PUSHPALATA SAGAR (Now Pushpalata Chouhan) vs UNION OF INDIA

1

CGHC010433962026 2026:CGHC:46706-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 7953 of 2026
Pushpalata Sagar (Now Pushpalata Chouhan) D/o Shri Dhannuram Sagar, W/o Shri
Deepak Kumar Chouhan Aged About 40 Years Unemployed, R/o- Old Power
House, Near Verma Pan Shop, Devrikhurd, Bilaspur - 495001 (Chhattisgarh)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - Union Of India Through The General Manager, South East Central Railway,
Headquarters Office, Bilaspur Dist. Bilaspur - 495004 (C.G.)
2 - The Chairman Railway Recruitment Cell, South East Central Railway, Annex.
Building, G.M's Office Bilaspur - 495004 (C.G.)
3 - The Assistant Personnel Officer Railway Recruitment Cell, South East Central
Railway, Annex. Building, G.M's Office Bilaspur - 495004 (C.G.)
4 - The Chief Personnel Officer S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Headquarter's
Office, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur - 495004 (C.G.)
5 - Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench Through The Registrar, Central
Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Near T.V. Tower, Katanga, Om Shanti
Chowk, Jabalpur - 482001 (MP)
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. BP Rao and Ms. Pooja Sinha, Advocates
For Respondents 1 to 4/UOI : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General
Hon’ble Mr. Krushna Ram Mohapatra, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Santosh Sharma, Judge
Order on Board
Digitally
signed by
BINI
PRADEEP
Date:
2026.11.05
14:36:48
+0530
BINI
PRADEEP

2
Per : Krushna Ram Mohapatra, Chief Justice

04/11/2026
1. The Petitioner, in this writ petition, assails the Order dated 25.09.2026
(Annexure-P/14) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’) in MA No.348/2025
filed for implementation of Order dated 06.03.2024 (Annexure-P/3)
passed in Original Application No.203/12/2019 along with a batch of
Original Applications, wherein the learned Tribunal directed as under:-
12 . In view of the aforesaid, all these Original
Applications are disposed of with the directions to the
respondents to examine the vacancy position in the
Employment notice No.02/2010 dated 15.12.2010 and if the
vacancies exists, consider the applicants for appointment to
the post of Group ‘D’ under replacement quota as per RBE
No.73/2008 dated 17.06.2008 (Annexure A/19) after receipt
of Certified Copy of the order of this Tribunal and thereafter
issue offer of appointment to the applicants who are
declared suitable/fit for job.
2. According to Mr. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, the backdrop
of the case is that the Employment Notice for 5540 (Non-PH) Group-D
posts were advertised by the respondents. The petitioner had
participated in the said selection process and was kept in waiting list.
Out of 5540 vacancies, 624 candidates did not join the post, though
they were selected. Since the vacancies were not filled up by the
respondents from the waiting list candidates as per RBE 73/2008, 197
candidates moved the Tribunal by filing their individual Original
Applications. The Tribunal dismissed the said Original Applications.
Such 197 candidates were also unsuccessful before this Court.

3
However, pursuant to Order dated 27.12.2018, in the case of Dinesh
Kumar Kashyap & Ors. Vs. S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur and Ors;
2019(12) SCC 798, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the SLP and
directed for employment of 197 candidates from the wait list. Thus, out
of 624 vacancies, 197 posts were filled up pursuant to the directions of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court. For the rest of 427 vacancies, 50 other
Original Applications were filed before the Bilaspur Circuit Bench of the
Tribunal including the petitioner. The Tribunal vide its common Order
dated 06.03.2024 allowed all the Original Applications and passed
aforesaid order. For non-implementation of the order, the petitioner
along with similarly placed candidates filed different execution cases
before the Tribunal. The petitioner filed MA No.348/2025. However,
the respondents moved this Court in WPS No.6291/2024 and other
connected matters assailing the common order passed in aforesaid
Original Applications, including that of the petitioner. This Court
disposed of all the writ petitions vide common Order dated 05.12.2025
(Annexure-P/7) with a direction which reads as under:-
55 . For the foregoing reasons and having regard to the
balanced approach mandated by law between the need for
orderly public recruitment and the protection of substantive
legal rights of the meritorious candidates, the writ petitions
filed by the Union of India/Railways are dismissed and the
CAT’s common order dated 06.03.2024 is upheld to the
extent that it directs an administrative examination of the
vacancy position and consequent consideration of eligible
candidates on the replacement list in conformity with law
and these directions. Parties will act in accordance with this
order.
3. For non-compliance of the directions of this Court, at para 55, some
contempt applications were also filed and are pending before this

4
Court. In the meantime, the Tribunal took up the matter on 17.12.2025
and granted time to the respondents to execute the order positively
before the next date of posting. Thereafter the matter was listed before
the Tribunal on several occasions, but order passed in the 50 Original
Applications was not implemented. In the execution petition filed by the
petitioner i.e. MA No.348/2025, which was taken up on 25.09.2026, the
learned Tribunal held that since the matter is under adjudication before
this Court in the contempt petition, no execution application can be
considered at this stage. Accordingly, disposed of the MA filed by the
petitioner.
4. Mr. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the contempt
application filed by the petitioner is pending before this Court for
initiation of contempt proceedings and appropriately punish the
respondents for non-compliance of the order passed in the writ petition
filed by the respondents. But the execution proceedings before the
Tribunal was filed for implementation of the order passed by the
Tribunal. The relief claimed and the consequences in both the
proceedings are altogether different and distinct. The Tribunal failed to
appreciate the same and passed the order disposing of the execution
proceedings filed by the petitioner on the ground of pendency of
contempt proceedings before this Court. Hence, he prays for setting
aside the impugned order under Annexure-P/14 and to remit the matter
back to the Tribunal for adjudication of MA No.348/2025 in accordance
with law, giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
5. Mr. Mishra, learned DSGI on instruction from the respondents submits
that he has no objection if order impugned is set aside and the
execution proceedings filed by the petitioner is disposed of in

5
accordance with law giving opportunity of hearing to the parties
concerned. He further submits that the respondents may be given an
opportunity to file objection to the execution proceedings.
6. In view of the above, this Court finds that the Tribunal failed to
appreciate that the relief claimed in both the proceedings, i.e. contempt
proceedings before this Court and the execution proceedings before
the Tribunal are different and distinct and consequences of both the
proceedings are also distinct. Thus, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the Tribunal could not have disposed of the execution
proceedings filed by the petitioner on the ground of pendency of the
contempt proceedings before this Court.
7. Accordingly, impugned Order dated 25.09.2026 (Annexure-P/14) is set
aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for adjudication of MA
No.348/2025 on its own merits, giving opportunity of hearing to the
parties concerned.
8. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Santosh Sharma) (Krushna Ram Mohapatra)
Judge Chief Justice
Bini