RAJ KUMAR VERMA vs RAILWAY BOARD on 29 October 2026

1. The Uni New Del

2. The Gen

3. The Gen

4. The Divi Danapur

5. The Sen Division

6. The Sr. Danapur

7. The Div Danapur

For Appl For Resp

1. The ap the Adm relief:

CENTRAL ADMINISTRA PATNA BENCH, O.A. No. 050/00

Pro

C O R A M

ON’BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH C

r Verma, Son of late Jiv Nandan O+PS- Khagaul, District- Patna, w Senior Sectional Engineer (P-Way Danapur-800012.

Versu

ion of India through the Chairma lhi-110001. neral Manager, East Central Railwa neral Manager (P), East Central Rai isional Railway Manager, East Ce r-800012. nior Divisional Personnel Officer, n, Danapur-800012. DEN Co-ordination, East Cent r-800012. vision Engineer (HQ), East Cen r-800012.

licant:- Mr. S.K. Baria pondents:- Mr. T.N. Thak O R D Per: Mr. Kumar Rajesh C plicant has approached this T ministrative Tribunals Act, 19 i. The applicant humbly pra directed to grant benefits Railway Service (Pension) No. 41/2023 dated 10.03

ATIVE TRIBUNAL , PATNA

Reserved on: - 15.10.2026 onounced on:- 29.10.2026 M CHANDRA, MEMBER [A] n Ram, Resident of Rampur Gari working as Orderly/Peon at Ara y), East Central Railway, Danapur

………Applicant us an, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, ay, Hajipur-844101. ilway, Hajipur-844101. entral Railway, Danapur Division, , East Central Railway, Danapur tral Railway, Danapur Division, ntral Railway, Danapur Division,

……..Respondents ar, ld. Adv. kur, ld. Sr. CGSC E R Chandra, Member (A): Tribunal under Section 19 of 985 praying for the following ays that the respondents may be s of Old Pension Scheme under ) Rules, 1993 in pursuance of RBE .2023 read with Government of i a r , , r , , s f g e r E f Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench

2. For the in the O 2.1 2.2 2.3

India Department of P 57/05/2021-P&PW(B) date ii. The Office Order No. E/Co 13.07.2021 (Annexure A-1 arbitrary and be qua amendment has been 05.07.2024 passed in M iii. Any relief/s be granted to t

e sake of clarity, facts in the ca OA, are delineated herein und The Railway Board vide letter that Labours of Quasi Admin Casual Labours for the pur Group-D posts. Pursuant ther [IR], Eastern Railway, Kolkat Order dated 14.12.1999 to su labours of Quasi Administra absorption. In compliance th Manager, Eastern Railway casual labours (including the which was placed before Railw Vide letter dated 11.06.2001, t casual labours for regularisa were from Danapur Division, Personnel Officer [IR], Easte dated 12.06.2001 directed th concerned to conduct screen casuals. Accordingly, the Danapur issued a list of 21 c vide letter dated 03.01.2002 18.01.2002. However, the sc of litigation filed by 08 u 40/2002, Siya Ram & Others Instead of allowing those participate in the screening

Pension & PW (B), OM No. ed 03.03.2023. ourt Cell/OA No. 122/2021 dated

15) may be treated illegal and ashed and set aside. (This n made vide order dated MA No. 384 of 2024). the applicant for ends of justice. ase as stated by the applicant der:- r dated 26.08.1977 had decided nistrative Offices be treated as rpose of regularisation against reto, the Chief Personnel Officer ta issued directions vide Office ubmit details of eligible casual ative Offices for screening for hereto, the Divisional Railway submitted details of eligible e applicant) for regularisation, way Board for approval. the Railway Board approved 67 ation. Out of these, 21 casuals , including the applicant. Chief ern Railway, Kolkata vide letter e Divisional Railway Managers ning and regularise the said 67 Divisional Railway Manager, casuals including the applicant 2 for screening to be held on creening was cancelled because unapproved casuals (OA No. vs. UOI). 08 unapproved casuals to g as per interim order dated

