Dismissed¶12

Tribhuwan Shaw v. Union Of India Through The General Manager East Central Railway And Ors.

Service law – Railway (East Central Railway)

Jharkhand HC1 Sept 2025WPC/536/2016

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Deemed promotion; Goods Guard; Cabin Master; Limited Departmental Examination; running allowance 55%; pension fixation on last pay drawn 31.12.2013; retirement on 31.01.2014 before posting order dated 19.02.2014; equal pay for equal work; East Central Railway; Central Administrative Tribunal Patna, Ranchi Circuit Bench, O.A. No. 051/00187/2014; Jharkhand High Court Division Bench, 2025:JHHC:26571-DB; W.P.(S) No. 536 of 2016 dismissed on 01.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner claimed to have worked independently as a Goods Guard from 05.01.2014 to 25.01.2014, but was unable to place any material before the Tribunal or before this Court regarding a formal order of promotion. ¶9

Tribhuwan Shaw Vs Union Of India Through The General Manager East Central Railway And Ors. — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who allegedly performed duties as Goods Guard in January 2014 before retiring on 31.01.2014, was entitled to have his pension fixed and paid from January 2014 by including the running allowance of 55% in the grade of Goods Guard, with consequential benefits. +1 more

¶3

Court's answer

Even taking the petitioner's case at its best, he could only be held entitled to equal pay for equal work for the days which he allegedly worked as a Goods Guard.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

¶9

Key takeaways

Although the petitioner successfully completed the training, no formal order of promotion was issued in his favour; his trained counterparts were appointed vide order dated 19.02.2014, by which time he had already retired on 31.01.2014. Accordingly, no fault can be found with the Tribunal's dismissal of the OA, firstly because there could be no deemed promotion and secondly because the petitioner failed to place on record any order of promotion.ratio¶11
The writ application has no merit and is dismissed, with the parties left to bear their own costs.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law - Railway (East Central Railway) - Petitioner, working as Cabin Master, empanelled for the post of Goods Guard (pay scale Rs. 5200-20200 + Grade Pay Rs. 2800, departmental promotion quota; written examination results 08.10.2013); underwent initial training from 11.11.2013 to 20.12.2013 and allegedly performed duties as Goods Guard from 05.01.2014 to 25.01.2014; retired on 31.01.2014. Posting orders to successful trainees were issued vide order dated 19.02.2014, in which his name did not figure as he had already retired and had not completed line training. Held: (i) no formal order of promotion was ever issued in the petitioner's favour and he placed no material showing one; (ii) there can be no deemed promotion; (iii) at best the petitioner was entitled to equal pay for equal work for the days allegedly worked as Goods Guard; his claim for refixation of pension by adding the 55% running allowance of the Goods Guard grade from January 2014 was rejected. No fault was found with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna (Circuit Bench at Ranchi) dismissing O.A. No. 051/00187/2014; writ petition dismissed, parties to bear their own costs.

¶1

2025:JHHC:26571-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 536 of 2016

¶3

Tribhuwan Shaw S/o-Late Ram Kishan Shaw resident of VillageSankul, P.O.- Patratu ( Diesel Shed), P.S.- Patratu, Distt- Ramgarh, Jharkhand …… ... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

Union of India, through the General Manager, East Central Railway, P.O.+ P.S.+ Distt-Hazipur ( Bihar)

¶6

Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, P.O.+P.S.+Distt- Dhanbad ( Jharkhand)

¶7

The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, P.O.+P.S.+Distt-Dhanbad ( Jharkhand)

¶8

Senior Divisional Operating Manager, East Central Railway, P.O.+P.S.+Distt-Dhanbad ( Jharkhand) ... Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶11

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Kumar , Advocate For the Respondents: Mrs. Niki Sinha, CGC

¶13

¶14

07/Dated: 01.09.2025

¶15

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J. (Oral)

¶16

1. Heard the parties.

¶17

2. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the OA No. 051/00187/2014 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna, Circuit Bench at Ranchi, the petitioner has filed the instant writ application.

¶18

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that while working as a Cabin Master he passed examination of Goods Guard and was allowed to join the training and after successfully completing his training, he performed the duty as Goods Guard in the Month of January, 2014 and retired, as such, on 31.01.2014, but his pension was fixed on the basis of last pay drawn on 31.12.2013

¶19

Page 1 of 4

¶20

2025:JHHC:26571-DB

¶21

in which the running allowance of 55% in the grade of Goods Guard was not added, constraining him to file an Original Application before the Tribunal seeking therein a direction to the respondents to fix and pay from January 2014 the running allowance of 55% in the grade of Goods Guard and other consequential benefits.

¶22

4. The respondents contested the Original Application by filing a reply wherein it was averred that the petitioner was though empanelled for the post of Goods Guard in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200/- + Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/- against departmental promotion quota of which results of the written examination was published on 08.10.2013, and the petitioner was also sent for initial course training from 11.11.2013 to 20.12.2013, but the petitioner could not be appointed as by the time of the posting orders of the successful trainees had been issued vide order dated 19.02.2014, the petitioner had already retired on 31.01.2014 and could not complete his line training. Therefore, he was not competent to perform duty independently as Goods Guard and hence, could not be posted as Guard.

