Jitendra Kumar vs NORTH CENTRAL RAILWAY on 30 October 2026

O R D E R

Delivered by: Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (A)

Heard Shri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Bashist Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant Original Application, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, has been filed by the applicant, seeking following reliefs: “(a) To quash and set aside the impugned re-screening conducted on 16.12.2025 and its result dated 17.12.2025 declared by the respondent no.3/Divisional Personnel Officer, Jhansi Division, North Central Railway, Jhansi whereby he has conducted an illegaly re-screening test for posting on the stationary (non-running) post and declared the result. (Annexure A-1 & A-2).

(b) To direct the respondents to immediately conduct the posting of applicant on the non-running post of Crew Controller (CCOR) as per screening letter dated 04-07-2025 and provide all consequential benefits including arrears and make monthly payments in accordance with law.

(c) To pass any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(d) award cost to be paid to the applicant.”

3. The brief facts, as stated by the applicant, are that the applicant was initially appointed as Assistant Loco Pilot (ALP). He was subsequently promoted as Senior Assistant Loco Pilot and thereafter as Loco Pilot (Goods). On 01.07.2022, while working as Loco Pilot Goods, he passed a signal at danger i.e Signal Passed at Danger (SPAD), pursuant to which he was awarded the punishment of demotion from his present post and pay scale to the post of Senior Assistant Loco Pilot for two years (Rs. 2400/- Grade Pay), which will remain affected in future. Against the said order, the applicant filed an appeal. After considering his appeal, the appellate authority modified the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority by downgrading from present post to the post of Senior Assistant Loco Pilot for two years which will not be affected in future and will not have any impact on seniority of the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant filed a revision before the revisional authority. The revisional authority again modified the major penalty imposed upon the applicant and imposed a minor penalty withholding six month salary increment (without cumulative effect) in the current post and pay scale and restore his seniority, pay scale after six months. 3.1 The applicant submits that, in terms of the Railway Board's circular dated 20.08.2019, running staff involved in SPAD cases are required to undergo psychological testing and, if declared unfit, are to be shifted to stationary or non-running duties. Accordingly, the applicant appeared for the psychological test on 21–22.05.2024 and the result declared on 14.08.2024, wherein he was disqualified from running duties. Thereafter, pursuant to the screening process conducted on 25.06.2025, the applicant was selected and recommended for appointment to the non-running post of Crew Controller (CCOR), which was communicated vide letter dated

04.07.2025. Thereafter, the applicant approached the respondents seeking the benefit of the 30% pay element, which was rejected by the respondents on 13.11.2025. 3.2 It is the contention of the applicant that despite completion of the screening process and declaration of the result, the respondents did not issue his posting order and instead directed him to appear in a re-screening examination. The fresh result was declared on 17.12.2025 without formally cancelling the earlier result dated 04.07.2025 through a reasoned order. The applicant has further stated that the re- screening process is arbitrary and illegal, particularly when the respondents had also issued a notification dated 26.11.2025 inviting applications for 65 CCOR vacancies. The applicant has also stated that when an employee namely Wasim Akram requested for re-screening citing his medical unfitness, a letter dated 17.10.2024 was issued by the respondents stating therein that no instructions had been issued by the Railway Board permitting re-screening. 3.3 The applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Assam & others Vs. Arabinda Rabha & ors., 2025 INSC 334, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a candidate included or selected in a panel cannot claim the right of appointment if the State has cogent and germane grounds for not making the appointment. However, at the same time, there is also a law that the appointing authority cannot ignore the selection panel or refuse to make the appointment at will. Feeling aggrieved by the actions of the respondents, the applicant has approached this Tribunal by filing the instant Original Application.

4. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that the applicant, while working as a Loco Pilot (Goods) committed the offense of Signal Passed at Danger (SPAD). Therefore, as per rules, considering him unfit under the running safety category, he was assigned stationary duties and a psychological test was conducted, which the applicant failed. As per Railway Board’s letter dated 11.08.2025, employees involved in SPAD cases who fail the

psychological test, are to be provided stationary post. Accordingly, a screening was conducted on 25.06.2025 and subsequently he was allotted the post of CCOR vide letter dated 04.07.2025. 4.1 As per the respondents, the case of the applicant’s posting to the post of CCOR was presented before the Branch Officer, Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operations), who expressed his inability to post the applicant to the post of CCOR as the applicant had been involved in the case of SPAD and, therefore, recommended re-screening and allotment of another post, which was accepted by the competent authority i.e. ADRM. Thereafter, after conducting re- screening of the applicant on 16.12.2025, he was allotted the post of Sr. Technician in pay level-6 vide order dated 17.12.2025.

