Railways must consider medically decategorised employees for suitable alternative posts, creating supernumerary posts where necessary.

The applicant, a Loco Pilot Mail/Express, was declared medically unfit for that post but fit in the C-1 medical category with glasses for distant and near vision.

Following screening, he was absorbed as Senior Technician (Mason), Level 6, in the Civil Engineering Department.

He challenged the absorption order and subsequent orders rejecting his request for rescreening and directing him to join.

During the hearing, his counsel limited the request to consideration for the post of CC/TLC, which had previously been offered to him.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides the basis for the application before the Tribunal.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the applicant for absorption in the post of CC/TLC under the rules governing alternative employment for medically decategorised railway employees.

Whether, if the CC/TLC post is found suitable but is not vacant, the applicant should be accommodated against a supernumerary post pending availability of a suitable post.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides the basis for the application before the Tribunal.

Under paragraphs 1301–1304 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, a railway servant who becomes medically unfit for the post held should not be dispensed with or reduced in rank, but should be shifted to suitable alternative employment with the same pay scale and service benefits; the alternative post should be one the employee can adequately fill and should, as far as possible, use the employee’s background and experience.

Paragraph 1306 requires examination of the employee’s suitability for alternative categories and provides that an employee may apply for a known vacant post for which he is likely to be suitable; the application’s result must be communicated to him.

The Tribunal also directed that, if the claimed post is suitable but unavailable, accommodation should be made by creating a supernumerary post in the manner provided by the Manual.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s counsel relied on paragraph 1306(5) and, at the hearing, sought consideration for the specific post of CC/TLC.

Given that limited prayer, the Tribunal expressly declined to examine the merits of the applicant’s challenge to the Mason post and instead directed the competent authority to assess his suitability for CC/TLC under the relevant Manual provisions and issue a reasoned, speaking order.

It further provided for supernumerary accommodation if the post was found suitable but was not vacant.

If the post is suitable but not vacant, the applicant is to be accommodated against a supernumerary post in accordance with the Manual.

The impugned orders dated 5 January, 9 February and 3 March 2026 were quashed, and the exercise was to be completed within one month of production of a certified copy of the order.

The application was disposed of with no order as to costs.