RAM LALIT AND vs NORTHERN EASTERN RAILWAY

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH

Original Application No. 234/2003

rd
This, the 23 day of October, 2026

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J),
HON’BLE MR. PANKAJ KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
1. Raj Mangal aged about 39 years son of late Raghunath
(Cook), resident of Village-Abboopur, Post-Kopaganj,
Hamirpur, District- Gonda U.P.
2. Jagdish Prasad Gupta about 45 years son of Sri Bachchoo
Lal (Cook), resident of Sahabganj Changi Balrampur Road,
District-Gonda U.P.
3. Ramu Prasad about 33 years sonof Sri Balikan Prasad
(Helper), resident of Anand Niwas near Lohia Dharmshala,
station Road, Gonda U.P.
4. Deepak Balmiki aged about 29 years son of Sri Jhallan
Balmiki (Safaiwala), resident of Maharajganj, Ghosiyana,
Post- Bargaon, District- Gonda U.P.
5. Rajesh Kumar Kanojia, aged about 28 yaers son of Sri
Vishwa Nath Kanojia (Helper), resident of Police Club Ke
Samne Gandhi Nagar, District-Gonda U.P.
6. Jag Prasad Verma aged about 28 years son of Sri Ram Pher
Verma (Cook), resident of Dutt Nagar Visheshan Purwa,
Baswaria, Post- Bargaon, District- Gonda, U.P.
7. Om Prakash Ist aged about 34 years, son of Sri Ram Bahor
(Helper), resident of Jamunihi, Post- Dhanepur, Dutt Nagar,
District- Gonda U.P.
8. Chinta Ram Verma aged about 39 years son of Sri Het
Verma (Helper), resident of Bhandaha, Post- Kripal, District-
Gonda U.P.
9. Ravindra Nath Pandey, aged about 38 years son of Sri Rama
Kant Pandey (Chaukidar), resident of Kelapur, Mundera,
Post-Baghera Mahuwari, District-Gonda U.P.
10. Shesh Narain aged about 28 years son of Sri Ram Abhilash
(Helper), resident of Village- Madhya Nagar, Post-Mokelpur,
District-Gonda U.P.


Page 1 of 7

11. Ram Nath aged about 33 years son of Sri Ram Lal (Helper),
resident of Madhya Nagar Mokal Pur, District- Gonda U.P.
12. Vijay Kumar aged about 33 years, son of Sri Mohan Lal
(Helper), resident of Village- -Semara Colony, Post-Narayan,
Quarter No. 1/57, District-Gonda U.P.
13. Shiv Narayan aged about 28 years son of Sri Ram chander
(Helper), resident of Village-Khaira Pathak Purwa, Post-
Baragaon, District-Gonda U.P.
14. Ram Lalit aged about 26 years son of Sri Ram Adhar
(Helper), resident of Village-Ratan Pura Arjun, Post-
Waltarganj, District-Basti, U.P.
15. Shamim Ahmad aged about 33 years son of Sri Mohd. Shafi
(Helper), resident of Khairabagh, Post-Baragaon, District-
Gonda U.P.
16. Ram Preet Kushwaha aged about 34 years son of Sri Bhola
Kushwaha (Cook), resident of Hgursari lal Road Baudi,
District-Deoria.
17. Om Prakash Pathak, aged about 27 years son of Sri Ram
Swaroop (Helper), resident of Village- Khairabagh, Post-
Baragaon, District- Gonda U.P.
..Applicants
By Advocate: Shri Anurudh Kumar Singh for Applicant Nos. 3,
4,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,14,15 and 16.
None for Applicant Nos. 1, 2, 5, 13 and 17.

VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Railway,
New Delhi.

2. General Manager, North Eastern Railway (Head Quarter),
Gorakhpur.
3. Principal / Assistant Mechanical Engineer, Diesel Training
Hostel, Eastern Railway, Gonda, U.P.
4. Divisional Railway Manager (P), D.R.M.P., Lucknow.
5. Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Diesel Shed, Gonda
U.P.
…..Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Rajendra Singh.