5. It reflects from record that no rejoinder affidavit has been filed in the matter.

6. Supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in the matter stating therein that the applicant has raised the issue regarding the applicability of operation of Railway Board’s letter dated 11.08.2025 retrospectively or prospectively and the applicant has contended that the said letter is prospective in nature and applicable only from the date of its issuance i.e. 11.08.2025. However, the respondents, in their supplementary counter affidavit, have clarified that the said letter will be applicable retrospectively as it merely clarifies the position that existed when para 901 and 903 of the IREM Vol. 1 were issued. In support of their submission, the respondents have relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Mudrika Singh reported in 2024 2 SCC (L&S) 452, which has also been followed by this Tribunal in OA No. 1465/2012 decided on 17.10.2025 (Vijay Kumar Gahlod & Ors vs Union of India & Ors).

7. Written submissions have also been filed by the learned counsel for the applicant in the matter questioning the re-screening process done by the respondents on 16.12.2025 without cancelling the first screening, which had been finalized on 04.07.2025 and the applicant

had been allotted the post of CCOR. The applicant submits that a concluded administrative decision cannot ordinarily be rendered ineffective merely by taking a contrary subsequent administrative action particularly where the earlier decision affects the service position of an employee.

8. Submissions of learned counsel for both the parties have been heard and records have been gone through.

9. The basic facts of the case have already been narrated above, are not in dispute. It is also not disputed that the applicant was involved in SPAD incident i.e. Signal Passed at Danger and in terms of the Railway Board's circular dated 20.08.2019, running staff involved in SPAD cases are required to undergo psychological testing and, if declared unfit, they are to be shifted to stationary or non-running duties. Accordingly, the applicant appeared for the psychological test on 21–22.05.2024 and as per the result declared on 14.08.2024, he was disqualified from running duties. Thereafter, pursuant to the screening process conducted on 25.06.2025, the applicant was selected and recommended for appointment to the non-running post of Crew Controller (CCOR), which was communicated vide letter dated 04.07.2025. The relevant portion of the said order is quoted as under: “ददन ांक - 04.07.2025 पत्र सां- पी/ दिदिध / एसपीएडी प्रकरण / एल आर सक्षम अदधक री के अनुमोदन से ट् ांसपोटेशन प िर दिभ ग में दनम्रदलखित कममच ररयो को एसपीएडी प्रकरण में सांदलप्त प ए ज ने पर रेलिे बोडम के पत्र सां 2018/Safety (DM)/20/1 ददन ांक 20.08.2019 द्व र ज री ददश दनदेशोां के अनुप लन में पुनेदनमयोजन हेतु ददन ांक 25.06.2025 को िैकखिक पद आिांटन हेतु स्क्रीदनांग आयोदजत की गयी एिां कमेटी द्व र उनकी दचदकत्स श्रेणी, प्रशैक्षदणक योग्यत एिां सेि अदभलेि पर दिच र करते हुए इनके न म के स मने दश मए गए िैकखिक पद आिांदटत दकये ज ते है। Sr No P F No Name of Employee (Shri) Father’s Name (Shri) Caste Desig./ Station Regular working in level Post Allotted … … …. … … … .. ..

