Umesh Kumar Tiwari S/o Ram Pal Tiwari & Ors vs Somesh Kumar & Ors

Rajnish Kumar Rai Member (J)

Learned counsel for both the parties are present and heard.

The instant contempt petition under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has been filed for non-compliance with the order dated 15.01.2025 passed in O.A. No. 378 of 2022, whereby the following directions were issued:

"8.On verification of documents, analysis of facts, etc., it is clear that the applicants were recruited pursuant to Centralized Notification No. 03 of 2012. Other successful candidates, who were even lower in merit, were assigned different cadres having better promotional avenues and were also entitled to appear in the LDCE for faster promotion. Being recruited through a common agency and being posted on a particular post should neither be discriminatory nor disadvantageous. In case the applicants are higher in the merit list, there is no justification for such discrimination.

The Railways have issued various guidelines from time to time for merger of the cadre of the applicants with the Ministerial cadre. Had such policy been implemented within time, the applicants would undoubtedly have received better chances of promotion as well as opportunity to appear in the LDCE for faster promotion. We do not find any justification for such discrimination. Hence, the O.A. is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed.

The respondents are directed to give effect to the recommendation regarding merger of the Unit Purchase Cell with the Ministerial cadre in pursuance of Railway Board letter dated 26.10.2005 and subsequent reminders, and also provide opportunity of LDCE facilities to the applicants along with consequential benefits. No order as to costs."

The Tribunal, vide order dated 15.01.2025, allowed the Original Application with a direction to the respondents to give effect to the recommendation regarding merger of the Unit Purchase Cell into the Ministerial cadre in pursuance of Railway Board letter dated 26.10.2005. The respondents' department considered and complied with the directions issued by this Tribunal in the light of the recommendations made by the Railway Board and subsequent reminders issued from time to time.

From the record, it appears that the Railway Board had taken a policy decision in the year 2005 and thereafter issued subsequent reminders up to the year 2016. The respondents passed a speaking order dated 19.05.2025 and complied with the directions issued by this Tribunal by merging the applicants from the Purchase Cadre/Unit Purchase Cell (UPC) into the Ministerial Cadre. The consequential benefits were made applicable w.e.f. 15.01.2025.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the order passed by this Tribunal has not been complied with in its true spirit, inasmuch as the promotional avenues available in the other cadre were not extended to the applicants. Consequently, they are being deprived of timely promotion to higher posts vis-à-vis other personnel who were engaged pursuant to the authorized publication dated 12.05.2012, despite the applicants being senior in the panel published on 12.05.2012. It is, therefore, submitted that the applicants are seeking parity with such personnel by grant of retrospective promotion and retrospective protection under the LDCE.

Considering the record of the case, the order and directions issued by this Tribunal, as well as the order dated 19.05.2025, we are of the opinion that the directions issued to the respondents were to give effect to the recommendation regarding merger of the Unit Purchase Cell into the Ministerial Cadre pursuant to the Railway Board letter dated 26.10.2005 and subsequent reminders. The directions appear to be prospective in nature. Thereafter, the respondents considered the merger of the Purchase Cell into the Ministerial Cadre w.e.f. 15.01.2025 vide order dated 19.05.2025 and provided opportunity for LDCE and other consequential benefits. Once the merger has been given effect to, the applicants shall be entitled to further promotional benefits in accordance with the applicable rules governing LDCE from time to time. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that compliance has been made out.

However, it shall be open to the applicants, if still aggrieved by the order dated 19.05.2025, to challenge the same before the appropriate forum, if so advised.

In view of the above, the proceedings in C.P. No. 276 of 2025 stand dropped and the notices issued to the respondents are discharged.

All pending M.A.s, if any, also stand disposed of.