Page 2 of 7

O R D E R
PER HON’BLE JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J)
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for
the respondents and perused the records.

2. Challenge in this Original Application (in short O.A.) is the
order dated 07.05.2002 (Annexure No. 1 of the OA) whereby the
claim of the applicants for regularization in the Respondent
Department has been rejected.

3. This OA was instituted in the year 2003 which was
dismissed on 26.05.2004 by this Tribunal. Writ No. 1768 (S/B) of
2004 preferred against the same also came to be dismissed on
12.04.2016.

4. Aggrieved party (applicants) preferred Civil Appeal No. 8157
of 2016 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was disposed of
vide order dated 30.07.2026 in the following terms:-
“2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered
view that it would be in the interest of justice as also the parties, that the
matter be remanded to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow
Bench, Lucknow for consideration of the appellants’ case afresh. More so,
in view of the material placed on record vide application bearing I.A. No.
202554/2026.

3. We notice that the Tribunal had simply rejected the appellants’
application by referring to the response of the respondents, wherein it was
stated that the appellants were gainfully engaged in an establishment not
being run under the control and supervision of the Railways. Such finding
had no basis. The High Court, in an appeal preferred by the appellants,
has simply reiterated the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal.

4. In this view of the matter, we quash and set aside the impugned
judgment and order dated 12.04.2016 in Special Bench No. 1768/2004
passed by the High Court, and judgment and order dated 26.05.2004
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, and
remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

th
5. We direct the parties to appear before the Tribunal on 14 August,
2026. The appellants undertake to place on record all materials including
the document placed vide I.A. No. 202554/2026 before the Tribunal within
four weeks thereafter. Liberty is granted to the parties to place on record
all additional material within eight weeks thereafter.

6. We request the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh within three
months.”

5. In compliance of the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Supreme
court, parties appeared before us.



Page 3 of 7

6. Tersely put, the case of the applicants is that applicants are
continuously working in the Mess as casual labour at Diesel
Training Centre, North Eastern Railways, Gonda. The competent
authority of the respondent department issued identity card as
well as testimonials to the applicants. Applicants were to be
absorbed in the non-statutory canteen in the Railways in
pursuance of the judgment and order dated 27.02.1990 passed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, there was no regularisation
and impugned order dated 07.05.2002 was passed.
Hence, this O.A.

7. Respondents by filing their counter affidavit have, inter-alia,
stated that applicants were neither employed nor engaged by the
Railway administration. Mess is not being run under the control
and supervision of the Railway. There is no explicit obligation of
the Railway to run the mess. The Mess of the Hostel is being run
as private arrangement and payments are made from collections of
trainees from their daily allowances.
It has been further pleaded that there is no statutory or
contractual obligation towards the mess of the diesel training
centre hostel, N.E. Railway, Gonda. No appointments were made
by Railways. No subsidy was provided by the Railways for the
purpose of running the mess, hence, applicants cannot be granted
the appointment in the Railways.

8. Applicants by filing rejoinder affidavit reiterated the
averments made in the Original application. It has been further
stated that applicants are working since long back years in the
mess run by the Railway management, hence, their services be
regularised.

9. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that identity card
has been issued by the competent authority of the Railways.
Applicants are continuously working in the Railways since the year
1990 onwards; hence, they are entitled for regularization.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents strongly
opposed the aforesaid submissions and argued that applicants
have not been appointed by the Railways. The canteen where


Page 4 of 7

applicants are working is a non-statutory canteen. The applicants
were being paid from collections made by trainees from their daily
allowances.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon by the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shri Krishan and
Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. dated 16.09.2014 [SLP (Civil)
No. 25721 of 2014], and Union of India & Ors. vs. Ram Singh
Thakur & Ors. dated 14.07.2011 [ Civil Appeal No.(s) 200 of
2007 ] . Further contended that in both aforecited judgments, facts
are similar and their claim for regularisation have been rejected by
the competent authority and has been upheld upto the Hon’ble
Apex Court.

