RAVINDRA SINGH vs M/o Railways on 12 October 2026

ORDER

Per : Hon’ble Shri Lok Ranjan, Member (A)

The present Original Application has been filed by the Applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs –

“8(i) To pass an appropriate order or direction whereby Respondents be directed to accept the option exercised by the Applicants, for continuing to draw salary and other payments in the 6th Pay Commission recommendations Notification dated 29.8.2008, in terms of Rule 5 of Notification dated 28.7.2016, till 8.12.2016 (date on which Applicants were promoted on the post of Loco Pilot Goods), with all consequential benefits and arrears in favour of the Applicants.

8(ii) To pass an appropriate order or direction whereby the orders dated 8.8.2017 and order dated 31.3.2017 be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits in favour of the Applicants.

8(iii) To pass an appropriate order or direction whereby Applicants be fixed in the recommendations of Seventh Pay Commission as per Notification dated 28.7.2016 after accepting the option exercised by them under Rule 5 of the Rules of 2016.

8(iv) To pass an appropriate order or direction whereby Applicants be given their due arrear alongwith interest @ 24% per annum.

8(v) Any other appropriate order or direction which the Hon'ble Tribunal may consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be passed.”

2. The present common Application had been filed by 33 Applicants in all, purportedly because it was in respect of common questions of law and facts in respect of the issue being raised – viz., all of them had been working on the same post at the time of notification of the Railway Servants NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

6 OA No.594/2017

(Revision of Pay) Rules, 2016 [RS(RP) Rules-2016] on 28.07.2016 by the Respondent Department Railways vide RBE No.90/2016 ; they were all claiming the same set of reliefs based on same grounds upon being aggrieved by the same set of actions/orders of the Respondents, which had been impugned vide the present O.A. Consequently, the claims of all the Applicants in the present Order are considered together as hereafter – however, the facts in respect of Applicant No.1, one Randhir Singh, have been taken wherever necessary, unless stated otherwise.

3. The Applicants, who were working on the post of Senior Assistant Loco Pilot at the relevant time, were governed by the RS(RP) Rules-2016 dated 28.07.2016 (Annexure A-8), applicable with effect from 01.01.2016, as were notified by the Respondent Department Railway pursuant to recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission (C.P.C.). As required vide the relevant Rule, the Applicant No.1 gave the option on 26.10.2016, within the period of three months of notification in the Form of Option prescribed for electing the revision of pay. He had thereby elected to continue on the pre-revised running Pay Band and Grade Pay of his then substantive/officiating post, i.e as per the RS(RP) Rules- 2006, till further promotion on the post of Loco Pilot-Goods on a later/future unspecified date, which eventually came to be accorded to him vide Order dated 08.12.2016.

However, it was claimed that the same had been denied by the Respondents on the ground that the Applicant No.1 was promoted vide order dated 08.12.2016, which was subsequent to the date of notification, i.e. 28.07.2016 ; and as such, the same is not in consonance with Rule-5 of the NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

7 OA No.594/2017

RS(RP) Rules-2016 notified vide the RBE No.90/2016. In support of the claimed denial, copies of the Note dated 08.08.2017 (unspecified Department/Signatory Designation) with reference to RTI case of certain Applicants (other than Applicant No.1) ; and Ministry of Railways communication dated 31.03.2017 addressed to General Secretary, National Federation of Indian Railwaymen were submitted as impugned communications vide the present O.A.

4. The Applicants have invoked Rule-5 of the RS(RP) Rules, 2016 and have sought to interpret the same in their favour, contending that they were entitled to draw the existing pay till they were eventually promoted on the post of Loco Pilot (Goods) on 08.12.2016, although that was unspecified at the time of submission of their initial Option Form (i.e., 26.10.2016, for Applicant No.1), as well as beyond the date of notification of the RS(RP) Rules-2016 on 27.08.2016.