. d d s d t d s t r e l r y e , s f r s

, t n e . o d Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 2.4 2.5

3. Learne 3.1

16.01.2002, the responden screening. Later, screening w only for the approved 21 casua was duly empanelled. Due to passed on 24.02.2003 in OA process of the 21 empanelled c remained pending. OA No. 40/2002 filed by eventually dismissed on 20.1 confirmed by the Hon’ble Patn CWJC No. 15483/2004. Th candidates of Danapur, includ appointed on 08.08.2005. A same approved panel of 67 ca 02 itself and were granted the (Pension) Rules, 1993 (Old P applicant and 20 others of Da only in August 2005 and National Pension System (N New Pension Scheme. Government of India, Depart OM dated 17.02.2020 {No. 57 employees recruited against prior to 01.01.2004 to switch The Railway Board adopted 28/2020 dated 03.03.2020. option under the above OM an duly forwarded the same v However, his request was through a non-speaking orde the ground that his selectio 01.01.2004. d Counsel for the applicant su The applicant belonged to th casuals issued by Railway Boa While others from this panel nts cancelled the scheduled was conducted on 19.02.2003 als, including the applicant who o interim order of “status quo” No. 40/2002, the appointment candidates of Danapur Division y 8 unapproved casuals was 10.2004, and the dismissal was na High Court on 07.12.2005 in hereafter, the 21 empanelled ding the applicant, were finally All other candidates from the asuals were regularised in 2001- e benefit of the Railway Service Pension Scheme). However, the anapur Division were appointed were thus placed under the NPS) popularly understood as tment of Pension & PW issued 7/04/2019-P&PW(B)} allowing t vacancies advertised/notified h to the Old Pension Scheme. d the same through RBE No. . The applicant exercised his nd RBE, and the Head of Office vide letter dated 09.05.2020. rejected by the respondents er dated 13.07.2021 merely on on was not finalized prior to ubmits that: he same panel of 67 approved ard vide letter dated 11.06.2001. l were regularised in 2001- 02

d o ” t n s s n d y e - e e d e s d g d . . s e . s n o d .

Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6

and granted Old Pension Sch Danapur, including the app benefit. Such discrimination i The delay in appointment compliance of interim ord respondents and the resultan already screened and empan to the introduction of NPS principle of law that delay lapses or interim orders of detriment of interest of the em As per para 3(ii) of the OM whose recruitment process w are entitled to Old Pension Sc made later. Since Railway Bo 11.06.2001 and the applicant his recruitment process c 01.01.2004. The disposal order dated 13 option is arbitrary, cryptic, simply states that selectio 01.01.2004, without consider conducted in 2003 and delay was solely due to respondent court. The respondents have ext benefits to vocational cours examinations prior to 01.01.2 were subsequent. Denial o applicant, despite his case be and arbitrary. The judicial precedents recruitment/selection proc 01.01.2004, appointees cann Scheme merely because the f issued after 01.01.2004.

heme, only the 21 candidates of plicant, were denied the same s arbitrary. t was entirely due to non- der dated 16.01.2002 by the nt litigation. The applicant was elled on 19.02.2003, i.e., prior on 01.01.2004. It is a settled caused due to administrative courts cannot be used to the mployees. M dated 17.02.2020, employees as initiated prior to 01.01.2004 cheme, even if appointment was oard had approved the panel on t was screened on 19.02.2003, clearly commenced prior to 3.07.2021 rejecting applicant’s and devoid of reasoning. It on was not finalized before ring the fact that screening was y in issuing appointment letter ts’ lapses and interim orders of tended Old Pension Scheme se students who only passed 004 though their appointments of similar treatment to the eing stronger, is discriminatory have held that where ess commenced prior to ot be deprived of Old Pension formal appointment order was f e - e s r d e e s s n , o s t e s r f e d s e y e o n s Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench

4. Per con 4.1 4.2 4.3

ntra, learned Counsel for the r The applicant was initially Committee of a Quasi-Adm which was a recreation club railway employees. All wages the private Managing Comm Administration. Thus, there employer and employee be applicant. Staff of Quasi-A therefore, be treated as cas Administration. The content himself as a casual labourer is Vide RBE No.103/2000 da Board allowed, as a one-tim absorption of only those Offices/Organisations who ha at least three years as on 10. subject to educational quali exhausting Live Casual Labo were circulated by the CPO (I dated 12.06.2001 to all D Screening of such staff was t Railway Board’s directives, no That the screening was initi However, due to interim orde scheduled date for screening (Siya Ram & Ors. vs. U.O.I. directed to allow 8 applicants screening but restrained fr without leave of the Tribun screening could not be compl be postponed. The process constraints and not because o the respondents. Although 19.02.2003, the result could Tribunal’s interim order of respondents submits that: y engaged by the Managing ministrative Office, Danapur, managed by a private body for and remuneration were paid by mittee and not by the Railway e existed no relationship of etween the Railways and the Administrative Offices cannot, sual labourers of the Railway tion of the applicant declaring s misconceived and untenable. ated 30.05.2000, the Railway me relaxation, consideration of staff of Quasi-Administrative ad been continuously on roll for .06.1997 and were still on roll, ifications, age-limit, and after our Registers. These directions IR)/Eastern Railway vide letter Divisions including Danapur. to be conducted strictly as per ot as casual labour absorption. ially scheduled on 18.01.2002. er dated 16.01.2002, prior to the g, passed in O.A. No.40/2002 & Ors.), the respondents were s provisionally to appear in the from publishing their results nal. Owing to this order, the leted on 18.01.2002 and had to was delayed due to judicial of any mala fide on the part of h screening was held on d not be declared due to the f 16.01.2002 and subsequent g , r y y f e , y g y f e r , r s r . r . e e e s e o l f n e t Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 4.4 4.5 4.6

