Res judicata bars administrative re-litigation of medical decategorization eligibility after final judicial determination.

Applicant No. 1 (A-1), a Loco Pilot (Goods), was declared medically unfit for his original post on 31.07.2014, but fit for sedentary duties in the "A-1 and below" category with NV glasses

Applicant No. 1 sought Voluntary Retirement (VR) on the condition of providing a Compassionate Ground Appointment (CGA) for his son, Applicant No. 2 (A-2)

The Respondents accepted the VR on 10.02.2018 on the grounds of "medical decategorization" but subsequently rejected the CGA request for A-2

In OA 664/2019, the Tribunal directed the Respondents to consider A-2’s appointment, holding that A-1 was "partially decategorized"

In OA 611/2021, the Tribunal set aside a second rejection, explicitly directing the Respondents to reconsider the case dehors (independent of) a restrictive PCPO letter dated 15.03.2019

Despite these orders, the Respondents issued a third rejection on 10.04.2023, again relying on the same PCPO letter and claiming A-1 was not "medically decategorized"

1. Whether the Respondents are barred by the principle of res judicata from re-litigating the medical decategorization status of Applicant No. 1 which had attained judicial finality in previous OAs.

2. Whether the rejection order dated 10.04.2023 is sustainable when it relies on a PCPO clarification that the Tribunal had explicitly directed the Respondents to disregard.

3. Whether Applicant No. 2 is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment under RBE No. 78/2006.

RBE No. 78/2006 (dated 14.06.2006), which allows CGA for wards of partially medically decategorized staff seeking VR if they have at least five years of service remaining

Para 1302 of the IREM, which classifies medically unfit railway servants

The Tribunal invoked the principle of Res Judicata as established by the Supreme Court in Daryao v. State of U.P., holding that binding decisions of competent courts must be final to prevent repeated litigation

The court also cited the precedent of the Ernakulam Bench in OA 16/2012 (upheld by the Kerala High Court), which confirmed that employees fit only for sedentary jobs are considered partially decategorized for CGA purposes

The Tribunal observed that the Respondents’ repeated rejection was a "perfunctory exercise" that ignored explicit judicial findings

While the Respondents argued that A-1 remained in the "A-1 category" (making him ineligible for CGA), the Tribunal reasoned that since his original post of Loco Pilot required A-1 vision without glasses, his shift to "A-1 with glasses" for sedentary duties constituted a partial medical decategorization under the rules

The Tribunal noted that the Respondents themselves accepted A-1’s VR on the basis of "medical decategorization" and thus could not take a contradictory stand to deny CGA

The Tribunal emphasized that the Respondents failed to follow the specific direction in OA 611/2021 to decide the matter dehors the PCPO letter dated 15.03.2019

By relying on the same letter and arguments previously rejected by the Tribunal (and never challenged in a higher court), the Respondents violated the principle of finality of judgments

It held that the issue of A-1’s medical decategorization was res judicata and could not be raked up again

The Respondents were directed to consider Applicant No. 2 for compassionate ground appointment as per the applicable rules and law within three months, without questioning his eligibility on the ground of medical decategorization

The OA was allowed with no order as to costs