5. On the other hand, the Respondents have also invoked the same Rule-5 of the RS(RP) Rules-2016 and have read the same to mean that the employee was entitled to opt to continue in the existing pay structure till the next promotion /upgradation and to switch over to the revised pay structure from the date of next promotion/upgradation, provided the same had taken place between 01.01.2016 to 28.07.2016, i.e. between the date of effect and the date of the notification of the RS(RP) Rules-2016. Upon reference, the said Rule-5 is found to read as hereunder :

“5. Drawal of pay in the revised pay structure –

Save as otherwise provided in these rules, a Railway servant shall draw pay in the Level in the revised pay structure applica- ble to the post to which he is appointed: NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

8 OA No.594/2017

Provided that a Railway servant may elect to continue to draw pay in the existing pay structure until the date on which he earns his next or any subsequent increment in the existing pay structure or until he vacates his post or ceases to draw pay in the existing pay structure:

Provided further that in cases where a Railway servant has been placed in a higher grade pay or scale between 1st day of January, 2016 and the date of notification of these Rules on account of promotion or upgradation, the Railway servant may elect to switch over to the revised pay structure from the date of such promotion or upgradation, as the case may be.

Explanation 1 - The option to retain the existing pay structure under the provisos to this rule shall be admissible only in re- spect of one existing Pay Band and Grade Pay or scale.

Explanation 2 - The aforesaid option shall not be admissible to any person appointed to a post for the first time in Railway Service or by transfer from another post on or after the 1st day of January, 2016, and he shall be allowed pay only in the revised pay structure.

Explanation 3 - Where a Railway servant exercises the option under the provisos to this rule to retain the existing pay structure of a post held by him in an officiating capacity on a regular basis for the purpose of regulation of pay in that Pay Structure under Rule 1313 (FR 22) of Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume II, or under any other rule or order applicable to that post, his substantive pay shall be substantive pay which he would have drawn had he retained the existing pay structure in respect of the permanent post on which he holds a lien or would have held a lien had his lien not been suspended or the pay of the officiating post which has ac- quired the character of substantive pay in accordance with any order for the time being in force, whichever is higher.” (Emphasis provided)

6. The learned Counsel for the Applicants had presented that there were two possible situations – one, where the next promotion/upgradation had yet not taken place since 01.01.2016 till 28.07.2016 ; and two, where the employee had already been promoted/upgraded within the specific NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

9 OA No.594/2017

timeline of 01.01.2016 to 28.07.2016. Further, it was argued that present Applicants were in the first situation – so the first proviso, would purportedly apply to them ; according to which any such employee can opt for existing pay till the next promotion/upgradation got accorded to him, for which no timeline was provided. For other cases of employees in the second situation, they can opt for only one of the two Grade Pay/Scale, because there are two Grade Pay/Scale available during this period, as per the second proviso.

Relevant reference was drawn to the Rule-5 together with its two provisos as those figured in the RS(RP) Rules-2016 as cited supra. A plain reading of the same showed that the first proviso thereof actually provided that a Railway servant may elect to continue to draw pay in the existing pay structure until the date on which he earns his next or any subsequent increment in the existing pay structure or until he vacates his post or ceases to draw pay in the existing pay structure. Thus, it was shown that the first proviso had mentioned of next or any subsequent increment in the existing pay structure ; or of vacation of post or ceasing to draw pay in the existing pay structure ; but it had not mentioned of promotion or upgradation specifically, which had been actually mentioned specifically in the second provision.

However, the learned Counsel for the Applicants had in continuance of his related arguments sought to present that the promotion or upgradation of an employee would also lead to the vacation of post or ceasing to draw pay in the existing pay structure – hence by such interpretation it was claimed that the Applicants’ case was to be covered under first proviso to Rule-5. NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

10 OA No.594/2017

7. It was secondly argued by the learned Counsel for the Applicants that the Explanation-1 under Rule-5 – i.e. the option to retain the existing pay structure shall be admissible only in respect of one existing pay band and grade pay or scale – would apply only to the second proviso, i.e. in cases where the Railway Servant had been placed in a higher Grade Pay or scale on account of promotion/ upgradation between 01.01.2016 and 28.07.2016, (i.e. the date of the notification of the RS(RP) Rules-2016) ; and would not apply to the cases to be considered under the first proviso. As the basis for such interpretation, it was argued that since the Explanations-(1 to 3) under the provisos to Rule-5 had been stated after the second proviso, those would apply only to the second proviso ; and not to the cases covered by the first proviso, which had earlier itself been claimed to apply to the Applicants’ cases.

