Surendra 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 direct the respondents to immediately conduct the posting of applicant on the non-running post of Technician-II /(Mechanical) post in TRS as per screening letter dated 04-07-2025. (Annexure No.4).

(b) To direct the respondents to provide 30% pay element to the applicant and make monthly payment while fixing the salary for the post of Technician-II/ (Mechanical).

(c) To direct the respondents to decide the representation dated 29-10-2025 submitted by the applicant for payment of salary by adding 30% of the salary element on his redeployment to the permanent (non-running) post.

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

(e) 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) on 22.01.2014 in the Mysuru Division and was subsequently promoted as Senior Assistant Loco Pilot and thereafter as Loco Pilot (Goods). On 31.10.2017, while working as loco pilot goods, he passed a signal at danger i.e Signal Passed at Danger (SPAD), pursuant to which the applicant was removed from service on 12.11.2022. Against the said order he filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority modified the penalty to demotion of the applicant in lower grade for three years. Thereafter, the applicant filed a revision before the revisional authority. The revisional authority modified/commuted the punishment of the applicant and demoted him from present post to the post of ALP for one year and after one year he would be reinstated to his previous post and in the same seniority pay scale. Thereafter, on his request, the applicant was transferred from South Central Railway Zone to the North Central Railway Zone. 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 and was declared unsuitable for running duty on 07.07.2023. 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 Technician-II (Mechanical), which was communicated vide letter dated 04.07.2025. Thereafter, the applicant approached the respondents seeking the benefit of the 30% pay element vide his

representation dated 29.10.2025 followed by several reminders. However, the same have not yet been decided by the respondents. 3.2 As per rules in vogue, an employee working in Running Cadre is supposed to be sent for periodical medical examination (PME) after every 4 year till attaining the age of 45, and after 2 years between 45 to 55 and every year after the age of 55. It is further stated that the Chapter 13 of the Indian Railways Establishment Manual (Volume-I) was framed in the welfare of the employees during employment and if an employee found unfit against medical classification for the post he is holding, the respondents are under obligation to offer equivalent status of AEMG. 3.3 As per the applicant, similar employees who have been re- deployed and have been penalized in the SPAD case have been provided 30% pay element. 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, shall be treated as non-running staff from the date of failing the test and upon re-deployment to stationary (non-running) posts, they will no longer be eligible for the 30% running allowance. 4.1 It is further stated by the applicant that in the case of C.R. Rangadhamaiah and Others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given verdict in favour of the applicants, as such, denial of 30% running allowance while fixing pay of the applicant on stationary post is against the provisions of Para-901 and 903 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Volume-I. The respondents have denied the contention of the applicant and have stated that in Para-25 of the

judgment given by Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Railway Board And Others v, C.R. Rangadhamaiah And Others, reported in 1997 (6) SCC 623, it has been held that "in these cases we are concerned with the pension payable to the employees after their retirement. The respondents were no longer in service on the date of issuance of the impugned notifications. The amendments in the rules are not restricted in their application in futuro. The amendments apply to employees who had already retired and were no longer in service on the date the impugned notifications were issued". In this case issue involved was as to whether 75% or 55% pay is liable to be added at the time of retirement of railway employee and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had decided issue about fixation of pension as provisions contained in Para-2544 of Railway Establishment Code, Volume-I alongwith the Railway Board's letter dated 05.12.1988. This issue is not involved in the present case as the instant case involves the fixation of pay with regard to adding 30% running allowance in the pay of the applicant. 4.2 The respondents have also stated that the Railway Board is empowered to issue orders according to Article-166 of the Constitution of India. By virtue of this provision contained in Article- 166 of the Constitution of India, the Railway Board has issued Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Volume-I and letter dated 11.08.2025 by the same authority. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Soma Sunderam reported in AIR 1988 SC 2255 in Para-6 of judgment has observed that if there is conflict between the order issued by Government of India and the Regulation, the order issued by the Government of India will prevail, as such, provisions contained in Railway Board's letter dated 11.08.2025 will prevail over the provisions contained in Para-901 and 903 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Volume-I. 4.3 It is also pointed out that both exercise in question have been done by the Railway Board, as such, order issued by Railway Board on 11.08.2025 will prevail over the provisions contained in Para-901 and 903 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Volume-I. The

Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Volume-I is collection of Railway Board's letters which is clear from Para-3 of Prefatory Note of Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Volume-I written by the Secretary, Railway Board on 05.05.1990, which states as follows: "3. In this revised edition of, the Manual, chapters of the 1968 edition have been rearranged after incorporating the present day position. The provisions and chapters included in this edition supersede those on the subjects contained in the 1968 edition to the extent these have been revised and incorporated in this Volume. For Labour Laws, the rules contained in the original Acts, as amended from time to time, will hold good and may be used for reference. It must be noted that provisions of this Manual do not supersede the rules contained in any of the Indian Railway Codes, and in case of conflict the latter should prevail." 4.4 The respondents have also stated in the counter affidavit that addition of 30% running allowance as pay element on stationary post after screening of applicant comes within purview of word 'promotion' because after addition of 30%, pay, salary and other elements of pay of the applicant will increase. Even after retirement the applicant will get pensionary benefit more than that which is liable to be given, if he retires from the post of running cadre. In support of their arguments, the respondents have relied upon the case of State of Rajasthan v. Fateh Chand Soni, reported in (1996) 1 SCC 562, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme, in Para-8 of the judgment dealt that 'promotion' means advancement or preferment in honor, dignity, rank or grade. Earlier also the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the word 'Promotion' in the case of Tarsem Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others, reported in 1994(5) SCC Page-392 in Para-9 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "promotion" means advancement or preferment in honor, dignity, rank or grade. "Promotion" not only covers advancement to higher position or rank but also implies advancement to a higher grade. "Promotion" has been understood in the wider sense and it has been held that "promotion can be either to a higher pay scale or to a higher post". Therefore, in present case, if 30% running allowance is added as pay element on deployment of applicant on stationary post, the same would come within the purview of word "promotion" and the same is not permissible in the eyes of law. Once an employee is punished for

misconduct, he cannot be given promotional benefit by means of reward of addition of 30% running allowance.

5. In the rejoinder affidavit, the applicant has reiterated his averments and has also stated that the order dated 11.08.2025 will have prospective effect. Since the applicant was working as Loco Pilot Goods and was involved in the incident of SPAD on 31.10.2017 and was adjusted to a non-running post on 04.07.2025 i.e. prior to enactment of said letter in question therefore, the said letter cannot be applied retrospectively. Further it cannot override statutory rules or amend or supersede statutory provisions, which have the force of law.

6. In response, 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 it has been 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), 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.)”

7. Written submissions have also been filed by the learned counsel for the applicant in the matter and have stated that the respondents cannot overlook the statutory scheme governing the running staff. Para 903 of the Indian Railways Establishment Manual (IREM) Vol. I recognize that 30% of basic pay of running staff as the pay element in running allowance. The relevant portion of para 903 and 924, as have been relied upon by the applicant, are as under: "903. Pay element in running allowance:- 30% of the basic pay of the running staff will be created to be in the nature of pay representing the pay element in the Running Allowance. This pay element would fall under clause (iii) of Rule 1303-FR-9 21(a) i.e. "emoluments, which are specially classed as pay by the President".

924. Reckoning of Running Allowance as Pay:

(i) 30% of basic pay of running staff shall be reckoned as pay for following purposes: ……

d. Fixation of pay in stationary posts..” 7.1 The applicant has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of G.C.Ghosh V. Union of India, 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 497which dealt with the treatment of running allowance when running staff are transferred/promoted to stationary posts. (Annexure no.2) The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment, as relied upon by the applicant, reads as under:- "It is, therefore, directed that the petitioners should be accorded the same treatment as their counterparts are being accorded in the Northern Railway in regard to treating the running allowance granted to the running staff as part of the pay when they are transferred or promoted to a stationary post during the period they hold the officiating in the stationary post to the same extent and in the same manner as enjoined by the Allahabad High Court pursuant to the aforesaid judgment." 7.2 The applicant has also stated that the respondents have issued the letter dated 11.08.2025 under the heading “Clarification” and have stated that the said letter is clarificatory in nature. However, a clarification merely explains what already exists in the parent rule. It cannot introduce a new condition, exception or disqualification, which is absent from parent rule and prior to issuance of letter dated 11.08.2025, para 924(i) (d) contained no exclusion that a running staff who failed a psychological test after a SPAD incident would lose the 30% pay element upon fixation of pay in a stationary post. Further, it