¶23

5. The petitioner in support of his contention that he had been performing duties of a Goods Guard had appended the following documents:-

¶24

i. A certificate of completion of training as Annexure-A/2 ii. A challan issued by the Stores I/C by which he has been issued some equipment showing him as Goods Guard.

¶25

iii. A copy of a combined report of running of a train, which is filed by Drivers and Guards.

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

2025:JHHC:26571-DB

¶28

6. However, the learned Tribunal held that since the petitioner had claimed promotion from Cabin Master to Goods Guards in pursuance of a Limited Departmental Examination, therefore, there ought to be a formal order for such promotions especially when such formal order of promotion had been issued to the empanelled candidates vide order dated 19.02.2014, in which the applicant’s name did not figure as he had already retired.

¶29

7. The learned Tribunal further held that there could not be deemed promotion and accordingly dismissed the Original Application.

¶30

8. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the instant writ application. It is vehemently argued by Sri. Binod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding rendered by the learned Tribunal is perverse, on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that since the petitioner had not been appointed as per law, therefore, he is not entitled to the relief as sought for before the Tribunal.

¶31

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record. It needs to be noticed that the simple case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that he had been working independently as a Goods Guard from 05.01.2014 to 25.01.2014 but he was unable to place any material before the Tribunal or before this Court regarding a formal order of promotion.

¶32

10. Even taking to the case of the petitioner at its best, the petitioner can only be held to be entitled to equal pay for equal

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

2025:JHHC:26571-DB

¶35

work for the days which he has allegedly worked as a Goods Guard.

¶36

11. As regards promotion from Cabin Master to Goods Guard, admittedly there was a limited departmental examination and thereafter training for the said post. Even though, the petitioner had successfully completed the training but the fact remains that no formal order of promotion had been issued in his favour rather it has been duly proved on record that the counterparts of the petitioner actually came to be promoted who had undergone the training with the petitioner had as a matter of fact been formerly appointed vide order dated 19.02.2014 by which time the petitioner had already retired on 31.01.2014. Obviously in such circumstances no fault can be found with the order passed by the Tribunal when the Tribunal dismissed the original application, firstly on the ground that there could be no deemed promotion and secondly because the petitioner had failed to place on record any order of promotion showing therein his promotion from Cabin Master to Goods Guard.

¶37

12. Having said so, we find no merit in this application and the same is accordingly, dismissed, leaving the parties to bear the costs.

¶38

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)

¶39

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶40

N.A.F.R.

¶41

Sharda/-

¶42

Page 4 of 4

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order of dismissal of Original Application No. 051/00187/2014 filed by the petitioner, challenging which the instant writ application was filed.¶2
Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna, Circuit Bench at Ranchi
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's case before the Tribunal: while working as Cabin Master he passed the Goods Guard examination, completed training, performed duty as Goods Guard in January 2014 and retired on 31.01.2014; his pension was fixed on last pay drawn on 31.12.2013 without the 55% running allowance of the Goods Guard grade.¶3
Prior proceeding
Relief sought in the Original Application: a direction to the respondents to fix and pay from January 2014 the running allowance of 55% in the grade of Goods Guard along with other consequential benefits.¶3
Prior proceeding
Respondents contested the OA by filing a reply, averring that although the petitioner was empanelled for Goods Guard (Rs. 5200-20200 + Grade Pay Rs. 2800, departmental quota, results 08.10.2013) and trained from 11.11.2013 to 20.12.2013, posting orders were issued only on 19.02.2014, by which time he had retired on 31.01.2014 without completing line training, hence he could not be posted as Guard.¶4
Prior proceeding
In support of his claim of having performed duties as Goods Guard, the petitioner relied on a certificate of completion of training (Annexure-A/2), a challan by which equipment was issued to him showing him as Goods Guard, and a combined report of running of a train filed by Drivers and Guards.¶5
Prior proceeding
Learned Tribunal held that, promotion being claimed through a Limited Departmental Examination, a formal order of promotion was necessary; such formal order was issued to empanelled candidates vide order dated 19.02.2014, in which the applicant's name did not figure as he had already retired.¶6
Prior proceeding
Learned Tribunal further held that there could not be deemed promotion and accordingly dismissed the Original Application.¶7

Tribhuwan Shaw v. Union Of India Through The General Manager East Central Railway And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tribhuwan Shaw v. Union Of India Through The General Manager East Central Railway And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bajrangi Rana And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Dr Kripa Shankar Awasthy (Retd. Professor) Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prashant Kumar Jha Vs State of Jharkhand through Secretary Home Jail and Disaster Management

Nagendra Baitha And Anr. Vs Union of India And Ors.

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

The D. C, Jamtara-Cum-Dist. Programmer Coordinator, Jamtara Vs Poonam Kumari