It is relevant to refer to the Rule-5 together with its two provisos and the three explanations thereunder, as those figured in the RS(RP) Rules-2016 as cited supra. A plain reading of the explanations shows that the word ’provisos’ (i.e. in plural) is used in Explanation-1 and Explanation-3. Further, Explanation-2 was in respect of any person appointed to a post for the first time in Railway Service after 01.01.2016, who would be allowed pay only in the revised pay structure. Hence, it emerged in as far as the aforesaid Explanations-(1 and 3) were concerned, those apply equally to both the ‘provisos’ under Rule-5 and Explanation-2 was for a situation not covered by either of the two ‘provisos’ under Rule-5. Thus, altogether, all the three explanations were shown to apply/not apply, equally in respect of each of NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

11 OA No.594/2017

the two ‘provisos’ under Rule-5.

8. Thus, the issue remaining to be settled hereby was that in the situation that the Applicants were not promoted between 01.01.2016 and 27.08.2016, but came to be eventually promoted later on 08.12.2016, whether their case would be considered only as per the first proviso to Rule-5.

The learned Counsel for the Respondents had argued that the second proviso was applicable specifically for cases of promotion/upgradation ; whereas the first proviso was applicable for certain situations other than promotion/ upgradation. In reference to the RS(RP) Rules-2016, the relevant provisions were inter alia incorporated also in the Rule-3 ‘Definitions’ vide clause-(iv) thereof – wherein while defining ‘existing pay structure’, certain situations, such as deputation out of India, deputation, foreign service, officiation in a higher post inter alia, had been included vide Explanation thereof ; and further in the Memorandum of Explanation to the RS(RP) Rules-2016 – wherein in respect of Rule-5, it had specifically been mentioned that its intention was that all Railway servants should be brought over to the revised pay structure, except those who elect existing pay structure, again enumerating certain such situations as deputation, officiation in a higher post inter alia.

The Respondents had also submitted in this regard that the impugned communication dated 31.03.2017 was addressed to the General Secretary, National Federation of Indian Railwaymen with reference to his letter dated 06.01.2017 raising the demand for opportunity for revision of option for staff promoted after the date of notification of RS(RP) Rules- NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

12 OA No.594/2017

2016 (i.e. 28.07.2016). In response to the demand received, it was conveyed to the Secretary of the said employees’ federation that such one-time dispensation to continue in the existing pay structure even after promotion/upgradation had been allowed only to the employees promoted between 01.01.2016 and 28.07.2016 ; and the same could not be extended to others. Further, the decision to permit further revision of option once taken cannot be taken unilaterally by Railway Board alone and was needed to be taken in consultation with the Ministry of Finance, as it was a general policy matter pertaining to all government employees.

9. The option of the Applicant No.1 dated 26.10.2016 was also referred to as relevant in this regard. It was noted at the outset that on the date of exercising such option, which at first was exercised after the notification of the RS(RP) Rules-2016, the Applicant had neither been accorded the promotion to the post of Loco Pilot-Goods, nor was such a promotion assured for him w.e.f. any specific date.

A perusal of the Option Form dated 26.10.2016 of Applicant No.1 showed that he had deleted entirely the Clause-1 thereof, pertaining to option for the revised pay structure w.e.f. 01.01.2016 ; and under the Clause-2 thereof, the specific options for continuing in the existing Pay Band and Grade Pay – either until the date of his next increment / or, until the date of his subsequent increment / or, the vacation or ceasing to draw pay in the existing Pay structure – had been clearly scored out, indicating thereby that he had opted for those to be not applied to his case. Thus, only the option to continue on his existing Pay Band and Grade Pay until his promotion to the post of Loco Pilot-Goods was selected, NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

13 OA No.594/2017

without specifying its date. Thus, the said Option Form dated 26.10.2016 clearly brought out that the Applicant No.1 had furnished the option for continuing in the existing scale until promotion and not until vacation or ceasing to draw pay in the existing pay structure.

10. Nonetheless, the Applicant had relied upon the clarification issued by the Railway Board later on 15.06.2018 in the context of RS(RP) Rules-2016, whereby on the issue of whether the ‘exercise of option for switching over to 7th CPC effective from the date of promotion falling after the date of notification, i.e. 28.07.2016’ - it had been advised that if such an option was exercised within the stipulated time as per Rule-6 of the RS(RP) Rules-2016, the same shall be valid and acceptable. Since the Applicant No.1 had exercised at first the Option on 26.10.2018, which was within the stipulated time (viz. within three months of the date of notification of the RS(RP) Rules-2016), the same itself ought to be considered valid and acceptable.

