Central Administrative Tribunal
JITENDRA KUMAR vs Union Of India on 7 October 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH
Original Application No. 332/00420/2016
This, the 07th day of October, 2026
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J), HON’BLE MR. PANKAJ KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Jitendra Kumar, aged about 39 years, son of Shri Prem Kumar Srivastava, Resident of- C-132/1, RDSO Colony, Lucknow.
..Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Praveen Kumar.
VERSUS
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
3
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
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 Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Director General, Research Designs & Standards Organization, Lucknow.
3. The Chief Personnel Officer, Research Designs & Standards Organization, Lucknow.
4. The Assistant Personnel Officer (Gazetted), Research Designs & Standards Organization, Lucknow.
5. Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, Senior Section Engineer (D), Research Designs & Standards Organization Manak Nagar Lucknow.
…..Respondents By Advocate: Ms. Prayagmati Gupta alongwith Shri Vikash Srivastava Bakhshi- R 1 to 4
Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta- R 5
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.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this OA has been filed in the year 2016, since then Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble High Courts of Delhi, Chhattisgarh and Andhra Pradesh and one Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal has passed order with regard to lis involved in the matter.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that applicant has been promoted in the subsequent promotion list in the year 2024. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that there was one S.T. vacancy which was not filled up in the impugned promotion. Further argued that till today that vacancy has not been filled up. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that certain circulars have been issued by the Railway Board also in the matter. Learned counsel for the applicant specifically mentioned the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matters of M. Nagraj vs. Union of India [2006 (8) SCC 212], Suraj Bhan Meena vs. State of Rajasthan (2011) 1 SCC 467, Jarnail Singh vs. Lachhim Narain Gupta & Ors; [Civil Appeal No. 629 of 2022 (SLP (C) No. 30621 of 2011), BSNL vs. R. Santhakumari Velusamy (2011) 9 SCC 510, and judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Ajay Kumar Srivastava & another vs. Union of India & another [Writ Petition (C) No. 6992 of 2002] decided on 24.01.2019 and judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilashpur in WPS No. 5153 of 2018; Union of India & Ors. vs. Santosh Kumar Mandal and Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 9456 of 2018- Union of India & Ors. vs. S C Sharma and judgment passed by CAT, Jabalpur Bench in OA No. 294 of 2015 and other connected OAs decided on 05.04.2018 and Railway Board Circular No. 2018-E(SCT)I/25/9 dated 03.05.2023. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that this OA may be disposed of by giving permission to the applicant to file a fresh representation citing the aforesaid judgments and circular with a direction to the respondents / competent authority to dispose of the fresh representation by following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, Hon’ble High Courts and one Bench of this Tribunal by way of a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated period of time.
4. To this, learned counsel for the official respondents, however, opposed the aforesaid proposition but admitted the fact that certain circulars have been issued by the Railway Board and some judgments have also been passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court after institution of this OA.
Learned counsel for the private respondent no. 5 argued that respondent no. 5 has been legally promoted granting exemption in medical by the competent authority as per rules.
5. Keeping in view of the innocuous prayer made by applicant, this OA is disposed of finally with a direction to the applicant to prefer a fresh representation before the respondents / competent authority within two weeks from today and respondents / competent authority are directed to disposed of aforesaid representation by way of a reasoned and speaking order keeping in view the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of M. Nagraj vs. Union of India [2006 (8) SCC 212], Suraj Bhan Meena vs. State of Rajasthan (2011) 1 SCC 467, Jarnail Singh vs. Lachhim Narain Gupta & Ors; [Civil Appeal No. 629 of 2022 (SLP (C) No. 30621 of 2011), BSNL vs. R. Santhakumari Velusamy (2011) 9 SCC 510, and judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Ajay Kumar Srivastava & another vs. Union of India & another [Writ Petition (C) No. 6992 of 2002] decided on 24.01.2019 and judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilashpur in WPS No. 5153 of 2018; Union of India & Ors. vs. Santosh Kumar Mandal and Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 9456 of 2018- Union of India & Ors. vs. S.C. Sharma and judgment passed by CAT, Jabalpur Bench in OA No. 294 of 2015 and other connected OAs decided on 05.04.2018 and Railway Board circular No. 2018- E(SCT)I/25/9 dated 03.05.2023 within three months thereafter under intimation to the applicant forthwith. Merits of the case has not been touched upon by the Tribunal.
There shall be no order as to costs. Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Pankaj Kumar)
(Justice Anil Kumar Ojha) Member (A)
Member (J)
JNS Jay Narayan Singh Digitally signed by Jay Narayan Singh Date: 2026.10.09 12:59:30 +05'30'