12. In Union of India & Ors. vs. Ram Singh Thakur & Ors. ,
the respondents were employees of a co-operative society of
Railway Employees Consumer Co-operative Society Ltd. The
Tribunal as well as Hon’ble High Court directed to formulate a
scheme for regularisation of the employees of Co-operative Society
of Railway Employees Consumer Co-operative Society Ltd. The
Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the direction to frame a scheme
for appointment can only be given by the Executive. It has been
further held that a direction regarding regularisation in service is a
purely executive function and such a direction cannot validly be
given by the judiciary.
Hon’ble Apex Court allowed the appeal and set aside the
judgments passed by Central Administrative Tribunal and the
Hon’ble High Court.
Curative and Review petition filed against the said judgment
were also dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

13. In Shri Krishan & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., the
Hon’ble Apex Court has held that petitioners/ persons working in a
Non-statutory non-recognised canteen of the Railway
Establishment, would not be entitled to claim regularisation of
their services.
The relevant portion of the aforecited judgment is being
quoted herein below:-


Page 5 of 7

“17. On a perusal of the said letter dated 09.11.1976, we find that it does
not reflect the grant of any such sanction. We cannot agree with the said
assumption of the petitioners in the absence of a finding on that by the
final fact finding authority. The petitioners have failed to place on record
any documents before the Tribunal to support the fact that sanction was
granted by the Railway Board, recognizing the Mess being run at the S&T
Training Centre, as a non-statutory recognised canteen.

18. Therefore, in the instant case, since there is no material placed on
record, regarding the grant of sanction by Railway before any forum to
highlight that the said Mess was of the nature of non-statutory recognised
canteen, such a sanction cannot be assumed.

19. Further, Shri Jagdev Singh Manhas, learned counsel for the
petitioners, would further make a reference to the decisions of this Court in
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1 and Hamza Haji
v. State of Kerala, (2006) 7 SCC 416. The said cases would be referred for
the purposes of elaborating upon the question of fraud played by one party
on another party to the lis and on the Court as well. However, in our
considered view, the said cases would be of no assistance to the
petitioners as the question of whether there was any fraud is not before
this Court in the present special leave petition(s).

20. In light of the discussion above, we find no infirmity with the impugned
judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court, dated 09.05.2014 and
30.03.2012, whereby the learned Judges upheld the view of the Tribunal
stating that the petitioners-herein were working in a Non-statutory non-
recognised canteen of the Railway Establishment and therefore would not
be entitled to claim regularisation of their services.

21. In view of the above, we dismiss the special leave petition(s) and
confirm the impugned judgment(s) passed by the High Court.”

14. From the perusal of the aforecited judgment, it is evident
that the persons working in a non-statutory non-recognised
canteen of the Railway Establishment are not entitled to claim
regularisation of their services.

15. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that
service benefits including regularisation cannot be extended to a
person who has not been appointed either legally or illegally.
Applicants have not been appointed by Railway authorities/
competent authorities. Hence, they have no case for regularisation
in the Railway Department.

16. Learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the
judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shripal and
anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad reported in 2025 SCC
online SC 221, Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in
AIR 2025 SC 296 and Dharam Singh and Ors. vs. State of U.P.
and Ors. reported in AIR 2025 SC 3897 .



Page 6 of 7

17. We have gone through the aforecited judgments relied upon
by the learned counsel for the applicants. As Respondent
Department has not issued any appointment order appointing the
applicants in the department, hence, facts of the present case are
entirely different and applicants cannot claim the benefits of the
aforecited judgments.

18. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that
applicants are not entitled for regularisation in the Respondent
Railway Department. O.A. lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

19. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed.
There is no order as to costs.
Associated MAs also stand disposed of accordingly.



(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member (A) Member (J)

JNS
Digitally signed by
Jay Narayan Singh
Date: 2026.10.27
14:37:21 +05'30'
Jay Narayan
Singh


Page 7 of 7