Moreover, the Applicants had submitted that the RBE No.197/2018 dated 17.12.2018 of the Railway Board had made applicable mutatis mutandis the dispensation given to other Government servants covered under the CCS(RP) Rules-2016 in Railways also with respect to the RS(RP) Rules-2016. Accordingly, Railway servants also were allowed an opportunity to revise their initial option in terms of Rule-5 and Rule-6 of the RS(RP) Rules-2016 within three months from 12.12.2018. Purportedly, the Applicants had revised the option to continue in the existing Pay Band and Grade Pay until the vacation or ceasing to draw pay in the existing Pay structure (copy of the revised Option dated 14.01.2019 NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

14 OA No.594/2017

on record for Applicant No.26). Hence, the options submitted initially by the Applicants stood revised subsequently as such ; and those revised options were required to be considered presently.

11. The learned Counsel for the Applicants had placed before us the Order passed by the Hon’ble Patna Bench (Ranchi Circuit) of this Tribunal in the case of Ashwani Kumar and Ors. Vs. Union of India and others in O.A. No.437/2022 decided on 10.10.2023, dealing with a similar controversy, which was taken on record ; and relevantly extracted hereunder –

“15. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, SSC has argued that a Rule promulgated by the President in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution has the status of law and cannot be modified through an executive order. He refers to the second proviso to Rule 5 which provides that a Railway servant, getting promotion or upgradation between 1st January 2016 and 28.07.2016 may elect to switch over to the revised pay structure from the date of such promotion / upgradation. On the other hand the Circular dated 15.06.2018, permits an employee to exercise the option to switch over to 7th CPC from the date of promotion even if falling after 28.07.2016.

16. We find no contradiction between the provisions of Rule 5 of the RS (RP) Rules, 2016 and the clarification provided by the Railway Board vide communication dated 15.06.2018. The second proviso to Rule 5 permits exercise of option of switching over to the 7th CPC from the date of promotion / upgradation if a Railway been promoted between 1st January 2016 and 28.07.2016. The Railway Board communication dated 15.06.2018 clarifies that even those who were promoted after 28.07.2016 can exercise the option of switching over to 7th CPC subject to the time limit stipulated under Rule 6 of the RS (RP) Rules.

17. Allahabad Bench of CAT allowed OA No.1367 of 2018 in which the Applicant had prayed for similar relief as in the instant OA. The Coordinate Bench disposed of the OA "with NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

15 OA No.594/2017

the direction to the competent authority amongst the Respondents that the pay of the Applicants be fixed in accordance with the option they have exercised and in accordance with the clarification issued by the communication dated 15.06.2018 and also on the analogy on which the pay fixation of the other employees who got promoted, has been fixed." ………

22. We are of considered view that interest of justice would be served if the impugned order is quashed and set aside and Respondents are directed to consider the Applicants' claim for fixation of their pay in the revised pay structure of 7th CPC from the date of promotion taking into consideration the clarification provided by the Railway Board in circular dated 15.06.2018 (para 12 above) and the opportunity permitted to revise the options under RBE 197/2018 and pass a speaking order within four months from the date of receipt of this order. Ordered accordingly.”

It had thus been presented that the co-ordinate Hon’ble Patna Bench of Tribunal (sitting at Ranchi) had decided the issue of whether option to switch to the revised pay structure from the date of promotion/upgradation was available to employees whose promotion occurred after the date of Notification of the relevant Revision of Pay Rules in the Ashwani Kumar case (supra). It had been directed vide the Order dated 10.10.2023 that taking into consideration the clarification provided by the Railway Board in circular dated 15.06.2018 (para 12 above) and the opportunity permitted to revise the options under RBE No.197/2018, the Applicants' claim for fixation of their pay in the revised pay structure of 7th CPC from the date of promotion was required to be considered and a speaking order passed within the time period specified thereby.