J1400493 Jitendra Kumar Rathaur Hari Mohan UR LPG/JHS

CCOR in LR in Pay Level-

उपरोक्त कममच ररयोां की िरीयत क दनध मरण पदस्थ पन उपर ांत पुनदनमयोजन हेतु ितम न में ल गू दनयम नुस र की ज एगी।

इसे सक्षम अधिकारी अपर मंडल रेल प्रबंिक महोदय का अनुमोदन प्राप्त है। कृते मंडल रेल प्रबंिक (काधमिक) झााँसी”

10. However, as per the respondents, due to disapproval by the Branch Officer, Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operations), the applicant was put to re-screening after obtaining approval of the ADRM and was allotted the new post of Sr. Technician on 17.12.2025. The said reasons have also been mentioned in the aforesaid letter. The relevant portion of the said letter is quoted as under: “इस क य मलय के सम सांख्यक पत्र ददन ांक 04.07.2025 के दिस्त र में सक्षम अदधक री के अनुमोदन से ट् ांसपोटेशन प िर दिभमें दनम्म्म्रदलखित कममच ररयो को SPAD प्रकरण में सांदलप्त प ए ज ने पर रेलिे बोडम के पत्र से 2018/Safety (DM)/20/1 ददन ांक 20.08.2019 द्व र ज री ददश दनदेशोां के अनुप लन में पुनेदनमयोजन हेतु ददन ांक 25.06.2025 को िैकखिक पद आिांटन हेतु स्क्रीदनांग आयोदजत की गयी एिां कमेटी द्व र उनकी दचदकत्स श्रेणी, शैक्षदणक योग्यत एिां सेि अदभलेि पर दिच र करते हुए इनके न म के स मने दश मए गए िैकखिक पद आिांदटत दकये गए थे, दजसमे कम से 3.4 एिां 5के कममच ररयोां को इलेखर्कल पॉिर दिभ ग में CCOR लेिल-6 के पद पर पदस्थ करने की सांस्तुदत की गयी थी। परन्तु शाखा अधिकारी (वररष्ठ मंडल धवद्युत अधियंता) द्वारा क्रम स 3, 4 एवं 5 के कमिचाररयों को इलेक्ट्रिकल पॉवर धविाग में CCOR पे लेवल 6 के पद पर पदस्थ करने के धलए सहमधत प्रदान नहीं की गयी, तदोपरांत सक्षम अधिकारी (अपर मंडल रेल प्रबंिक) के अनुमोदन से धदनांक 16.12.25 को री-स्क्रीधनंग कर इनके नाम के सामने दशािए गए पद पर पदस्थ करने की संस्तुधत की गयी है। Sr No P F No Name of Employee (Shri) Father’s Name (Shri) Caste Desig./ Station Regular working in level Post Allotted … .. … … .. … .. ….

J1400493 Jitendra Kumar Rathaur Hari Mohan UR LPG/JHS

Senior Technician in TRD in Pay Level-6. उपरोक्त कममच ररयोां की िरीयत क दनध मरण पदस्थ पन उपर ांत पुनेदनमयोजन हेतु ितम न में ल गू दनयम नुस र की ज एगी। इसे सक्षम अदधक री अपर मांडल रेल प्रबांधक महोदय क अनुमोदन प्र प्त है। सम्बांदधत सीदनयर सुपरि इजर क्रम स. 1 एिां 3 पर खस्थत कममच ररयोां को यथ -शीघ्र क यम मुक्त करने की व्यिस्थ करे। कृते मंडल रेल प्रबंिक (काधमिक) झााँसी”

11. It is the contention of the applicant that the earlier allotment was not formally cancelled by a separate reasoned order. However, the subsequent communication dated 17.12.2025 sets out the reason for re-screening. The Branch Officer did not approve the proposed posting of the applicant and certain other employees to the post of

CCOR and therefore, re-screening was held with the approval of the competent authority. This is purely an administrative action, which has been taken in the light of circumstances of the case. The suitability of an employee on a particular post has to be assessed by the superior competent authorities. The railways is an organization that handles running of large number of trains and their safe running, which is of utmost importance, has to be ensured by the authorities. The applicant was piloting locomotive of the goods train and had reportedly overshot the signal. Such an incident has to be treated as a major safety violation because it can lead to head-on collisions, rear- end crashes, or derailments.

