2020 on account of sickness
and treatment. The action taken thereafter was in accordance with
the extant instructions contained in Para 223 of the IREM, Vol. I,
governing Supplementary Selection/Suitability Test.
15. The said instructions specifically contemplate supplementary
selection in cases where an eligible employee is unable to appear in

9


the selection on account of sickness or any other reason beyond his
control, subject to the conditions prescribed therein. The
supplementary Selection Board is required, as far as possible, to
comprise the same officers who constituted the first Selection Board
and is ordinarily to be held within the prescribed period. The
instructions also contemplate that the selection process need not be
kept indefinitely in abeyance and prescribe the circumstances in
which the name of an employee may subsequently be incorporated in
the selection.
16. Accordingly, the result could not be declared without
completion of the requisite supplementary selection process. The
contention that the result ought to have been declared within four
weeks is, therefore, misplaced and has no application in the facts of
the present case. Since the supplementary examination was
necessitated by the circumstances stated hereinabove, the selection
process could not be concluded in the manner suggested by the
Applicant.
17. In view of the aforesaid position, the Applicant’s name could
not be included in the panel for the post of JE, Level-6, as the panel
was issued on 21.04.2021, after the Applicant had already retired
from Railway Service on superannuation on 31.01.2021.
18. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the pleadings available on record.
19. The applicant was initially appointed as Khallasi in the
Western Railway on 03.07.1986 and was thereafter promoted from

10


time to time, ultimately to the post of Senior Technician. He was
nominated to appear in the selection for promotion to the post of
Junior Engineer (JE), Level-6, under the 25% ranker quota. His
name figured at Serial No.19 in the nomination list arranged
according to seniority. The written examination was conducted on
22.10.2020 and the result thereof was declared on 21.01.2021, in
which the applicant was declared successful. The applicant retired
from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2021.
The final panel, however, came to be issued only on 21/22.04.2021,
by which time the applicant had already retired. His name was not
included in the panel, whereas his juniors, including respondent
No.5, came to be empanelled/promoted.
20. The principal contention of learned counsel for the applicant is
that the applicant had already qualified in the written examination
before his retirement and was admittedly senior to respondent No.5.
It is submitted that the delay in finalisation of the panel was wholly
attributable to the respondents and that such administrative delay
could not operate to the prejudice of the applicant. Reliance has been
placed upon RBE No.97 dated 14.06.2019, according to which the
result was required to be declared within five days. It is contended
that the written examination result having been declared on
21.01.2021, the final result ought to have been declared by
26.01.2021, i.e., during the applicant's service tenure.
21. On the other hand, the respondents have submitted that the
delay occurred because one of the eligible candidates, namely Shri
Mohammad Yusuf Khan, could not appear in the examination held

11


on 22.10.2020 on account of sickness and treatment. It is submitted
that a supplementary selection was accordingly conducted in terms
of Para 223 of the IREM, Volume-I, and that the final panel could be
prepared only after completion of the supplementary selection. The
respondents contend that by the time the panel was issued on
21/22.04.2021, the applicant had already retired and, therefore, his
name could not be included in the panel.
22. The issue which arises for our consideration is whether an
employee who had successfully qualified in the written examination
during his service tenure and was otherwise eligible for empanelment
can be deprived of the benefit of such selection merely because the
respondents finalised the panel after his retirement.
23. It is not in dispute that the applicant had appeared in the
written examination on 22.10.2020 and had been declared
successful on 21.01.2021. It is also not in dispute that the applicant
retired only thereafter, on 31.01.2021. Thus, on the date on which
the result declaring him successful was published, the applicant was
very much in service.
24. The respondents seek to justify the delay on the ground that a
supplementary selection had to be conducted in respect of Shri
Mohammad Yusuf Khan. We do not find any reason to hold that the
respondents had no power to conduct a supplementary selection in a
case covered by Para 223 of the IREM. However, the question before
us is somewhat different. Even assuming that the supplementary
selection was permissible, the consequence of the time taken in
completing such process cannot automatically be fastened upon an

12


employee who had already qualified and whose retirement intervened
before finalisation of the panel.
25. The instructions relied upon by the applicant also indicate that
the object of the promotional examination was not merely to
eliminate candidates but to facilitate career progression of eligible
and competent senior employees. The instructions further
contemplate expeditious declaration of the result. Such instructions
have to be interpreted in a manner which does not permit an
otherwise eligible employee to suffer solely because of administrative
delay in completion of the selection process.
26. In the present case, the applicant had submitted
representations dated 22.01.2021 and 27.01.2021, i.e., immediately
after declaration of the written examination result and before his
retirement. These representations clearly demonstrate that the
applicant was asserting his claim while he was still in service.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant acquiesced in the
delay or failed to assert his right at the appropriate stage.
27. It is also significant that the applicant was senior to
respondent No.5. The respondents have not disputed the applicant's
seniority. Nor have they contended that the applicant had failed to
secure the prescribed minimum qualifying marks in the examination.
The applicant's grievance is essentially that, having qualified in the
examination while in service, he should not lose the benefit of the
selection merely because the respondents took considerable time in
completing the remaining formalities.