12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents had relied upon the Order of this Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No.366/2015 (Subhash Dubey Vs. Union of India) NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

16 OA No.594/2017

decided on 20.12.2024 ; relevantly extracted hereunder –

“10. Thus, in respect of the issue whether the Applicant could be allowed the pay revision by exercising option as per FR-22(I)(a)(1) to be effective from the date of his next increment in the lower post (i.e. Senior Goods Clerk), it is noted from the Rule-5 of the RS(RP) Rules-1997 (supra) that the Applicant was permitted to elect to continue to draw pay in the existing scale until the date on which he would earn his next or any subsequent increment in the existing scale. Thus, the contention of the Respondents - that no such option was admissible in respect of pay revision due as a result of acceptance of recommendations of any C.P.C. and those were always given effect from the respective prescribed date - was found to be not in accordance with the afore-cited provisions of the RS(RP) Rules-1997 (supra). … …

11. In the conspectus of the foregoing examination, we found in respect of this issue that as per the provisions of the relevant RS (RP) Rules-1997 (supra), the exercise of option as per FR-22(I)(a)(1) for the revision of pay to be effective from the date of his next increment in the lower post (i.e. Senior Goods Clerk) was permissible. However, neither was the date of next increment in the lower post (Sr. Goods Clerk) specified, nor was such an option made by the Applicant within the prescribed time period or in the prescribed format for the same. Hence, as per provisions of the relevant RS(RP) Rules- 1997 (supra), the Applicant would be deemed to have elected to be governed by the revised scale of pay w.e.f. and on the 1st day of January, 1996.”

13. The learned counsel for the Respondents had also sought to rely upon the Order passed by the Hon’ble Hyderabad Bench (Vijayawada Circuit) of this Tribunal in O.A. No.334/2025 (B.Jayabharatha Reddy Vs. Deptt. of Postal) decided on 18.06.2026, which had been passed on the basis of the clarification dated 16.04.2024 by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, as conveyed through the Nodal Ministry to the Postal Directorate. Thereby, it had inter alia been clarified that –

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

17 OA No.594/2017

“ix. The matter was taken up by the Postal Directorate with the Dept. of Expenditure, M/o Finance, and the clarification received from the Nodal Ministry was communicated by the Postal Directorate, vide letter, dt.20.05.2024, which reads as under:

"...the option for fixation of pay in the revised pay structure after the date of notification of the CCS (RP) Rules, 2016 i.e. 25.07.2016 on account of promotion/financial upgradation beyond 25.07.2016 is not in consonance with the provisions of the CCS(RP) Rules 2016, as Rule 5 of the said rules provides for option only for promotion / upgradation taking place up to 25.07.2016 (date of notification of said rules)”.

It had thus been presented that the co-ordinate Hon’ble Hyderabad Bench of Tribunal (sitting at Vijayawada) had also decided the primary issue of whether option to switch to the revised pay structure from the date of financial upgradation was available to employees whose upgradation occurred after the date of Notification of the relevant Revision of Pay Rules in B. Jayabharatha Reddy case (supra). It had been directed vide the Order dated 18.06.2026 that the Rules limit the option to switch from the date of promotion or upgradation only to those events occurring between 01.01.2016 and 25.07.2016 ; and hence, the denial of such benefit in cases of upgradation after the date of Notification was consistent with the Rules as well as the binding clarifications from Department of Expenditure. It was argued on part of the present Respondents that the clarification dated 16.04.2024 of Department of Expenditure/Ministry of Finance would also be applicable mutatis mutandis in Railways with respect to the RS(RP) Rules-2016, while also reiterating that any other decision in this regard cannot be taken unilaterally by Railway Board to be different from that conveyed by the Ministry of Finance on a general policy matter pertaining to all government employees. NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

18 OA No.594/2017

14. In light of all the foregoing, it emerged inter alia that –

Firstly, the coverage of a situation – where the promotion was not accorded between 01.01.2016 [i.e. the date of effect of the RS(RP) Rules-2016] and 28.07.2016 [i.e. the date of actual notification of the RS(RP) Rules-2016], but accorded later than 28.07.2016, as was the case of the Applicants vide the present O.A. who were promoted on 08.12.2016 later – was not explicitly provided for in the first proviso to Rule-5 of the RS(RP) Rules-2016, while it had specifically been provided in the second proviso to the said Rule-5 of the RS(RP) Rules-2016 for promotions between 01.01.2016 and 28.07.2016.

