Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 600

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Om Prakash, J, Mohan Pyare, A
Km. Shital D/o Mangal Ram – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Railway (R.P.F.), Govt. of India – Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Delay Condonation Application No 1757 of 2025 | Original Application bearing Diary No. 1931 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri P.S. Kushwaha, Shri Udai Singh
For the Respondents: Shri Ram Chandra Sahu

The Central Administrative Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over grievances related to combatised personnel within the armed forces, distinguishing them from civilian staff.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Jurisdiction provisions excluding armed forces - Maintainability of Original Application concerning selection for the post of Constable in Railway Protection Force - Court emphasized jurisdiction limitations based on personnel classification - Judicial precedents referenced reaffirming that grievances of civilian staff may be entertainable by the Tribunal. (Paras 7-9)

(B) The distinction between combatised and non-combatised personnel is pivotal, affecting the ability to redress grievances within the scope of the Tribunal's authority.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to decide the matter as it involves an application for a combatised post.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the application given the combatised nature of the post.

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal's exclusion from certain jurisdiction applies to combatised posts, illustrating the legislative intent separating civilian and combatised personnel's grievances.

Result: Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

ORDER

(By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)

Shri P.S. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri R.C. Sahu, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.

2. A question has been raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents regarding the maintainability of the present OA. Thus, we have heard learned counsel for the parties on the point of maintainability of the present OA before this Bench.

3. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief:

“(i) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to kindly quash and set aside the impugned rejection order dated 01.04.2015 passed by the respondent authority (Annexure No. 1 to this Original Application)

(ii) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to kindly, direct the respondents to issue her appointment letter for the post of Constable in Railway Protection Force (RPF) under the OBC category.

(iii) That the respondents be directed to comply with the order of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 4650/2015 and 4.2.2025, and decide the applicant’s representation forthwith.

(iv) That the respondents be directed to treat the applicant as an OBC candidate and extend her all benefits accordingly.

(v) That any other relief or order as deemed just and proper by this Hon’ble Tribunal may also be granted in favour of the applicant.”

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that although the dispute has been raised by the applicant regarding his selection in Railway Protection Force on the post of Constable, while RPF personnel are Railway employee and grievance of the Railway employees are redressable before the administrative Tribunal. It is further argued that the applicant had earlier approached before the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad through Writ A No 4650 of 2015 which was decided on 29.01.2015 to decide the representation of the applicant. It was further argued that when the applicant’s grievance was not redressed by the respondents, he again approached before the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad through Writ A No 18882 of 2024 and in the aforesaid writ, objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court was raised on behalf of the respondents. Thus, at the request of the petitioner, applicant’s writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the applicant to challenge the order before the Central Administrative Tribunal. He also states that after the order was passed on 04.02.2025 in the aforesaid writ petition, the applicant has approached before this Tribunal and the instant OA is well maintainable and grievance raised by the applicant is redressable by this Tribunal. In support of his statement, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 26.09.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No 3592 of 2019 titled Commanding Officer, Railway Protection Special Force, Mumbai Vs Bhavnaben Dinshbhai Bhabhor & Others.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the applicant had applied for the selection on the post of Constable in Railway Protection Force (RPF). RPF has been declared as armed forces. Since post of Constable in the RPF is a combatised personnel post and there is an exclusion clause in the Administrative Tribunals Act itself, thus, Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the issue raised by the applicant. It is also argued that only grievance of persons holding civilian posts in the armed forces is redressable before Central Administrative Tribunal and thus referring to his submission, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the instant OA be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 12.06.2019 passed by the Hyderabad Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No 1189 of 2015 titled Ch. Appalaraju Vs Senior

Click Here to Read the rest of this document