12. The applicant has referred to the communication dated 17.10.2024 concerning another employee, wherein it was stated that no instructions had been issued by the Railway Board permitting re- screening to emphasise that rescreening should not have been done in the case of the applicant. The relevant portion of the said order is quoted as under: “श्री िसीम अकरम िररष्ट लोको प यलट / ब ांद दिषयः-दचदकत्स श्रेणी ए-िन से अनदिट होने के उपर न्त Aye-ll एण्ड दगलोां में दिट होने पर िैकखिक पद आयमटन (री-स्क्रीदनांग) के सम्बन्ध में प्र थमन पत्र। सांदभमः दसांगल दिांडो दशक यत दनि रण प्रकोष्ठ के म ध्यम से प्र प्त आपक आिेदन पत्र-10985 ददन ांक-23.09.2024 एिां 16705 ददन ांक 09.10.2024 ******** उपरोक्त सांददभमत पत्रोां के सम्बन्ध में अिगत कर य ज त है दक आपको िैकखिक पद आिांदटत दकये ज ने हेतु स्कीदनांग ददन ांक 05.09.2024 को सम्पन्न की गई है दजसक पररण म इस क य मलय के समसांख्यक पत्र ददन ांक 06.09.2024 के द्व र ज री दकय गय है दजसमें आपको Tech-II (Painter) L-4 क पद आिांदटत दकय गय है। सांददभमत आिेदन पत्रोां के म ध्यम से आपके द्व र पद पररितमन हेतु दनिेदन दकय है इस सांबांध ने अिगत कर न है की रेल्वे बोडम द्व र कोई ददश दनदेश री-स्क्रीदनांग हेतु ज री नहीां दकए गए है इस सम्बन्ध में यह भी अिगत कर न है पद आिांटन की प्रदक्रय सक्षम अदधक री द्व र न दमत स्क्रीदनांग कदमटी के द्व र मेदडकल बोडम की दसि ररश तथ ज ाँि प्रोि इल के परीक्षण एिां व्यखक्तगत स क्ष त्क र उपर ांत ही आपको उपयुक्त पद आिांदटत दकय गय है। अतः इन पररखस्थदतयो में री-स्क्रीदनांग हेतु आपके दनिेदन पर दिच र दकय ज न सांभि नहीां होग ।

12.1 The aforesaid communication relied upon by the applicant does not relate to re-screening relating to allotment of posts after being found involved in SPAD cases, rather it relates to a person who was declared medically unfit in Aye-II category and therefore, it does not strengthen the case of the applicant. Administrative authorities can always order for rescreening looking into seriousness of the incident of an individual case.

13. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that a SPAD case (Signal passed at danger) occurs when a train passes a stop signal (such as a red color-light) without proper authorization. It is treated as a major safety violation because it can lead to head-on collisions, rear-end crashes, or derailments. When a SPAD case happens, there are laid down emergency protocols to be followed and the train crew has to undergo strict actions.

14. As regards the applicability of the Railway Board's letter dated 11.08.2025, the respondents have clarified in their supplementary counter affidavit that the said communication merely clarifies the position already existing under paragraphs 901 and 903 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Volume I, and have relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mudrika Singh, reported in (2024) 2 SCC (L&S) 452, as well as the decision of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1465/2012, decided on 17.10.2025, in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has also addressed the nature of amendment to service rules holding that a clarificatory amendment can be deemed to have a retrospective effect, para 23 of the judgment reads as under: “23. An amendment to a statute or to statutory rules may often be clarificatory in nature. It is clarificatory in the sense that it expressly recognises a power that already vests in the authority. In those circumstances, when an amendment is purely clarificatory or declaratory in nature, it is deemed to operate retrospectively. For instance, a Constitution Bench in Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar held that an amending act or a declaratory act need not explicitly mention its declaratory nature to be operative retrospectively. Speaking on behalf of the Constitution Bench, V N Khare, J. (as he then was) noted: (SCC p. 49, para 39.)”

14. In view of above, we find that the applicant has not been able to establish any enforceable right to insist upon allotment of the post of CCOR or demonstrate that the subsequent screening and allotment of

the post of Senior Technician in Pay Level-6 were contrary to any binding rule or instruction and it is apparent in the instant case that the approval of the competent authority has also been taken for re- screening and allotment of the new post to the applicant.

15. Accordingly, we do not find any satisfactory ground to interfere with the decision of the respondents. Therefore, the Original Application is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.

16. Interim Order, if any, stands discharged.

All related MAs stand disposed of.

(Anjani Nandan Sharan)

(Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (A)

Member (J) SahilSharma/-