(RESERVED ON 21.11.2025)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD Pronounced on this the day of 13^th January, 2026.

Original Application No. 60 of 2025.

Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J)

Hon’ble Ms. Manju Pandey, Member (A)

Sushil Charles Johnson, aged about 63 years S/o Late M. Johnson R/o House No. 22 IRWO Colony Sangam Vatika, Deoprayagam, Jhalwa, Prayagraj, U.P.

--Applicant By Advocate: Shri N P Singh.

Versus

1. Union of India through General Manager, North Central Railway, Subedarganj, Prayagraj.

2. Principal Chief Medical Director, Central Railway, Subedarganj Prayagraj. North

3. Principal Chief Personnel Officer, North Central Railway, Subedarganj, Prayagraj.

4. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Civil Lines, Prayagraj.

....Respondents.

By Advocate: Shri Sanjay Kumar Tiwari.

O R D E R

By Hon’ble Ms. Manju Pandey, Member (A):-

Heard Shri N P Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This Original Application is filed under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking following reliefs:-

8i. To call for the entire records of interview dated 11.12.2024 for re- engagement of Para-Medical staff as per RBE No.59/2024 dated

28.06.2024 and consider the case of applicant as per rules.

ii. Direct the respondent no.3 to decide the applicant's representation dated 10.01.2025 within time bound period as directed Tribunal. this by Hon'ble iii. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

iv. To award the cost of the application to the applicant.

v). Direction may kindly be issue to the respondents to include the name of applicant in select list on the basis of marks obtained in interview.”

3. The Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are that the applicant, a superannuated Group ‘C’ para-medical employee (Chief Lab Superintendent) retired on 31.10.2021 from North Central Railway, applied for re-engagement on contractual basis pursuant to Railway Board’s RBE No.59/2024 dated 28.06.2024, which specifically governs re-engagement of retired para-medical staff. His application dated 16.10.2024 was duly forwarded with recommendation, and he was called for interview held on 11.12.2024, in which, as per the Screening Committee proceedings, he secured the highest marks (90) and was found suitable. However, without initially declaring results, certain other candidates were telephonically called for medical fitness, and subsequently, by result dated 15.01.2025, the respondents excluded the applicant and declared other candidates successful by wrongly applying RBE No.96/2024 dated 15.10.2024 and its amendment RBE No.115/2024 dated 31.12.2024, which relate to general re-engagement of non-gazetted staff and not to para-medical staff governed by RBE No.59/2024. The applicant’s representation dated 10.01.2025 remains undecided, and despite availability of vacant posts of Lab Superintendent/Lab Assistant and the applicant being the sole highest- scoring and recommended candidate, the respondents allegedly adopted an arbitrary pick-and-choose approach, compelling the applicant to approach the Hon’ble Tribunal.

4. On the other hand, the Respondents have filed counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that no illegality or infirmity has been committed in the case of the applicant, who has suppressed material facts to obtain relief unlawfully. As per Railway Board Circulars including RBE Nos. 59/2024, 96/2024 and 115/2024, re-engagement of retired non- gazetted staff is purely discretionary, meant for exigencies, and permissible only against vacant posts in the same post and pay level held at the time of retirement, and not as a matter of right. The applicant retired as Chief Lab Supervisor with MACP Level-8 on 31.10.2021 and applied for re-engagement; however, no vacant post of his category and level was available in Prayagraj Division, and therefore his case could not be considered, which was dul