[2026:RJ-JP:25407-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20706/2025 URN: CW / 45806U / 2025 1. Union Of India, Through General Manager, West Central Zone, West Central Railway, Jabalpur. 2. Chief Operating Manager, West Central Zone, West Central Railway, Jabalpur (M.p.). 3. Additional Divisional Railway Manager, West Central Railway, Kota Division, Kota. 4. Senior Divisional Operating Manager, West Central Railway, Kota Division, Kota ----Petitioners-Respondents Versus Ram Lal Yadav Son Of Shri Ganga Ram Yadav, Aged About 50 Years, Permanent Resident Of Mohalla Rathkhana, Near Police Line, Alwar And At Present Resident Of Railway Station Ghat Ka Varana, District Bundi And Presently Working As Assistant Station Master, Ghat Ka Varana, Railway Station, District Bundi, West Central Railway, Kota Division, Kota. ----Respondent-Applicant For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P C Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. C P Sharma Smt. Santosh Sharma Ms. Kirti Kumar Lamba HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 07/07/2026 By way of this civil writ petition, the petitioners/non- applicants (for brevity, "the non-applicants") have assailed the legality and validity of the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for brevity, "the Tribunal") whereby, while disposing of the original application No. 360/2015 filed by the respondent/applicant (for [2026:RJ-JP:25407-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-20706/2025] short, "the applicant"), quashing the order dated 24.12.2013 passed by revisional authority only to the limited extent it was found to be imposing a combined form of two penalties prescribed under the RS (DA) Rules, 1968 (for short, "Rules of 1968") the matter was remanded back to it, with a direction to pass a fresh order imposing any of the penalties prescribed under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1968. However, during course of the arguments, it transpired that the parties were not ad idem as to the nature of double penalty imposed vide order dated 24.12.2013. While, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that while reducing his pay scale as also grade pay for a period of 4 years without cumulative effect, a direction was issued by the revisional authority not to pay him increments for the subject period, learned counsel for the non- applicants, disputing and denying the contention, submitted that the order dated 24.12.2013 did not disentitle the applicant for grant of annual grade increments during the subject period of 4 years. In view of the aforesaid, nothing survives for our consideration and this civil writ petition is disposed of in following terms as agreed and requested by learned counsels for the respective parties-: 1. The order dated 26.08.2025 is quashed and set aside to the extent of remand to the revisional authority. 2. It is held that the applicant would be entitled for benefit of annual grade increments for the period of [2026:RJ-JP:25407-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-20706/2025] currency of the penalty of reduction in pay scale and as also grade pay, i.e., 4 years as imposed vide order dated 24.12.2013. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J 43/Tahir