ARVIND SINGH YADAV vs M/o Railways on 16 October 2026

O R D E R

BY MALLIKA ARYA, AM:-

In this case, the applicant is challenging the order dated 30.09.2025 (Annexure A-1), whereby the respondents have denied the RAJUL NAMDEO

RAJU L NAM DEO

arrears of pay and allowances to him from the date his juniors were promoted to the post of LPG.

2. The facts of the case in brief is that the applicant was promoted to the post of Loco-Pilot Goods vide order dated 12.08.2011(Annexure A-3). The pay of the applicant was fixed at Rs. 13340 +GP of Rs. 4200/- in the pay band of Rs. 9300-34800/- and thereafter regular increments were granted to him. The pay and allowances of the applicant were calculated w.e.f. 14.09.2011 to February 2015. The panel of the selected employees was revised as per the directions of this Tribunal passed in O.A. No. 596/2012 vide order dated 12.02.2015, wherein the name of the applicant reflects at serial no. 73. The original panel for promotion of the employees to the post of LPG (II) was prepared after conducting the written examination in the year 2005 and the juniors who obtained lesser marks than the applicant were promoted to the post of LPG (II) vide order dated 21.04.2005 (Annexure A-6). The case of the applicant is that he was not promoted to the higher post of LPG (II) due to wrong evaluation of his answer sheet and the juniors were promoted on the basis of merit obtained in the written exam held for promotion to the higher post.

3. The respondents have filed their reply wherein it has been stated that the applicant was promoted as LPG in 2011 and his pay has been fixed in the scale of LPG and increment have been given as per rules. RAJUL NAMDEO

RAJU L NAM DEO

The applicant was working as LPG from 2011 and subsequently in 2015 his promotion was antedated from the date of his junior with re-fixation of pay. The respondents have further submitted that earlier the applicant was not empanelled and hence his juniors were promoted. After the amendment of the panel when the department realized that his juniors have been promoted earlier due to an administrative error, the applicant was also promoted from the date his juniors were promoted.

4. We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.

5. The present application has been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, without being accompanied by any application seeking condonation of delay. The cause of action arose in 2012. The applicant did not approach any court of law and has filed this OA in 2017, without any application for condonation of delay.

6. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’) deals with limitation for filing O.A. before this Tribunal, which reads as under:- “21. Limitation.- (1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,- (a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made; (b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without RAJUL NAMDEO

RAJU L NAM DEO

such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where- (a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates; and (b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court. the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub- section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub-section (2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.”

The aforesaid rule shows that this is a clear case of negligence on the part of applicant in approaching this Tribunal wherein he has failed to approach this Tribunal within one year of original cause of action. Not a single reason and no sufficient cause has been shown in the O.A. on account of delay in filing this OA.

7. In the case of Dr. Virendra Kumar Swarnkar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 8747 of 2022, decided on 22.08.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed payment of consequential salary arrears but declined to grant RAJUL NAMDEO

RAJU L NAM DEO

interest, having regard to the delay in approaching the Court. The decision demonstrates that the claim for interest must be examined independently, in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case.

8. Having dealt with the issue of limitation, we proceed to examine the case on its merits. It is not in dispute that the arrears of pay have already been released to the applicant. Thus, the substantive monetary relief concerning the arrears of pay stands satisfied. The surviving claim is confined to interest for the period during which the said amount remained unpaid. The entitlement to arrears of pay does not, by itself, conclusively determine the entitlement to interest thereon. The latter issue requires consideration of the applicable service rules and administrative instructions on the subject apart from consideration of the circumstances responsible for the delay, and whether the delay in payment can be attributable to any unjustified action or inaction on the part of the respondents.

9. In the present case, the applicant has already received the arrears of pay admissible to him at par with his juniors as evident from the reply of the respondents. However, the applicant has not been able to establish his case for payment of interest on arrears. He has not alleged malafide on behalf of the respondents intentionally delaying the payment of arrears in the O.A. It is clear from the records that the applicant was granted promotion to the post of LPG II in 2011 and his seniority has RAJUL NAMDEO

RAJU L NAM DEO

been restored at par with his juniors. In the instant case, admittedly the applicant has been assigned the correct seniority at par with his juniors as per Estt. Srl. No. 273/64. The pay of the applicant has been refixed from the date his juniors got the revised pay. It is also evident from the reply of the respondents that the arrears from 2011 to 2015 have also been paid for the period when he actually did not shoulder higher responsibilities. 9.1 Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana, (2008) 3 SCC 44, wherein the Hon'ble Court has recognised that an employee may claim interest on delayed service benefits by relying upon applicable statutory rules, administrative instructions or, in an appropriate case, constitutional principles. The decision, however, does not dispense with the need to examine the facts and circumstances governing the particular claim.

10. Therefore, the O.A. is dismissed both on the account of delay as well as on merits. No order as to costs.

(Mallika Arya) (Rajinder Singh Dogra) Administrative Member Judicial Member

rajul RAJUL NAMDEO

RAJU L NAM DEO