ARVIND SINGH YADAV vs M/o Railways

1
O.A. No. 203/00617/2017
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR

(Through virtual mode)

Original Application No.203/00617/2017
th
Jabalpur, this Friday, the 16 day of October, 2026

HON’BLE SHRI RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE MS MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

Arvind Singh Yadev,S/o Shri Munga Lal Yadav,
Aged about 43 years, R/o Qr No.DR-II-9/3, NE Colony,
SEC Ralways, Bilaspur (CG). PIN: 495004. MOB: 9752441415.
- Applicant
( By Advocate –NONE)

V e r s u s
1. Union of India, Through General Manager,
SEC Railways Bilaspur (CG) PIN: 495004.

2. Divisional Railway Manager, SEC Railways
Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (CG) PIN:495004

3. Chief Personnel Officer, SEC Railways,
Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (CG). PIN: 495004

4. Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, SEC Railways,
Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (CG). PIN: 495004
- Respondents

( By Advocate – Shri Ramakant Mishra)

RAJU
RAJUL
NAMDEO
2026.10.
22
12:32:33
+05'30'
L
NAM
DEO
O R D E R
BY MALLIKA ARYA, AM:-
In this case, the applicant is challenging the order dated
30.09.2025 (Annexure A-1), whereby the respondents have denied the
Page 1 of 6

2
O.A. No. 203/00617/2017
arrears of pay and allowances to him from the date his juniors were
promoted to the post of LPG.

2. The facts of the case in brief is that the applicant was promoted
to the post of Loco-Pilot Goods vide order dated 12.08.2011(Annexure
A-3). The pay of the applicant was fixed at Rs. 13340 +GP of Rs. 4200/-
in the pay band of Rs. 9300-34800/- and thereafter regular increments
were granted to him. The pay and allowances of the applicant were
calculated w.e.f. 14.09.2011 to February 2015. The panel of the selected
employees was revised as per the directions of this Tribunal passed in
O.A. No. 596/2012 vide order dated 12.02.2015, wherein the name of the
applicant reflects at serial no. 73. The original panel for promotion of the
employees to the post of LPG (II) was prepared after conducting the
written examination in the year 2005 and the juniors who obtained lesser
marks than the applicant were promoted to the post of LPG (II) vide
order dated 21.04.2005 (Annexure A-6). The case of the applicant is that
he was not promoted to the higher post of LPG (II) due to wrong
RAJU
RAJUL
NAMDEO
2026.10.
22
12:32:33
+05'30'
evaluation of his answer sheet and the juniors were promoted on the
L
NAM
DEO
basis of merit obtained in the written exam held for promotion to the
higher post.
3. The respondents have filed their reply wherein it has been stated
that the applicant was promoted as LPG in 2011 and his pay has been
fixed in the scale of LPG and increment have been given as per rules.
Page 2 of 6

3
O.A. No. 203/00617/2017
The applicant was working as LPG from 2011 and subsequently in 2015
his promotion was antedated from the date of his junior with re-fixation
of pay. The respondents have further submitted that earlier the applicant
was not empanelled and hence his juniors were promoted. After the
amendment of the panel when the department realized that his juniors
have been promoted earlier due to an administrative error, the applicant
was also promoted from the date his juniors were promoted.
4. We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the pleadings and the documents on record.
5. The present application has been filed beyond the prescribed

period of limitation, without being accompanied by any application
seeking condonation of delay. The cause of action arose in 2012. The
applicant did not approach any court of law and has filed this OA in
2017, without any application for condonation of delay.
6. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for
short ‘the Act’) deals with limitation for filing O.A. before this Tribunal,
RAJU
RAJUL
NAMDEO
2026.10.
22
12:32:33
+05'30'
which reads as under:-
L
NAM
DEO
“21. Limitation.- (1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,-
(a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in
clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made in
connection with the grievance unless the application is made,
within one year from the date on which such final order has been
made;
(b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is
mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been
made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without
Page 3 of 6

4
O.A. No. 203/00617/2017
such final order having been made, within one year from the
date of expiry of the said period of six months.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where-
(a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made
had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the
period of three years immediately preceding the date on which
the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes
exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such
order relates; and
(b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had
been commenced before the said date before any High Court.
the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made
within the period referred to in clause (a), or, as the case may be,
clause (b), of sub-section (1) or within a period of six months
from the said date, whichever period expires later.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-
section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year
specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of section (1) or, as the case may
be, the period of six months specified in sub-section (2), if the applicant
satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making
the application within such period.”

The aforesaid rule shows that this is a clear case of negligence
on the part of applicant in approaching this Tribunal wherein he has
failed to approach this Tribunal within one year of original cause of
action. Not a single reason and no sufficient cause has been shown in the
RAJU
RAJUL
NAMDEO
2026.10.
22
12:32:33
+05'30'
L
NAM
DEO
O.A. on account of delay in filing this OA.
7. In the case of Dr. Virendra Kumar Swarnkar vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh & Ors., in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.
8747 of 2022, decided on 22.08.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
directed payment of consequential salary arrears but declined to grant
Page 4 of 6

5
O.A. No. 203/00617/2017
interest, having regard to the delay in approaching the Court. The
decision demonstrates that the claim for interest must be examined
independently, in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case.
8. Having dealt with the issue of limitation, we proceed to examine
.
the case on its merits It is not in dispute that the arrears of pay have
already been released to the applicant. Thus, the substantive monetary
relief concerning the arrears of pay stands satisfied. The surviving claim
is confined to interest for the period during which the said amount
remained unpaid. The entitlement to arrears of pay does not, by itself,
conclusively determine the entitlement to interest thereon. The latter
issue requires consideration of the applicable service rules and
administrative instructions on the subject apart from consideration of the
circumstances responsible for the delay, and whether the delay in
payment can be attributable to any unjustified action or inaction on the
part of the respondents.
9. In the present case, the applicant has already received the arrears
RAJU
RAJUL
NAMDEO
2026.10.
22
12:32:33
+05'30'
of pay admissible to him at par with his juniors as evident from the reply
L
NAM
DEO
of the respondents. However, the applicant has not been able to establish
his case for payment of interest on arrears. He has not alleged malafide
on behalf of the respondents intentionally delaying the payment of
arrears in the O.A. It is clear from the records that the applicant was
granted promotion to the post of LPG II in 2011 and his seniority has
Page 5 of 6

6
O.A. No. 203/00617/2017
been restored at par with his juniors. In the instant case, admittedly the
applicant has been assigned the correct seniority at par with his juniors
as per Estt. Srl. No. 273/64. The pay of the applicant has been refixed
from the date his juniors got the revised pay. It is also evident from the
reply of the respondents that the arrears from 2011 to 2015 have also
been paid for the period when he actually did not shoulder higher
responsibilities.
9.1 Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana, (2008) 3 SCC 44, wherein
the Hon'ble Court has recognised that an employee may claim interest on
delayed service benefits by relying upon applicable statutory rules,
administrative instructions or, in an appropriate case, constitutional
principles. The decision, however, does not dispense with the need to
examine the facts and circumstances governing the particular claim.
10. Therefore, the O.A. is dismissed both on the account of delay as
well as on merits. No order as to costs.
RAJU
RAJUL
NAMDEO
2026.10.
22
12:32:33
+05'30'

L
NAM
DEO
(Mallika Arya) (Rajinder Singh Dogra)
Administrative Member Judicial Member

rajul
Page 6 of 6