status-quo order dated 2 operative till disposal of O.A The Tribunal dismissed O.A. there was no employer-empl High Court also affirmed this on 07.12.2005, observing th perpetuate an illegality. Since the Railway Administration control. But for such orders declared prior to 31.12.2003 any advantage from such dela Further, as per Para-4 of the D (adopted by Railways vid 03.03.2020), only those c recruitment were declared vacancies occurring on or be coverage under CCS (Pens Services (Pension) Rules, 199 result of screening held on before 01.01.2004 due to su Tribunal. Thus, the conditi 17.02.2020 and RBE No.28/2 The case of the applicant i vocational course trainees or were declared before interpretation that initiat 01.01.2004 is sufficient is w dated 17.02.2020 categorica result before the cut-off date. The applicant’s representa reasoned order dated 13.07.2 the ground that the selection before 01.01.2004. This reje O.M. dated 17.02.2020, RB pronouncements. O.A. No. 050/00420/2024 24.02.2003, which remained A. No.40/2002 on 20.10.2004. No.40/2002 on merits holding oyee relationship. The Hon’ble view in CWJC No. 15483/2004 hat no writ could be issued to e the judicial orders restrained n, the delay was beyond its , the results would have been

3. The applicant cannot derive ay caused by pending litigation. DOP&T O.M. dated 17.02.2020 de RBE No.28/2020 dated candidates whose results for d before 01.01.2004 against fore 31.12.2003 are eligible for sion) Rules, 1972 / Railway

93. In the applicant’s case, the 19.02.2003 was not declared ubsisting interim orders of the on prescribed in O.M. dated 2020 is not satisfied. s not comparable to cases of other categories where results 01.01.2004. The applicant’s ion of recruitment before wholly misconceived. The O.M. ally mandates declaration of ation was reconsidered. Vide 2021, his claim was rejected on n process could not be finalized ection was in conformity with BE No.28/2020, and judicial d . g e o d s n e d r t r y e d e d f s s e . f e n d h l Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 4.7

5. In reply applica respond 5.1 5.2 5.3

In conclusion, the applicant labourer, his absorption proce 01.01.2004 due to subsisting covered under the condition the instant Original Applicati being devoid of merit and not y to the Written Statement f ant filed his rejoinder re dents as under:- Railway Board has issued 10.03.2023 (Railway Board F(E)III) adopting the Office M P&PW(B) dated 03.03.2023 o Pensioner’s Welfare, Governm circular, employees who wer National Pension System (NP option to be governed under Rules, 1993/Old Pension Sch the conditions laid down there Since the applicant fulfilled th No. 41/2023, he submitted 25.03.2023 requesting covera (Pension) Rules, 1993. The s been forwarded by the Head authority and the matter is sti The applicant has strong and v under para-4 of OM No. 03.03.2023. The recruitment fact commenced with the sc 19.02.2003. However, issuan delayed solely due to an int passed in OA No. 40/2002 Hence, for the purpose of app read with the above OM, the falls within its ambit. The ap t was never a Railway casual ess could not be finalized before g court orders, and he is not s of RBE No.28/2020. Hence, ion is liable to be dismissed as sustainable in law. filed by the respondents, the butting the claim of the d RBE No. 41/2023 dated d Letter No. D-43/12/2016- Memorandum No. 57/05/2021- of the Department of Pension & ment of India. By virtue of this re otherwise covered under the PS) were allowed to exercise an the Railway Services (Pension) heme, subject to fulfillment of ein. he eligibility criteria under RBE d a representation/option on age under the Railway Services said representation has already of the Office to the competent ill pending final disposal. valid grounds for being covered 57/05/2021-P&PW(B) dated process of the applicant had in creening examination held on nce of appointment order was terim order dated 24.02.2003 [Siya Ram & Others vs. UOI]. plicability of RBE No. 41/2023 e case of the applicant squarely pplicant also comes within the l e t , s e e d - - & s e n ) f E n s y t d d n n s

