WP/3024/2024 of UNION OF INDIA Vs S.RAJENDRAN on 9 October 2026

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by M.Dhandapani J.) The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, in O.A.No.310/00321 of 2022, whereby the Tribunal allowed the original application filed by the first respondent and directed the petitioners to grant him Training Allowance for the period during which he worked as an Instructor at the Divisional Transportation Training Centre, Erode.

2. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the first respondent was appointed as an Assistant Station Master in the Palghat Division of the Southern Railway in the year 1980. Thereafter, he was promoted to various grades and, upon implementation of the Seventh Pay Commission, attained Level 9. While he was working as Station Superintendent at Thottipalayam Railway Station in the Salem Division, he was transferred, at his own request, to the post of SS/ITC, (Instructor at the Divisional Transportation Training Centre), Erode, by proceedings dated 29.03.2017. He joined the said post on 26.04.2017 and continued to work as an Instructor until his retirement on 30.04.2018.

3. After his retirement, the first respondent submitted a representation seeking Training Allowance for the period during which he had worked as an Instructor. However, the said request was rejected by the proceedings dated 23.01.2020. Aggrieved by the rejection, the first respondent filed O.A.No.310/00321 of 2022 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench. The Tribunal, by order dated 30.06.2023, allowed the original application and directed the petitioners to grant the Training Allowance. Challenging the said order, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

4. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel would contend that the first respondent was neither qualified for the post of Instructor nor selected by a duly constituted Selection Committee in accordance with the prescribed procedure. His posting was made only at his own request and not through the selection process contemplated under the applicable rules and instructions. Therefore, he would submit that the first respondent is not entitled to Training Allowance in terms of the Railway Board guidelines issued in RBE No. 26/2000, dated 25.02.2000.

5. Reliance is also placed upon Clause 5(d) of the aforesaid guidelines, which provides that staff, whether on deputation from the field, transferred or locally recruited, who are not directly engaged in imparting training or education, would not be eligible for Training Allowance. According to the learned counsel, in the absence of selection by the prescribed Selection Committee and in view of the circumstances in which the first respondent came to be posted as an Instructor, the Tribunal was not justified in directing the petitioners to grant the allowance. Hence, he seeks interference with the order passed by the Tribunal.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that the first respondent was transferred from Thottipalayam Railway Station to the post of Instructor at the Divisional Transportation Training Centre, Erode, on his own request, with effect from 26.04.2017. He continued to discharge the duties of an Instructor and impart training to the trainees until his retirement on 30.04.2018.

7. The learned counsel would further submit that the request for Training Allowance was rejected by the petitioners on the ground that the first respondent had not been selected by a duly constituted Selection Committee. It is contended that, if the first respondent did not possess the requisite qualifications for the post of Instructor, his transfer to the said post would not have been permissible in the first place. The authorities, having considered his request and transferred him to the post of Instructor, must be deemed to have considered his suitability for the assignment. Having permitted him to discharge the duties attached to the said post and having obtained his services for imparting training, the petitioners cannot subsequently deny him the consequential monetary benefit on the ground that the prescribed selection procedure had not been followed.

8. The learned counsel would also submit that the Tribunal, after considering the relevant Railway Board guidelines and its earlier decisions in O.A.No.341 of 2012 and O.A.No.1433 of 2016, wherein similar claims had been considered and relief had been granted, rightly allowed the original application. Therefore, the learned counsel seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record.

10. The principal issue that arises for consideration is whether the first respondent is entitled to Training Allowance for the period from 26.04.2017 to 30.04.2018, during which he admittedly worked as an Instructor at the Divisional Transportation Training Centre, Erode.

11. The fact that the first respondent was transferred to the post of Instructor at his own request is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that he joined the said post on 26.04.2017 and continued to work in that capacity until his retirement on 30.04.2018. The petitioners primarily seek to deny him Training Allowance on the ground that he had not been selected by a duly constituted Selection Committee in accordance with the prescribed procedure. In this regard, it is to be noted that, if the first respondent was not qualified for the post of Instructor, his transfer to the said post would not have been permissible. The fact that the competent authorities considered his request and transferred him to the post of Instructor would indicate that his qualifications and suitability were considered before he was assigned the said duties. Having permitted him to join the post and discharge the duties attached thereto, the petitioners cannot subsequently rely upon their own failure to follow the prescribed selection procedure to deny him the benefit claimed for the period during which he actually performed those duties.

12. Further, the first respondent admittedly worked as an Instructor and imparted training to the trainees at the Divisional Transportation Training Centre, Erode, during the relevant period. Clause 5(d) of the Railway Board guidelines dated 25.02.2000, relied upon by the petitioners, excludes those who are not directly engaged in imparting training or education from the benefit of Training Allowance. In the present case, the claim of the first respondent is that he was directly engaged in imparting training, and the petitioners have permitted him to discharge the duties of an Instructor throughout the relevant period. The mere fact that his posting was made at his own request would not, by itself, disentitle him to the allowance, particularly when he actually performed the duties attached to the post.

13. It is also relevant to note that the Tribunal considered its earlier decisions in O.A.No.341 of 2012 and O.A.No.1433 of 2016, wherein similar claims had been considered and relief had been granted. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the earlier decisions, held that the failure to place the first respondent's case before the duly constituted Selection Committee could not be held against him, as the responsibility for following the prescribed procedure rested with the authorities concerned.

14. This Court is of the view that the omission on the part of the authorities to place the first respondent's case before the prescribed Selection Committee cannot, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, be used as a ground to deny him Training Allowance for the period during which he actually discharged the duties of an Instructor. Having assigned him the work of an Instructor and permitted him to impart training to the trainees, the petitioners cannot subsequently deny the consequential benefit solely on the ground that the prescribed selection procedure had not been followed.

15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, in O.A.No.310/00321 of 2022. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

16. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. The order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, in O.A.No.310/00321 of 2022 is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed. (M.D.I.,J.) (A.D.M.C.,J.) 09-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No sts To: The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench High Court Building, Chennai- 104.

M.DHANDAPANI J. AND DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE J. sts Order made in W.P.No.3024 of 2024 Dated: 09-10-2026