Smt dhan kunwar vs NORTH CENTRAL RAILWAY on 5 November 2026

Order

By Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (Judicial) The present Original Application, registered as Diary No. 6503 of 2026, has been filed by the applicant, Smt. Dhan Kunwar, seeking to challenge the Office Note dated 12.03.2025, to the extent that the period from 02.06.2019 till the date of her reinstatement in service has been proposed to be treated as “No Work No Pay”. The applicant has further sought a direction to the respondents to pay salary and other consequential benefits for the aforesaid period and to grant her the benefits of 2nd and 3rd MACP in the Grade Pay of Rs. 2,400/- and Rs. 2,800/-, respectively, along with consequential benefits.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as Trackman on 27.10.2004 under the respondents and was posted in Jhansi Division, North Central Railway. A criminal case, being Case Crime No. 200 of 2018 under Sections 498A and 302 IPC, was registered against her at Police Station Prem Nagar, Jhansi. In connection with the said case, she was arrested on 02.06.2019 and remained in judicial custody. Subsequently, the respondents issued a charge-sheet dated 25.05.2021 against the applicant under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, alleging unauthorized absence from duty with effect from 16.06.2019. Thereafter, vide order dated 13.06.2024, the applicant was removed from service. Aggrieved by the said order, she preferred an appeal dated 08.07.2024 before the appellate authority. In the meanwhile, the applicant was acquitted of the charges in the aforesaid criminal case by the learned Additional District Judge (OAW), Jhansi, vide judgment dated 26.09.2024. She was thereafter released from District Jail, Jhansi, on 04.10.2024. Following her acquittal, the applicant submitted a representation dated 22.10.2024 seeking reinstatement in service and subsequently submitted a further representation/reminder dated 12.03.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that, pursuant to her request, proceedings were initiated by the respondents vide office note dated 12.03.2025, wherein her reinstatement was considered and the period from 02.06.2019 till the date of her reinstatement was proposed to be treated as “No Work No Pay”. The applicant has challenged the said document to the extent of denial of salary for the aforesaid period. The record further shows that, pursuant to the proceedings dated 12.03.2025, a communication dated 17.03.2025 was issued and, thereafter, a letter dated 19.03.2025 was issued to the concerned authority for implementation, pursuant to which the applicant was permitted to resume her duties as Trackman. A provisional salary slip for April 2025 has also been placed on record.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant remained in judicial custody during the period in question and her absence from duty was beyond her control. It was contended that, after her acquittal in the criminal case and reinstatement in service, the respondents were not justified in treating the intervening period as “No Work No Pay”. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant is entitled to salary and other consequential benefits for the period from 02.06.2019 till the date of her reinstatement. It was also submitted that the applicant is entitled to the benefits of 2nd and 3rd MACP in the Grade Pay of Rs. 2,400/- and Rs. 2,800/-, respectively. In support of the claim, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and Others, decided on 18.01.2002.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present Original Application. It was submitted that the document dated 12.03.2025, which is under challenge, is merely an internal office note and not a final order passed by the competent authority. It was further submitted that the applicant has an alternative remedy by way of submitting a representation before the competent authority and, therefore, the present Original Application, being directed against an office note, is not maintainable.

6. We have considered the submissions advanced by Mr. Santosh Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents and have carefully perused the material available on record.

7. The principal issue for consideration at this stage is whether the document dated 12.03.2025, placed on record as Annexure A-1, constitutes a final and enforceable decision of the competent authority so as to give rise to a cause of action for maintaining the present Original Application. On perusal of Annexure A-1 dated 12.03.2025, we find that the said document is expressly titled “काया[लय ǑटÜपणी” (Office Note). Its concluding portion records that the matter is being submitted for the perusal and approval of the competent authority. Thus, the document itself indicates that it is an internal office note submitted for consideration and approval and cannot, by itself, be treated as a final and enforceable order passed by the competent authority.

8. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour v. The Chief Executive Officer & Others, 2024 INSC 486 (reported as 2024 6 Supreme 393), has explained the legal position concerning internal departmental notings and file notings. The principle emerging from the said decision is that an internal noting or deliberation, by itself, does not constitute a final decision having enforceable legal effect. It is only when such a proposal or noting is duly considered and approved by the competent authority and is formalised as a decision that it can acquire the character of an operative order.

9. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, we find that the document dated 12.03.2025, which is the subject matter of challenge, is an internal office note submitted for approval. The subsequent communications dated 17.03.2025 and 19.03.2025, as available on record, relate to implementation of the proceedings concerning the applicant’s reinstatement and resumption of duties. However, the office note dated 12.03.2025, by itself, cannot be treated as a final adjudication by the competent authority of the applicant’s claim for back wages for the period from 02.06.2019 till the date of her reinstatement, and other consequential benefits.

10. Moreover, the applicant has an alternative remedy by way of submitting a detailed representation before the competent authority for consideration of her claim regarding the period treated as “No Work No Pay” and for grant of salary and other consequential benefits, including the benefits of 2nd and 3rd MACP. The applicant has also placed on record her representations dated 22.10.2024 and 12.03.2025. However, no final decision of the competent authority on the aforesaid representations is evident from the material placed on record. Considering the availability of the aforesaid remedy and the fact that the document under challenge is only an internal office note, we are of the considered opinion that the present Original Application, registered as Diary No. 6503 of 2026, is not maintainable against the said office note.

11. Accordingly, the preliminary objection raised by the respondents is sustained. Without entering into the merits of the applicant’s claim, the present Original Application, registered as Diary No. 6503 of 2026, is dismissed as not maintainable at the stage of admission, being directed against an internal office note and not against a final decision of the competent authority.

12. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the applicant’s claims for back wages, salary for the intervening period or MACP benefits. The applicant shall be at liberty to pursue such claims before the competent authority in accordance with law.

13. There shall be no order as to costs.

14. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(Manju Pandey)

(Rajnish Kumar Rai) Member (A)

Member (J)

/Shakuntala/