Central Administrative Tribunal
Ghanshyam Singh Yadav vs NORTHERN RAILWAY on 27 October 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH
Original Application No. 332/00642/2026
This, the 27th day of October, 2026
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J), HON’BLE MR. PANKAJ KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Ghanshyam Singh Yadav, aged about 38 years old, S/o Shri Shrinath Singh Yadav, R/o 599 PC/322, Pink City, Mohan Road, Buddheshwar, Lucknow-226017.
..Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Dhruv Srivastava.
VERSUS
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Union of India Through the General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi – 110001.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Hazratganj, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh - 226001.
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, DRM Office, Hazratganj, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 226001.
4. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (R.S.O.), DRM Office, Lucknow Division, Lucknow - 226001.
…..Respondents By Advocate: Shri Ashok Kumar Bhatnagar.
O R D E R (ORAL) PER HON’BLE JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
2. Through this O.A., applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):- “I. To issue a direction to the respondents/competent authority to grant notional promotion to the Applicant at par with his counterparts with effect from the date his immediate junior was promoted with all consequential benefits.
II. To issue a direction to the respondent/competent authority to restore the Applicant's inter-se seniority in the proper cadre by placing him above his immediate juniors who superseded him.
III. To issue a direction to the respondent/competent authority to refix the Applicant's pay notionally with all consequential benefits at par with his counterparts, with admissible arrears as per settled law.
IV. To issue any other order or directions, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
V. To allow this original application with costs against the respondents.”
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the instant O.A. may be disposed of as applicant is only seeking decision on the representation preferred by him and ends of justice would be served if a direction is given by this Tribunal to the respondents/competent authority to consider and dispose of the pending representation dated 18.11.2025 attached as Annexure No. A-5 [page 38-39] to this O.A. by way of reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated period of time.
4. To this, learned counsel for the respondents orally opposed, however, submitted that in case the applicant’s representation is directed to be decided in the manner suggested, then at least two months’ time may be allowed for the same.
5. As applicant is only seeking disposal of the representation, hence, respondents/ competent authority are directed to consider and decide the representation of the applicant dated 18.11.2025 attached as Annexure No. A-5 [page 38-39] to this O.A. and pass a reasoned and speaking order as per law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, under intimation forthwith to the applicant.
6. It is made clear that nothing has been commented upon the merits of the case.
7. The OA is disposed of accordingly. There is no order as to costs.
(PANKAJ KUMAR) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha) Member (A)
Member (J)
JNS Jay Narayan Singh Digitally signed by Jay Narayan Singh Date: 2026.10.28 13:24:24 +05'30'