is settled principle of service jurisprudence that an executive instruction cannot override statutory rules provisions having statutory force. 7.3 The applicant has also raised questions with regard to applicability of clarification dated 11.08.2025 retrospectively. It is stated that the respondents have effectively applied an instruction dated 11.08.2025 to a case in which the relevant event of failure of the psychological test had already taken place and the applicant had already been screened for stationary deployment on 04.07.2025. Such retrospective deprivation of an existing pay benefit is contrary to the settled law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman, Railway Board v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah, (1997) 6 SCC 623, wherein it has been held that an alteration of service conditions which retrospectively takes away a benefit already available under the existing rules is vulnerable under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Moreover, the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, in Jitendra Shrivastava v. Union of India & Others, decided on 21.01.2026, considered Para 903 and Para 924(i)(d) of IREM and held that the 30% running pay element was required to be considered in fixation in the circumstances of that case and that a later Railway Board circular could not be applied retrospectively where the earlier pay fixation had already taken place. 7.4 The applicant has also relied upon a subsequent clarification dated 19.02.2026 issued by South Central Railway which itself demonstrates that the question of the effective date and applicability of the Railway Board's instruction dated 11.08.2025 the instruction dated 11.08.2025 cannot be retrospectively applied to employees whose SPAD incident, psychological test and consequent deployment to a stationary/non-running post had already taken place prior to 11.08.2025. He has further submitted that the respondents cannot deny the applicant the 30% pay element after finalization of the disciplinary proceedings for SPAD incident as that would amount to a second punishment and is in violation of principle against double jeopardy.

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

9. Basic facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Assistant Loco Pilot and was involved in an incident of SPAD, while working as Loco Pilot (Goods). As per 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 and was disqualified from running duties. Thereafter, pursuant to the screening process he was selected and recommended for appointment to the non-running post. The applicant has claimed the benefit of the 30% pay element placing reliance on Paras 903 and 924(i)(d) of the IREM, Volume-I, contending that the said provisions recognize the pay element of running allowance for the purpose of pay fixation in stationary posts.

10. However, the respondents have opposed the claim by relying upon the Railway Board’s letter dated 11.08.2025, which specifically provides that employees involved in SPAD cases, who fail the psychological test, shall be treated as non-running staff from the date of such failure and shall not be entitled to the 30% running allowance upon their redeployment to stationary posts.

11. It is observed that the provisions relied upon by the applicant cannot be read ignoring the subsequent clarification issued by the competent authority. The Railway Board’s letter dated 11.08.2025 specifically addresses the issue of employees who, following their involvement in SPAD incidents, fail the prescribed psychological test and are consequently shifted to non-running duties. The applicant falls within the category of employees covered by the said clarification. Therefore, the question of extending the benefit of the 30% pay element has to be examined in the light of the specific instructions applicable to such employees and not merely on the basis of the general provisions governing the fixation of pay of running staff on their transfer or deployment to stationary posts.

12. The contention of the applicant that the Railway Board’s letter dated 11.08.2025 cannot be applied retrospectively has also been considered. The respondents have specifically pleaded that the said letter is clarificatory in nature and does not introduce a new condition but explains the position already contemplated under the existing provisions. In this regard, the respondents have also 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, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that a purely clarificatory or declaratory amendment may operate retrospectively, which is quoted as under for better understanding: “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.)”

13. The rules regarding pay fixation of loco pilots involved in SPAD cases after they are posted on stationery posts, which are being relied upon by the applicant in support of adding 30% element to his are as under: "903. Pay element in running allowance:- 30% of the basic pay of the running staff will be created to be in the nature of pay representing the pay element in the Running Allowance. This pay element would fall under clause (iii) of Rule 1303-FR-9 21(a) i.e. "emoluments, which are specially classed as pay by the President".

924. Reckoning of Running Allowance as Pay:

(1) 30% of the basic pay of running staff shall be reckoned as pay for the following purposes:- (a) Entitlement to Passes and P.T.OS.

(b) Medical attendance and treatment,

(c) Educational assistance.

(d) Fixation of pay in stationary posts, (e) Compensatory (City) Allowance.

(f) House Rent Allowance,

(g) Entitlement to quarter,

(h) Recovery of rent for quarters.

(i) Dearness Allowance/ Addl. Dearness Allowance.

(j) Overtime Allowance.

(k) Leave Salary …..”

14. Relevant portion of the clarification dated 11.08.2025 relied upon by the respondents is quoted as under: “भारत सरकार / Government of India रेल मंत्रालय / Ministry of Railways (रेलवे बोर्ड / Railway Board)

No. E(P&A)II-2025/RS-28 New Delhi, dt. 11.08.2025

To The General Managers (P) All Zonal Railways Sub: Reckoning of 30% Pay Element for Fixation of Pay of Running Staff involved in SPAD Cases, who fail in Psychological Test and are subsequently deployed in Stationary Posts (non-running) - Clarification reg. References have been received from various Zonal Railways, seeking clarification on the applicability of the 30% pay element in respect of Running Staff involved in Signal Passed at Danger (SPAD) cases, who fail the prescribed psychological test and are redeployed to stationary (non-running) posts.

2. The queries raised by the Railways are broadly as under:

i. Whether the 30% pay element is to be reckoned for fixation of pay of such Running Staff who, after failing the psychological test post-SPAD, are posted to non-running/stationary posts.

ii. Clarification on pay fixation and further deployment procedures for such psycho-failed Running Staff.

iii. Determination of the effective date for such pay fixation- whether from the date of the SPAD incident or the date of failure in the psychological/aptitude test.

3. In this regard, attention is invited to Board's letter No. 2018/Safety/DM/20/1 dated 20.08.2019, wherein it has been stipulated that: "A Running Staff who is involved in SPAD should be allowed only one attempt for the psychological test. In case the staff fails in the psychological test, he/she should be taken out from running duties and deployed in stationary/non- running duties."

4. In view of the above, the following position is clarified for uniform adoption across all Railways:

 Running Staff involved in SPAD cases, who fail the psychological (aptitude) test, shall be treated as non-running staff with effect from the date of such failure.

 Upon redeployment to stationary (non-running) posts, they shall no longer be eligible for the 30% pay element for pay fixation.  In case such staff subsequently retire or opt for VRS, the 55% pay element shall not be admissible for computation of retirement benefits.

5. This issues with the approval of the competent authority. ….. (Manoj Kumar) Deputy Director, Estt. (P&A)II Railway Board Tele No.011-47845113 Email ID: manoj.rb@gov.in”

15. We are of the considered opinion that that the clarification dated 11.08.2025 does not introduce a substantive alteration of the existing rules or that its application to the applicant’s case is contrary to any binding statutory provision. This clarification has been issued specifically in the context of cases of SPAD whereas the IREM provisions are general provisions. Therefore, if specific clarifications in SPAD cases have been issued the same would apply to all such cases including those of previous years. This provision has been issued for uniform adoption across all Railways.

16. The applicant has relied upon the judgments, particularly Chairman, Railway Board v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah, (1997) 6 SCC 623, and G.C. Ghosh v. Union of India, 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 497. However, the respondents have denied the contention of the applicant and have stated that in Para-25 of the judgment given by Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Railway Board And Others v, C.R. Rangadhamaiah And Others, reported in 1997

(6) SCC 623, it has been held that "in these cases we are concerned with the pension payable to the employees after their retirement. The respondents were no longer in service on the date of issuance of the impugned notifications. The amendments in the rules are not restricted in their application in futuro. The amendments apply to employees who had already retired and were no longer in service on the date the impugned notifications were issued". In this case issue involved was as to whether 75% or 55% pay is liable to be added at the time of retirement of railway employee and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had decided issue about fixation of pension as provisions contained in Para-2544 of Railway Establishment Code, Volume-I along with the Railway Board's letter

dated 05.12.1988. This issue is not involved in the present case as the instant case involves the fixation of pay with regard to adding 30% running allowance in the pay of the applicant on allotment of a stationary post after being involved in SPAD incident. Similarly, the directions issued in G.C. Ghosh concerning the treatment of running allowance upon deployment to stationary posts do not establish entitlement in favour of every employee ignoring the circumstances involving such deployment and the specific instructions governing the category to which the employee belongs.

17. The contention of the applicant that denial of 30% pay element would amount to dual punishment cannot be accepted as the penalty imposed upon the applicant after his involvement in SPAD cases is altogether a different issue and the determination of his entitlement to a particular pay element upon deployment to a non-running post is on a different footing. His fixation of pay on a stationary post after his involvement in SPAD case would be governed by the existing rules on the subject.

18. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the Railway Board’s letter dated 11.08.2025 specifically addresses the category of employees to which the applicant belongs and sufficient ground has not been made out to establish that the respondents’ reliance upon the said clarification is impermissible in law.

19. Accordingly, we find no sufficient ground to interfere with the decision of the respondents and the Original Application is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.

20. Interim Order, if any, stands discharged.

All related MAs stand disposed of.

(Anjani Nandan Sharan)

(Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (A)

Member (J) SahilSharma/-