SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 15803

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
B Rakesh – Appellant
Versus
M/o Railways – Respondent
O.A./507/2017



CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH HYDERABAD, this the 14th day of February, 2025 Hon’ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member Hon’ble Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Administrative Member B. Rakesh S/o. B. Venkata Ramulu, aged about 25 years, working as Peon, O/o. Asst. Divisional Engineer/Dhone, S.C. Railway, Guntakal Division, District Ananthapur.

.....Applicant.

(By Advocate: Ms. Rachna Kumari)

Vs.

1. The Union of India, rep. by The General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.

2. The Chief Medical Director, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.

3. The Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Guntakal Division, Guntakal, District Ananthapur.

4. The Chief Medical Superintendent, Railway Hospital, S.C. Railway, Guntakal Division, Guntakal, District Anantapur. 5. The Additional Chief Medical Superintendent, Railway Hospital, S.C. Railway, Guntakal Division, Guntakal, District Anantapur.

6. The Senior Divisional Engineer (Coordination), South Central Railway, Guntakal Division, Guntakal, District Ananthapur, 7. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South Central Railway, Guntakal Division, Guntakal, District Anantapur.

8. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, S.C. Railway, Guntakal Division, Guntakal, District Anantapur.

Digitaly signed by KARAN DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= KARAN5

1 0 S 0 T 0 F 0 L 4 O , L O = R H y H d A e C ra A b a B d H , A S W =T A e N la H ng Y a D n E a R , S A T B R A E D E , P T= h N on O e =

5-10-193 cf00bb597b6051b5a127d240a608798336d0ecf5a9520b401698

9. The Senior Section Engineer /P. Way, S.C. Railway, Dhone, Guntakal Division, District Anantapur.

... Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. V Vinod Kumar, Sr. PC for CG)

-----

Digitaly signed by KARAN DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode= KARAN5

1 0 S 0 T 0 F 0 L 4 O , L O = R H y H d A e C ra A b a B d H , A S W =T A e N la H ng Y a D n E a R , S A T B R A E D E , P T= h N on O e =

5-10-193 cf00bb597b6051b5a127d240a608798336d0ecf5a9520b401698 ORAL ORDER

(As per Hon’ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member) By this Original Application, the applicant sought the following relief:

“This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to call for records and to direct the Respondent to treat the period from re-medical examination from 26.02.2013 to 27.01.2016 total 35 months as duty and grant pay and allowances with interest as well as count the services with all consequential benefits as delay in conducting the Re- Medical Examination as per the rules on inability of the applicant to perform the duties of Trackman due to his Physical condition and due to non-consideration of the Representations dated 04.11.2016 is attributable to the Railway Administration and grant all the consequential benefits; and be pleased to pass such other and further order or orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are that his father while working as Deputy Chief Ticket Inspector, Dhone was Medically de-categorised in 2008 and was discharged from service and he had applied for Compassionate appointment for his son i.e. applicant. The applicant was appointed as Trackman on 17.01.2013 by the 7th Respondent to work under the SSE/P.Way, SCRly, Dhone, in Guntakal Division. Though, he was not aware of the nature of duties of Trackman, but had joined the said post on 13.02.2013. Thereafter, he approached the 9th Respondent and submitted a representation dt.22.02.2013, explaining his problems and physical inability to perform the duties of a Trackman and requested for an alternative post. The 9th Respondent had addressed to the 4th Respondent on 26.02.2013 and requested him to examine whether the applicant is fit for duty or not, marking copies to other respondents also. The 5th Respondent, having examined the applicant and havi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top