GANGADHAR MAILARAPPA MACHAKNUR vs CENTRAL RAILWAY on 26 October 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI Order Sheet Item no.: 28 O.A./233/2025 (MUMBAI) [ STEPPING UP OF PAY ] [ SENIOR CITIZEN ] With M.A./900/2026 DELETION OF R-1 Court No.: 2 No of Adjournment: 13 Order Dated: 26/10/2026 GANGADHAR MAILARAPPA MACHAKNUR Vs CENTRAL RAILWAY

For Applicant(s) Advocate : Mr. A V Shinde For Respondent(s) Advocate : Dr. Vinay S Masurkar Order of The Tribunal MA No. 900/2026, which is an application for deletion of respondent no. 1. In the present application, it is stated that the applicant, who was Chief Loco Inspector, has filed OA on 05.02.2025 stated his age in the title as 60 years. It is clear from reliefs sought in para 8 at page 34, he is aggrieved by the order dated 14.10.2024 issued by the office of the DRM, CSTM. Thus, the respondent no. 1 is neither his appointing authority nor his appellate authority nor his grievance against the Secretary, Railway Board. Thus, the said authority is neither proper nor necessary party to the OA. The Zone in charge of Central Railway is already impleaded as respondent no. 2.

2. It is stated that in the light of the aforesaid, the grievance of the applicant pertains to stepping up of pay, all prayers are within Gr. C only. The Competent authority to grant or not to grant the said relief, is well within the jurisdiction of the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai, who is already respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 3 is DRM, Central Railway. Thus, the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi- 110011, who has been impleaded as respondent no. 1 in this OA, is not necessary party and therefore, this MA for deletion of name of the Secretary, Railway Board from array of respondents in the OA.

3. On that basis, it is submitted that to delete the name of respondent no. 1 to the extent of the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi- 110011 from the array of respondents.

4. The applicant has filed the reply to the said application stating that the applicant is seeking a stepping-up of pay to bring it at par with his junior, Mr. Sayyad Eqbal. Because the rules, circulars, and policy decisions governing the pay scales, pay fixation, and anomalies arising from stepping-up of pay are framed, issued, and regulated directly by the Railway Board, the Board is a necessary party to these proceedings. Any relief granted to the applicant will inherently involve the policy frameworks established by the Railway Board. 4.1 It is submitted that the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Railway Board is a necessary and proper party to the present OA. Although, the immediate administrative jurisdiction, appointing authority, and appellate powers rest with respondents no. 2 & 3, any policy decison, clarification, or financial sanction regarding the stepping up of pay and the rectification of pay anomalies is ultimately governed by the guidelines and rules issued by the Railway Board. Since, the relief claimed by the applicant directly involves the interpretation and implementation of the apex-level railway establishement rules, the presence of respondent no. 1 is essential for an effective, complete, and binding adjudication of the dispute. 4.2 It is further submitted that it is a well settled principle of law that the strict technicalities of the CPC do not strictly apply to proceedings before this Tribunal. The issue of impleading the Railway Board in identical matters have already been settled by this Tribunal.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in application, it is a specific stand of the department that the competent authority to grant or not to grant the relief claimed in the OA is well within the jurisdiction of General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai. Further, in reply, applicant has also accepted to the fact that immediate administative jurisdiction, the appointing authority and appellate authority powers rest with the respondent no. 2 & 3. However, it is the stand of the applicant that for policy decision, clarification or financial sanction regarding stepping up of pay, the Railway Board guidelines and rules are ultimately governing the field but fact remains that in the present OA, no guidelines or policy decision of the Railway Board is under challenge.

7. Further, the department is praying for only deletion of the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, mentioning thereby the Union of India can be represented through General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai.

8. Taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect, the MA No. 900/2026 is allowed. Applicant is directed to delete the name of the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi- 110011 (respondent no. 1).

9. List the matter on 26.11.2026. MR. UMESH GAJANKUSH Member (J) Mr. Shri Krishna Member (A) Rashmi ( )