Suresh Kumar vs M/o Railways on 2 November 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR Order Sheet Item no.: 7 O.A./285/2018 (JAIPUR) [ PROMOTION ] With M.A./303/2018 CONDONATION OF DELAY Court No.: 1 No of Adjournment: 34 Order Dated: 02/11/2026 SURESH KUMAR Vs M/O RAILWAYS

For Applicant(s) Advocate : Shri C.B. Sharma For Respondent(s) Advocate : Shri M.K. Sharma Order of The Tribunal The controversy involved in the present O.A. is similar to the one already adjudicated by this Bench of the Tribunal vide its order dated 21.09.2026 in O.A. No. 654/2017 (Shiv Shankar Singh vs. M/O Railways), relevant extract is reproduced below: "The applicant has filed the present O.A. No. 654/2017 seeking the following reliefs: "(i) That the official respondents may be directed to assign his due seniority above Shri Dharam Raj Meena (Respdt. No. 3) on the post of Technician-I, by applying catch-up rule and interpolate his name impugned order dated 10.2.2017 (Annexure A/1) as amended vide order dated 23.2.2017 (Annexure A/2), order dated 11.4.2017 (Annexure A/3) and modify all subsequent orders thereof, accordingly.

(ii) That the respondents may be further directed to consider his candidature for promotion to the post of JE (TMC) as per his revised seniority and by ignoring the reservation and he may be allowed all consequential benefits.

(iii) That any other direction, or orders may be passed in favour of the applicant which may be deemed just and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case in the interest of justice.

(iv) That the costs of this application may be awarded." The applicant claims that one Shri Dharam Raj Meena was junior to him in the post of Technician-II as such the applicant being senior to him should be placed in the seniority list above Shri Dharma Raj Meena. On the other hand, respondents have stated that Shri Dharam Raj Meena was promoted to the post of Technician-I on 02.12.2014 whereas the applicant was promoted to the post of Technician-I on 31.05.2016. Respondents have also stated that the applicant has not completed 02 years of regular qualifying service in Technician-I as such he is not eligible for promotion to the post of JE (TMC). Heard. The issue in short is that the applicant is seeking promotion to the post of JE (TMC) and to be eligible for the same he is required to have completed 02 years of regular qualifying service on the post of Technician-I in the Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/-. According to the respondents the applicant should have completed 02 years of regular qualifying service in the above mentioned Grade Pay as on the date of advertisement i.e. on 10.02.2017 and as he was promoted to the post of Technician-I on 31.05.20146 he had not completed the required 02 years of regular qualifying service in the Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/- on the date of advertisement i.e. on 10.02.2017. The applicant has relied upon the extract of para 215 of IREM Vol.-I (Annexure-A/9), relevant extract is reproduced below: "215. Selection Post

(a) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. The condition of two years service should stand fulfilled at the time of actual promotion and not necessarily at the stage of consideration. If by virtue of the above rule, a junior is eligible for promotion, his senior will also be eligible for such promotion, even though he might not have put in a total service of two years, or more, (if stipulated in particular category in the lower grade).xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx." From the above, what emerges is that if by virtue of the above cited rule, a junior is eligible for promotion, then his senior will be eligible for such promotion, even though he may not have put in a total service of 02 years or more. So, in the present case, the applicant is claiming to be placed above Shri Dharam Raj Meena claiming to be his senior in the previous cadre of Technician-II but in the impugned seniority list Shri Dharam Raj Meena does not figure hence the question of placing the applicant above him does not arise. In fact, the applicant himself has placed on record the amended notification dated 23.02.2017 (AnnexureA/2) wherein the respondents have considered Shri Dharam Raj Meena against 02 posts of ST category whereas the applicant belongs to UR category so the relief claimed by the applicant who is an UR category candidate qua Shri Dharam Raj Meena draws no comparison or parity because Shri Dharam Raj Meena belongs to ST category and has been considered for promotion against the post of ST category only. In view of the above, the present O.A. is dismissed. No costs. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly." Both the side, applicant as well as respondents confirms the same as such the present O.A. is also dismissed on the similar terms as in O.A. No. 654/2017. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. Lok Ranjan Member (A) Ranjana Shahi Member (J) Yogendra Meena

( steno 'c' )