.

y e Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench

6. In reply filed th reiterat submitt 06.02.2 were n prior to Scheme

7. Moreov New D quasi-a does no under appoint under t

8. During filed O 14.10.2

order) dated compa scope of para-3(ii) of DoP&PW with RBE No. 28/2020 dated provided that employees who beyond 01.01.2004 due to a cases, despite having been se under the Old Pension Schem y to the rejoinder filed by th heir supplementary written st ted the same facts as stated in ted that as per Railway Boa 2024 and 12.04.2024, indiv ot initiated through a regula o 22.12.2003 cannot claim th e under RBE No. 41/2023 dat ver, in terms of Railway Boar Delhi dated 19.11.2004 (RBA administrative offices or tem ot confer any right available t the Government. Service tment cannot be counted or the Old Pension Scheme. the pendency of the OA, the Office Order No. E/NPS-OP 026 in which it was stated tha “As per record and this dated 13.07.2021 & CPO/E 12.06.2001, the cases h ared, it appears that both ca

W letter dated 17.02.2020 read d 03.03.2020, which specifically ose appointments were delayed dministrative reasons or court elected earlier, shall be covered me. he applicant, the respondents tatement in which they have n their written statement and ard clarification letters dated viduals whose appointments ar notification/advertisement he benefit of the Old Pension ted 10.03.2023. rd letter no. 2004/AC-II/21/1 A 43/2004), engagement in mporary/casual status service to the holder of a regular post rendered prior to regular combined to extend benefits e counsel for respondents has PS/09/2026 Danapur, dated at: office letter (i.e., speaking Eastern Railway vide letter have been examined and ases are similar.”

d y d t d s e d d s t n n e t r s s d g r d Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench

9. I have h on reco to the f 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4

heard rival contentions of the ord. I have considered the ma following conclusion: The applicant was one of the whose names were duly recom vide letter dated 11.06.2001. H of screening on 19.02.2003, his recruitment process had c date of 01.01.2004. The sole reason for the delay letter beyond 01.01.2004 w 24.02.2003 passed in O.A. N unapproved casual labour authorities from issuing appoi It is further material to note same panel of 67 approved screened along with him an finalized before 01.01.2004, w Railway Services (Pension) Scheme). Denying the same stood on identical footing bu amounts to invidious discrimi The position of law has Government of India, Depart Welfare vide OM dated 03.03.2023, which have been Board through RBE No. 28 RBE No. 41/2023 dated categorically provide that e process had commenced pr appointment was delayed o lapses or court orders, are t Pension Scheme instead of National Pension System (NP

parties and perused material atter in its entirety and come e 67 approved casual labourers mmended by the Railway Board He was subjected to the process which clearly establishes that commenced prior to the cut-off in issuance of his appointment was the interim order dated No. 40/2002, filed by certain rers, which restrained the intment orders. that other candidates from the d casual labourers, who were nd whose appointments were were extended the benefit of the ) Rules, 1993 (Old Pension benefit to the applicant, who t for the Court’s interim order, ination. since been clarified by the tment of Pension & Pensioner’s 17.02.2020 and OM dated n duly adopted by the Railway 8/2020 dated 03.03.2020 and 10.03.2023. These circulars employees whose recruitment ior to 01.01.2004, but whose on account of administrative to be governed under the Old f being compelled under the S).

l e s d s t f t d n e e e e e n o , e s d y d s t e e d e Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 9.5 9.6 9.7

pk/-

In spite of these facts, the r was rejected vide impugned o not only cryptic and non-spea the binding instructions con RBEs and OMs. Such r unreasonable, and unsustaina However, vide order respondents have adm 420/2024 (Sri Raj Kumar exactly similar to the ord duly affirmed by the Hon Accordingly, it is concluded entitled to coverage under t Rules, 1993 (Old Pension consequential benefits. The d miscarriage of justice which setting aside the impugned directing the respondents to Pension Scheme to the applica Accordingly, O.A. stands allow

(

representation of the applicant order dated 13.07.2021, which is aking, but also runs contrary to ntained in the aforementioned rejection is thus arbitrary, able in law. dated 14.10.2026, the mitted that this OA No. r Verma vs. UOI & Ors.) is der of OA No. 465 of 2021 n’ble High Court of Patna. d that the applicant is fully the Railway Services (Pension) n Scheme) along with all denial of such benefit is a clear h deserves to be rectified by d order dated 13.07.2021 and extend the benefit of the Old ant. wed. No order as to cost. (Kumar Rajesh Chandra)

Member (A)

t s o d , e . s

. y ) l r y d d ) Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI