Employee Absent During Promotion Order Not Entitled to Retroactive Financial Benefits for Post Occupied Late

Procedurally, he was first punished on 19.04.2017 with a one-year stoppage of increment for unauthorized absence

A second proceeding resulted in a non-cumulative withholding of increment on 01.02.2018

A third memorandum for unauthorized absence was issued on 21.08.2020

Although the applicant was declared suitable for promotion to TM-II on 27.05.2020, he did not join the post until 10.02.2021 due to continued illness and absence

The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking to quash the disciplinary memoranda/punishments and demanding financial benefits from the date of the promotion order rather than the date of joining

1. Whether the Original Application is maintainable given the joinder of multiple distinct causes of action.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to quash disciplinary proceedings and punishment orders where the underlying memoranda or appeals were either not produced or the orders not specifically challenged.

3. Whether the applicant is entitled to financial benefits of a promotion from the date of the order (27.05.2020) despite being absent and only joining the post on 10.02.2021.

Rule 10 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which mandates that an application must be based on a single cause of action, allowing multiple reliefs only if they are consequential to one another

The Tribunal also adhered to the principle of "no work, no pay" and the requirement for a claimant to provide a clear factual and legal basis/rules to substantiate a claim for retrospective financial service benefits

Under Rule 10, the applicant improperly combined three distinct disciplinary proceedings and a promotion claim into one suit

Regarding the 2017 punishment, the Tribunal noted the applicant sought to quash the memorandum but failed to challenge the actual punishment order

For the 2018 punishment, the applicant failed to even produce the underlying charge memorandum

Regarding the 2020 memorandum, the applicant provided no legal grounds for quashing and failed to update the court on its final outcome

Finally, the Tribunal rejected the claim for financial benefits from 27.05.2020; since the applicant was admittedly absent due to illness and only assumed the duties of the promotional post on 10.02.2021, there was no legal or factual basis to grant pay for a period during which he did not serve

It held that the OA lacked merit and violated Rule 10 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, due to the misjoinder of causes of action

The Court further held that the applicant failed to substantiate his claims with necessary documentation or Railway Board instructions

No relief was granted regarding the disciplinary actions or the retrospective promotional benefits