13


28. In our considered view, the distinction between actual
promotion and notional promotion assumes significance in the
present case. Since the applicant has already retired from service, he
cannot now be granted actual promotion for a period during which
he was not in service. However, this circumstance cannot necessarily
deprive him of the financial and pensionary consequences of a
promotion to which he would have been entitled had the selection
process been completed within the prescribed time and in
accordance with the applicable instructions.
29. The respondents cannot take advantage of their own
administrative delay to defeat the legitimate claim of the applicant. If
the applicant had been empanelled during his service tenure, his
position vis-à-vis his juniors would necessarily have been considered
according to the applicable rules. The fact that the final panel was
issued after his retirement is an event which occurred because the
selection process remained pending beyond his retirement. Such an
intervening event ought not, in the peculiar facts of the present case,
to extinguish the benefit otherwise accruing to the applicant from his
successful participation in the selection.
30. We are also of the view that the applicant's case can
appropriately be moulded by granting him notional relief. Such relief
would balance the respective interests of the parties. The
respondents would not be required to treat the applicant as having
actually worked on the promotional post after his retirement, nor
would there be any question of payment of salary for a period during
which he did not actually discharge the duties of the higher post. At

14


the same time, the applicant would not be deprived of the
consequential pensionary benefits merely because the finalisation of
the panel took place after his retirement.
31. In arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, we are fortified by the
principle that an employee should not ordinarily suffer on account of
an administrative delay which is not attributable to him. The
decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant, including
OA No.2802/2019, Bishambar v. Union of India & Ors., and OA
No.2118/2018, Bishamber v. Ministry of Railways, also lend support
to the proposition that where an employee's legitimate claim is
affected by delay in finalisation of the panel/result, appropriate
consequential relief can be moulded by the Tribunal in accordance
with the result of the selection.
32. At the same time, we do not propose to examine or declare the
appointment/promotion of respondent No.5 illegal merely on the
basis of the applicant's claim. The relief can adequately be granted by
protecting the applicant's position notionally and by extending to him
the consequential pensionary benefits which would have accrued had
his candidature been duly considered in the panel.
33. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the
considered view that the applicant deserves to succeed. The
respondents are accordingly directed to reconsider the applicant's
case for empanelment for promotion to the post of JE, Level-6, under
the 25% ranker quota, on the basis of the result of the examination
held on 22.10.2020, by treating the applicant as continuing in

15


service for the limited purpose of consideration for the said panel
notwithstanding his retirement on 31.01.2021.
34. If, upon such consideration, the applicant is found entitled to
be placed in the panel according to his merit and seniority and his
position vis-à-vis respondent No.5 and other candidates, the
respondents shall grant him notional promotion from the date on
which his immediate junior in the relevant panel was promoted, or
from such other date as is found admissible under the applicable
rules.
35. The notional promotion shall not entitle the applicant to actual
arrears of salary for the period after his retirement, since he did not
actually discharge the duties of the promotional post. However, his
pay shall be notionally fixed in the promotional post for the relevant
period and his pension, gratuity and other pensionary benefits shall
be re-fixed on the basis of such notional fixation, in accordance with
the applicable rules.
36. The respondents shall undertake the aforesaid exercise by
convening/reconsidering the relevant selection/panel, as may be
necessary, and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
If the applicant is found entitled to the aforesaid notional promotion,
the consequential pensionary benefits shall be released to him within
a further period of two months thereafter.
37. It is clarified that the present order does not direct payment of
arrears of salary for the period during which the applicant did not

16


actually work on the promotional post, nor does it disturb the
promotion of any other employee except to the extent that such
adjustment may be required in the applicant's seniority position in
the panel in accordance with the applicable rules.
38. The Original Application is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid
terms. Pending MA(s), if any, shall also stand disposed. There shall
be no order as to costs.


(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)

/lg/