Secondly, the Applicants while submitting their original Option Form (that dated 26.10.2016 for Applicant No.1 as on record) had deleted the Clause-1 thereof entirely ; and under the Clause-2 thereof, the specific options for continuing in the existing Pay Band and Grade Pay – either until the date of his next increment / or, until the date of his subsequent increment / or, the vacation or ceasing to draw pay in the existing Pay structure – had all been clearly scored out, indicating thereby that those were not to be applied to his case. Thereby, the Applicants had opted to continue on existing Pay Band and Grade Pay until promotion to the post of Loco Pilot-Goods, without specifying its date ; and had thus furnished the option for promotion and not for vacation or ceasing to draw pay in the existing pay structure.

Thirdly, the Railway Board had issued a clarification dated 15.06.2018 that if an option was exercised to continue on existing Pay Band and Grade Pay until promotion to the next NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

19 OA No.594/2017

post in hierarchy was exercised within the stipulated time as per Rule-6 of the RS(RP) Rules-2016, the same shall be valid and acceptable. Also, upon the RBE No.197/2018 dated 17.12.2018 being issued, the Applicants had availed of the opportunity provided mutatis mutandis the dispensation given to other Government servants covered under the CCS(RP) Rules-2016 ; and had purportedly revised the initial option in terms of Rule-5 and Rule-6 of the RS(RP) Rules- 2016 to continue in existing Pay Band and Grade Pay until vacation or ceasing to draw pay in the existing Pay structure.

Fourthly, the decision dated 10.10.2023 in O.A. No.437/2022 of the co-ordinate Hon’ble Patna Bench (circuit Ranchi) in the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra), which had also incorporated the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad Bench in O.A. No.1387 of 2018 on the matter, had taken note of the clarification vide Circular dated 15.06.2018 of the Railway Board that had permitted an employee to exercise the option to switch over to 7th CPC from the date of promotion even if falling after 28.07.2016, subject to the time limit stipulated under Rule 6 of the RS (RP) Rule, of three months ; and also of the opportunity permitted later to revise the options under RBE No.197/2018 within three months from 12.12.2018). The Respondents therein were directed to pass a speaking order within four months from the date of receipt of the Hon’ble Patna Bench of the Tribunal’s Order dated 10.10.2023 in O.A. No.437/2022 – Ashwani Kumar’s case.

Fifthly, the co-ordinate Hon’ble Hyderabad Bench of Tribunal (sitting at Vijayawada) vide the Order dated 18.06.2026 in the B. Jayabharatha Reddy case (supra) had held that the relevant Revision of Pay Rules Rules limit the option to NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

20 OA No.594/2017

switch from the date of promotion or upgradation only to those events occurring between 01.01.2016 and 25.07.2016 ; and hence, the denial of such benefit in cases of upgradation after the date of Notification was consistent with the Rules as well as the binding clarifications from the Department of Expenditure.

15. Before proceeding further with the case vide the present O.A. to examine the merits or otherwise, we observed in respect of the grievance raised vide the present O.A. that the same had been based on two impugned documents. The first impugned document annexed was a purported internal Note dated 08.08.2017 related to RTI matter ; also, neither the Department/ Authority under which the same had been issued nor the designation of signatory thereto had been mentioned. Even as such, being an RTI related Note and not a substantive Order per se, the question of quashing the same would not arise. The second document was the Ministry of Railways communication dated 31.03.2017, addressed to the General Secretary, National Federation of Indian Railwaymen with reference to his letter dated 06.01.2017 for the demand for opportunity for revision of option for staff promoted after the date of notification of RS(RP) Rules-2016 (i.e. 28.07.2016). This again was a response to the demand raised by the employees’ federation and not a substantive Order ; in any case, the addressee of the said communication was not party to the present O.A.

Apart from those not being final substantive Orders of competent authority, both the aforesaid communications sought to be impugned vide the present O.A. were issued prior to the related Railway Board circulars dated NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

21 OA No.594/2017

15.06.2018 and 17.12.2018 relied upon by the Applicants and the date of furnishing of their revised option (dated 14.01.2019 of Applicant No.26) sought to be acceded to for the Applicants by the Respondents.

