Central Administrative Tribunal
Sujata ranjan vs SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY on 2 November 2026
1 CP N0. 25/2026 (R)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT RANCHI
CP/051/00025/2026
(Arising out of O.A. No.051/00369/2025
Order dated: 02.11.2026.
CORAM
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, MEMBER (J)
HON’LE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, MEMBER (A)
Sujata Ranjan, Daughter of Sri Sudhakar Prasad Shrivastava, aged about 40
years, residing at Devi Mandap road, Ratu road, Ranchi, P.O- Hehal, P.S
Sukhdeo Nagar, District: Ranchi, Jharkhand ……..Petitioner.
- By Advocate(s): - Mrs. Rohit Kumar Singh.
-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. The Union of India, through Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, General Manager, South Eastern Railway, 11 Garden Reach Road, PO & P.S Kolkata, Kolkata-700043.
2. Sri Karuna Nidhi Singh, Divisional Railway Manager, South Eastern Railway, Ranchi, P.O: Hatia, P.S: Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi, PIN- 834003.
3. Sri Praveen Meena, Sr. DEE/TRD/RNC, South Eastern Railway, Ranchi, P.O: Hatia, P.S: Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi, PIN- 834003.
4. Sri Raja, Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, Ranchi, P.O: Hatia, P.S: Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi, PIN-834003.
5. Md. Ehtesham Ansari, Senior Section Engineer/RC/RNC, South Eastern Railway, Ranchi, P.O: Hatia, P.S: Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi, PIN-834003.
…….Respondents.
By Advocate(s): - Pravin Kumar Pandey.
O R D E R (ORAL)
Per:Justice Narendra Kumar Johari, Member (J)
1. Counsel for both the parties are present. Digitally signed by BINAY PRASAD BINAY PRASAD
2 CP N0. 25/2026 (R)
2. Counsel for the respondents has filed the supplementary show cause. Counsel for the petitioner has received the copy of the same but no reply has been filed by him.
3. Earlier, O.A. No. 369/2026 was filed by the applicant and decided by this Tribunal on 02.12.2025. The operative Part of the Order is as under:- “ 8. In view of above observation and finding, the OA is partly allowed in terms of the relief claimed in Para 8(iii) of the relief column of this OA. The respondents are directed to consider the case of applicant and allow her to join at RDSO/Lucknow, for the post of Senior Section Engineer Electrical Inspection in view of Assistant Personnel Officer/NG-II, RDSO/Lucknow letter dated 14.05.2025 for better and prospective career by modifying the earlier releasing order whereby she was directed to report DRM(P)/Delhi Division. It is expected that the relieving order be issued within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of this order. No order as to costs.”
4. However, respondents have not passed any relieving order in respect to the applicant. Consequently, petitioner has filed the present C.P.
5. In the present C.P. on 07.10.2026, an order was passed by the Tribunal with direction to modify/revise order with regard to release of the petitioner within 15 days from today.
6. The respondents in his supplementary show cause has mentioned that after passing the Order by the Tribunal on 02.12.2025, a letter dated 09.12.2025 was sent to Assistant Personnel Officer/NG- II/RDSO/Lucknow with the request to kindly intimate as to whether the applicant may be accommodated now for the post of SSE/Electrical/Inspection (Ex.Cadre) at RDSO/Lucknow on deputation or otherwise considering the timeline indicated in the judgement/Order dated 02.12.2025. No reply was received from RDSO/Lucknow. Thereafter, reminder letters dated 19.12.20205 and Digitally signed by BINAY PRASAD BINAY PRASAD
3 CP N0. 25/2026 (R)
02.01.2026 have also been sent to Joint Director (Establishment), RDSO/Lucknow. The Joint Director (Establishment), RDSO/Lucknow vide letter dated 09.01.2026 intimated that the currency of Panel/Offer dated 14.05.2025 is already expired and after the said notification dated 31.12.2024, RDSO/Lucknow had issued three more Notifications dated 14.05.2025, 10.10.2025 and 02.01.20256. Thus, accepting a candidate from old panel is not in accordance to the rules and the staff cannot be accommodated now against the ex-cadre post of SSE/Electrical (Inspection) at RDSO Lucknow against the offer letter dated 14.05.2025. The Joint Director (Establishment) RDSO/Lucknow vide the same letter dated 19.01.2026 further conveyed that a fresh notification dated 02.01.2026 is already alive and last date to apply against the said notification is 16.02.2026 and the applicant can consider applying against the fresh notification. The applicant applied for the post of SSE/Inspection/Elect. on deputation in reference to notification dated 02.01.2026 which was duly forwarded by competent authority and sent to RDSO/Lucknow.
7. It has also been mentioned in Para-7 of the supplementary show cause that in compliance of the Order of Hon’ble Tribunal dated 07.10.2026, the respondents has passed the modified order dated 16.10.2026.
8. Further, in Para-8 of the supplementary show cause, it has been mentioned by the respondents that order passed on 16.10.2026 is the modification of the relieving office order dated 09.05.2025 by which the applicant was relieved to Delhi Division on her own request Digitally signed by BINAY PRASAD BINAY PRASAD
4 CP N0. 25/2026 (R)
transfer on reversion as JG(TRD) is modified herewith to release her to RDSO/Lucknow to join the post of SSE/Electrical/Inspection (Ex- Cadre) on deputation for a period of 4 years, in view of Assistant Personnel Officer/NG-II, RDSO/Lucknow letter dated 14.05.2025.
9. It has been submitted by the counsel for the respondents that in compliance of the Order of the Tribunal, a modified order dated 16.10.2026 was passed in its letter and spirit. He requested to drop the instant Contempt Petition.
10. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has joined RDSO/Lucknow at present.
11. Considered the submissions of both the counsels and perused the records.
12. In our view, Order of the Tribunal has been complied with by the respondents. Therefore, there is nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present contempt petition. Accordingly, the present C.P. is dropped. Notices issued stand discharged.
(Kumar Rajesh Chandra) (Justice Narendra Kumar Johari) Member (A) Member(J) BP.
Digitally signed by BINAY PRASAD BINAY PRASAD