Deputed railway employee may return to his parent railway upon the borrowing railway agreeing to release him.

The applicant, Saumitra Ghosh, was serving as a Motorman in Metro Railway while holding lien in Eastern Railway. Following a selection based on the CBDT/TBT examination conducted on 30 November and 6 December 2025, Eastern Railway promoted him as Chief Loco Inspector (CLI) on 6 February 2026. Metro Railway subsequently issued an order dated 25 June 2026 identifying the applicant as suitable for appointment as CLI and, by a further order dated 27 June 2026, posted him as CLI in Metro Railway

The Metro Railway’s posting order dated 25 June 2026 was thereafter withdrawn with immediate effect, allegedly without issuing a show-cause notice or granting the applicant an opportunity of hearing. The applicant claimed to have worked as CLI for four days and initially sought continuation in the post, payment of the corresponding salary, and quashing of the withdrawal order

In the alternative, he expressed willingness to be released from Metro Railway so that he could join the promotional post of CLI in his parent division, Eastern Railway, Howrah.

During the proceedings, Eastern Railway produced a letter dated 10 August 2026 requesting that the applicant be released forthwith from Metro Railway to enable him to assume charge as CLI in his parent division.

Whether the applicant was entitled to continuation as Chief Loco Inspector in Metro Railway and payment of the corresponding salary after withdrawal of the posting order dated 25 June 2026?

Whether the applicant should be released from Metro Railway to enable him to join the promotional post of Chief Loco Inspector in his parent division, Eastern Railway, Howrah?

Whether the Tribunal should quash or stay the withdrawal of the Metro Railway posting order in the absence of a show-cause notice or prior opportunity of hearing?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which permits an aggrieved government servant to seek redress against service-related orders and actions.

The Tribunal applied the procedural principle that an employee may make a representation concerning his release, posting, or service grievance and that the competent authority may consider and decide such representation in accordance with law.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had come to Metro Railway on deputation while his parent railway was Eastern Railway. Although the applicant challenged the withdrawal of his Metro Railway posting and sought interim protection, he alternatively agreed to join his parent railway. Eastern Railway expressly requested his immediate release so that he could assume charge as CLI in the promotional post there.

In view of this changed position and the applicant’s consent to return to his parent department, the Tribunal considered it unnecessary to determine conclusively, at the admission stage, whether the withdrawal order was legally sustainable or whether the applicant was entitled to continue in Metro Railway. Instead, it granted liberty to the applicant to submit a representation and permitted Metro Railway to decide the matter on that basis. The respondents’ undertaking to release the applicant in terms of Eastern Railway’s letter was also taken into account.

It permitted the applicant to make a representation regarding his release, with liberty to Metro Railway to decide the same. In view of Eastern Railway’s request and the respondents’ assurance, the applicant was to be released to enable him to join as CLI in Eastern Railway, Howrah.

The Original Application was disposed of at the admission stage, without costs.