Thus, on 08.08.2017, i.e. the date of issue of the aforesaid Note and on 31.03.2017, i.e. the date of communication addressed to the General Secretary, National Federation of Indian Railwaymen, the context were the Applicants’ option of a prior date (i.e. 26.10.2016 for Applicant No.1). At the present stage of consideration of the O.A., the said Options were no more extant, as those stood revised (i.e on 19.01.2019 of Applicant No.26, as placed on record vide Additional Affidavit of the Applicants filed on 08.05.2025) in pursuance of the purported enabling provisions (dated 15.06.2018, 17.12.2018) relied upon by the Applicants. It cannot be the case that when the purported enabling provisions (dated 15.06.2018, 17.12.2018) as relied upon by the Applicants, as well as their revised Options (dated 19.01.2019 of Applicant No.26) were of later dates, the grievance of non-acceding to such later Applicants’ options could have arisen from the communications of Respondents of prior dates as sought to be impugned vide the present O.A. It is also not shown that any of the Applicants had represented to the administrative authorities in regard to the fixation of pay as per their revised Option (dated 14.01.2019 of Applicant No.26) ; the question of rejection of such a representation by the administrative authorities being the cause of action would not even arise.

Even further, while the Applicants had sought to present Orders passed by certain other Zones/Divisions of the Railways in support of their claim – at this stage, without NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

22 OA No.594/2017

entering into the merits or otherwise of the case, it would be apposite to advert to the settled position in law that statutory rules should prevail and must be strictly adhered to and the principles of estoppel and acquiescence cannot apply over and above the eligibility condition having statutory force laid down by statutory rules. that there can be no estoppels against law ; and if the law requires something to be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner, and if it is not done in that manner, then it would have no existence in the eye of the law. Something that is illegal cannot convert itself into something legal by the act of a third person.

16. In this regard, the provisions of the Section-20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 were relevant and upon reference, found to read as follows :

“ 20. Applications not to be admitted unless other remedies exhausted –

(1) A Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the Applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances.

(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), a person shall be deemed to have availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances – , (a) if a final order has been made by the Government or other person competent to pass such order under rules, rejecting any appeal preferred or representation made by such person in connection with the grievance ; or (b) where no final order has been made by the Government or other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such order with regard to the appeal preferred or representation made by such person, if a period of six months from the date on which such appeal was preferred or representation was made has expired.”

In the present case, no representation had been made NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

23 OA No.594/2017

by the Applicants to any authority competent to pass an appropriate order as per relevant statutes/rules in respect of their grievance – which had pertained to fixation of their pay under the RS(RP) Rules-2016 after allowing them the option to retain the existing pay structure until their promotion/upgradation even after 28.07.2016, (i.e. the date of the notification of these rules). Thus, it is found that the remedy available to the Applicants under the relevant service Rules had not been availed of by them at the stage of preferring the present O.A.

The availing of the other remedies as prescribed aforesaid is important also because in its absence, not all material and the reasons would emerge before this Tribunal, regarding the issue at hand ; on which it may determine whether the facts were properly ascertained, the relevant statutory provisions were correctly followed/applied and the procedure prescribed was adhered to in the actions of the Respondents, the final decision arrived at was just etc.

17. Hence, we hold that the Applicants are required to first approach the competent administrative authority through a suitable representation in respect of their grievances that were sought to be raised vide the present O.A. If advised and desirous so, the same shall be done by the Applicants within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.

We direct that the Competent Authority should dispose of the said representation addressing the specific NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

24 OA No.594/2017

grievances therein by a detailed and reasoned Order, with due reliance upon inter alia the related administrative documents and extant instructions/guidelines, inter alia by also considering specifically the RS(RP) Rules-2016, the related circulars dated 15.06.2018 and 17.12.2018 or any other relevant/extant circulars of the Railway Board having a bearing on the grievances raised.

We also observe that the Applicant shall be at liberty to approach this Tribunal, if so advised, after exhausting the other remedies available to him under the service rules for redressal of grievances outstanding thereafter.

18. Accordingly, the present O.A. is disposed of with the foregoing directions and observations. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed accordingly. No order as to costs.

(LOK RANJAN) (RANJANA SHAHI) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Kmg*/Kumawat

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT