Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A. No. 992/2021 Reserved on :- 20.02.2026 Pronounced on:- 25.03.2026 Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)

Gyan Singh, Aged 57 Years, S/o Sh. Ram Sajivan Singh, Working as Trackman, Under SSE/P WAY, Northern Railway, Gurgaon, R/o Vill, Jawaharganj, Post Tinhapur, Distt. Kosambhi (U.P.)

...Applicant (By Advocates: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)

Versus

1. Union of India, Through the General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi

2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Delhi Division, State Entry Road, New Delhi.

…Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. Rajeev Kumar)

ORDER By way of the present Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass of an order declaring to the effect that action of the respondents not considering and not finalizing the case of the applicant for placing him in old pension scheme is illegal, arbitrary and against the rules and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to place the applicant in old pension scheme under Rly. Servant (Pension) Rules, 1993 after counting 50% of casual service of the applicant with all the consequential benefits.

(ii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the to treat the applicant regularly appointed from 1998 at par with his junior as per the undertaking given by the respondents before the Hon'ble Tribunal on 21.3.2005 in C.P.No. 366/2004 in OA No. 420/2003 with all the consequential benefits.

(iii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant along with the costs of litigation.”

2. Highlighting the facts of the present case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant herein has been appointed as casual labour on 15.07.1981 under Inspector of Works, Northern Railway, New Delhi. After completion of the work, his services were disengaged on 14.12.1981 but as per the provisions of the Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) the name of the applicant was placed under live casual labour registered for re-engagement. On 05.09.2001 the applicant was called to submit his documents for re-

engagement but his juniors were re-engaged and

aggrieved of the same he filed an O.A. No. 420/2003

before this Tribunal. The said O.A. was disposed of on 22.08.2003 with a direction to the respondents to re- engage the applicant. However the order passed by this Tribunal was not implemented by the respondents, thus the applicant filed C.P. No. 366/2004 and the same was disposed of on 21.03.2005 on the basis of the statement given by the respondents “that the applicant would be examined in the screening test for adjudging their suitability for absorption in regular Group ‘D’ posts and if found suitable, they would be absorbed in Group ‘D’ posts from the date(s) their junior(s) have been absorbed with pay fixation and seniority.” Thereafter, on 08.09.2005 the respondents re-engaged the applicant as Substitute Gangmen and regularized his services after obtaining approval from the competent authority.

2.1. He highlighted that in 2020 the applicant has come to know that his junior persons have been placed under the Old Pension Scheme, whereas, the applicant has been placed under the New Pension Scheme. The applicant thereafter submitted a request dated 30.05.2020 through the Single Window system seeking consideration under the Railway Services (Pension)

SHILPI GUPTA 2026.03.25 Rules, 1993 in place of the National Pension Scheme in

terms of RBE No. 28/2020 dated 03.03.2020 but till date no decision has been taken.

2.2. In support of his case, learned counsel for the applicant places reliance upon the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in an identical matter, being O.A. No. 986/2021 in the matter of Virender Singh vs. Union of India & Anr., decided on 30.01.2025 and stated that the issue involved in the present matter