Subsequent competent-authority adjustment and promotions overtook the challenge, rendering merits adjudication unnecessary.

The applicant, an Assistant Loco Pilot/Loco Pilot (Goods) in the North Central Railway, was medically decategorised on 11.12.2017 and found unfit for foot-plate duties, but fit for alternative employment in A-2 and below medical categories.

A Screening Committee considered his case and, by order dated 21.02.2018, posted him as Catering Inspector, Level-6; he joined at Allahabad Division on 01.03.2018 and his pay was fixed accordingly.

Since the Catering Inspector cadre was stated to be Headquarters-controlled, the Divisional authorities referred the matter to Headquarters for allotment of a Division.

By order dated 16/17.08.2018, the competent authority did not accept his adjustment and posting as Catering Inspector, Level-6, at Allahabad Division, while leaving consideration of a Division-controlled alternative post to the Allahabad Division.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the competent authority, by order dated 28.10.2022, adjusted him as Catering Inspector, Level-6, subject to the outcome of the Original Application.

He thereafter continued in the Catering cadre and was promoted to Level-7 and subsequently to Level-8.

The applicant challenged the 2018 order and sought recognition of his absorption as Catering Inspector under the rules governing medically decategorised employees.

1. Whether the applicant’s adjustment and posting as Catering Inspector, Level-6, at Allahabad Division could be sustained despite the Headquarters’ refusal to accept his initial placement and the alleged absence of catering qualifications and experience.

2. Whether the subsequent order dated 28.10.2022, continuing the applicant as Catering Inspector subject to the outcome of the proceedings, together with his subsequent service and promotions, had overtaken the controversy arising from the impugned order dated 16/17.08.2018.

3. Whether the applicant’s continuance and consequential service benefits, and the private respondents’ seniority or promotions, required any interference by the Tribunal.

The application was instituted under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The parties relied upon Chapter XIII of the Indian Establishment Manual, particularly paragraph 1304, concerning alternative employment of medically decategorised employees in a post which they can adequately fill and which, as far as possible, corresponds with their background and experience.

The respondents relied upon paragraph 133(2)(i)(b) and (c) of the IREM regarding the diploma and experience prescribed for Catering Inspectors, while the applicant contended that these requirements applied to direct recruitment and could not be rigidly imposed in cases of medical redeployment.

Master Circular No. 25, governing alternative employment of medically decategorised staff, was also invoked regarding assessment of suitability for alternative employment.

Paragraph 1310 of the IREM was referred to for determination of seniority.

However, the Tribunal expressly declined to finally adjudicate these substantive questions because subsequent events had substantially overtaken the original dispute.

The Tribunal noted that, although the validity of the applicant’s initial placement raised questions concerning cadre control, Headquarters approval, qualification, experience and procedural compliance, the competent authority subsequently adjusted him to the same post of Catering Inspector, Level-6, by order dated 28.10.2022.

The applicant had thereafter served in the Catering cadre for several years and had received further promotions, demonstrating that the Railway Administration had acted upon and continued to recognise his placement.

In these circumstances, the original challenge to the 16/17.08.2018 order had been substantially overtaken by events.

The Tribunal therefore considered it unnecessary to determine the legality of the initial placement, the applicability of direct-recruitment qualifications, or the alleged procedural irregularities.

It preserved the operation of applicable service rules and left questions of inter se seniority and consequential benefits to the competent authority.

The applicant’s continuance and promotions were made subject to the applicable service rules and instructions, while the promotions already granted to the private respondents were not disturbed.

Any dispute regarding inter se seniority or consequential benefits was left to be dealt with by the competent authority in accordance with law.

There was no order as to costs, and all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of.