Disposed

Dayashankar Tiwari v. Northern Eastern Railway

CAT14 Sept 2026O.A./1046/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal disposed of an application regarding the quashing of an impugned order affecting pay and pension benefits. It directed the competent authority to reconsider and decide the applicant's pending representation within three months without adjudicating the merits or delay.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondents to consider and decide the applicant's pending representation by a reasoned and speaking order within three months.

Dayashankar Tiwari vs Northern Eastern Railway — Service and Employment | CAT (2026)

¶1

OA1046/2026

¶2

(Open Court)

¶3

Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench, Allahabad

¶4

¶5

Original Application No.1046 of 2026

¶6

This the 14^th Day of September, 2026.

¶7

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

¶8

Dayashankar Tiwari son of Baijnath Tiwari, Resident of SS-25 Rapti Nagar Phase-1 Post office- Arogyamandir Gorakhpur.

¶9

….Applicant

¶10

By Advocate: Mr. Rajesh Tripathi

¶11

Versus

¶12

Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern Railway. Gorakhpur.

¶13

Chief Workshop Manager, (CWM), Mechanical, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.

¶14

Divisional Finance Manager (DFM), North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.

¶15

…Respondents.

¶16

By Advocate: Mr. Anil Kumar

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Learned counsel for the parties are present and heard.

¶19

The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for the following reliefs:-

¶20

“A. Quash and set aside the Impugned Order dated 22.01.2026. Direct the respondents to restore the original pay and calculate all pensioners benefits PPO, Gratuity, Leave Encashment based on the pay of 66,000 and refund any amount already recovered, with 18 % interest.

¶21

B. Issue an order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider/ decide the representation dated 05.05.2026 pending before Respondent No. 2 Chief Workshop

ARPITA SRIVASTAV

Page 1 of 2

OA1046/2026

Manager/ Personnel North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur of the applicant by a reasoned and speaking order.

¶26

C. Issue any,, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶27

D. To award costs of the application in favour of the Applicant.

¶28

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant retired from the post of Senior Technician (Painter) under SSE/C&W on 31.01.2026. He further submits that, at the time of his retirement, his last pay drawn was modified and his PPO was issued on the basis of such modified last pay drawn. It is submitted that the said action was taken in violation of the principles of natural justice. Aggrieved by the said action, the applicant submitted a representation dated 05.05.2026 before the competent authority. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant confines his prayer to a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the aforesaid representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents seeks time to apprise this Court in the matter.

¶30

Considering the limited prayer made by the applicant, this Tribunal is of the view that the Original Application may be disposed of at the admission stage with a direction to Respondent No. 2/competent authority to consider and decide the representation dated 05.05.2026 by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶31

Accordingly, the instant Original Application stands disposed of with the above-mentioned directions.

¶32

It is made clear that this Tribunal has not entered into the question of delay, laches, or the merits of the applicant’s claim. All issues are left open for consideration by the respondents.

¶33

All pending M.A.s, if any, stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶34

RAJNISH KUMAR RAI MEMBER (J)

¶35

/Arpita/

¶36

ARPITA SRIVASTAV

¶37

Page 2 of 2

Dayashankar Tiwari v. Northern Eastern Railway

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayashankar Tiwari v. Northern Eastern Railway

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shishir Kumar Sirvastava vs Union of India

Vijay Kumar vs Union of India

Dilip Kumar Pandey vs Union of India

Atul Mishra vs Secretary

Mohd Iqbal Shah vs Ut of Jk through Commissioner Secretary School Education Department

Gulam Mohi Ud Din Khan vs Jal Shakti Department

Habibullah Khan vs Home Department

Smt Archana Devi vs Union of India