1 CGHC010301752026 2026:CGHC:36586-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6138 of 2026 1. Harpreet Singh Sohal S/o Baldev Singh Sohal Aged About 41 Years Presently Working As L P (G) S E C R/ R R/o L I G 4/5 Mansarovar Colony, Bhilai-3, District- Durg (C.G.) PIN 490021 ... Petitioner versus 1. Union Of India Through General Manager, South East Central Railway, New G M Building, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) P I N 495004 2. Principal Chief Personnel Officer, South East Central Railway Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) P I N 492005 3. Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager, ( Co- Ord), South East Central Railway Bilaspur, Division Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) P I N 492005 ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Alok Nigam, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General DB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu,J & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, J Order On Board 17/08/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following reliefs:- SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 “10.1. To call the entire records pertaining to the case of the applicant. 10.2. To quash the order dated 30.01.20026 (Annexure P/1) as well as order dated 18.05.2021 & 28.06.2021 (Annexure P/2) 10.3. To direct the respondents to grant automatic promotion to the intermediary grade of Lolo Pilot Shunter (LPS) and grant proforma fixation of pay or in alternative the respondents be directed to grant proforma fixation of pay at par with the juniors, who had been directly promoted to the post of Loco Pilot Goos (LPG) from the post of Sr. Assistant Loco Pilot (ALP) and are drawing more basic pay than that of the petitioner. 10.4. To grant any other relief to the petitioner which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit & appropriate as per the facts & circumstances of the present case.” 2. Facts of the case in brief are that while serving as Assistant Loco Pilot (ALP), a departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner on the allegation of suppression of material information and submission of false documents at the time recruitment, which was followed by imposition of penalty of reduction to initial stage in time scale pay for a period of five years vide order dated 20.2.2014 and on the expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay. Against the order dated 20.2.2014 petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate 3 authority, which was allowed in part vide order dated 21-10-2014 / 04.11.2014 (Annexure P-3), modifying the penalty to the extent that reduction will be for a period of three years with non-cumulative effects. In the meantime, the Assistant Loco Pilots were considered for promotion to the post of Loco Pilot Shunter but petitioner was not considered for promotion due to currency of punishment period. After the period of punishment was over, vide order dated 23.3.2017 petitioner was promoted directly to the post of Loco Pilot Goods (LPG) and also granted notional seniority from the date when his juniors were promoted. 3. Upon noticing that petitioner is getting less salary than his juniors holding similar post, he submitted various representations before the authority concerned for grant of automatic empanelment in light of the instruction specified in on Rule 222 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) as also stepping up of pay at par with his juniors. 4. Respondent Department rejected representation of petitioner assigning reason that automatic empanelment in intermediate grade and fixation of pay on being actually promoted to intermediate grade are two different issues, as such both cannot be construed as same and hence, claim of petitioner is not tenable. Petitioner thereafter submitted reminder representation which was also rejected vide order dated 4 12.6.2021 relying on the provisions of the Establishment Rule No.05/1995 and 143/2005. Aggrieved therewith petitioner preferred an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench (Circuit Sitting in Bilaspur) and the same was also dismissed vide order impugned recording that there is no anomaly in the action of respondent in light of RBE Estt. No.89/2005 dated 26.05.2005. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the action of respondents in denying the petitioner benefit of intermediate grade is contrary to Rule 222 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM), Vol.-1, according to which, an employee selected for promotion to higher grade, without having first been selected/promoted to intermediate grade, may be granted a proforma position in the intermediate grade if such position was due to him in accordance with seniority and suitability. As such, petitioner is entitled for notional /proforma recognized for all consequential service purposes permissible under the Rules and the respondent Department cannot deny such recognition merely on the ground that petitioner did not physically occupy the intermediate post. 6. He next contended that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the provision contained in Rule 222 of the IREM, Vol. I in its proper perspective and erred in dismissing the original 5 application of petitioner solely relying on RBE Estt. No.89/2005. The said circular merely stipulates that an employee undergoing a penalty cannot be granted actual promotion during the currency of the penalty. It does not, either expressly or by necessary implication, prohibit the grant of proforma, notional or consequential promotion for the limited purpose of fixation of pay and determination of the appropriate pay level after the penalty period has come to an end. Hence, there was no reason apparent to deny the benefits of proforma fixation and stepping up of pay, more so when the juniors to petitioner are drawing more basic pay than the petitioner. 7. On the other hand, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing on behalf of respondents would submit that since the petitioner was not eligible for promotion on the date when his juniors were promoted as Loco Pilot Shunter, as he was within currency period of disciplinary punishment, which was in existence from 20.2.2014 to 19.02.2017. According to RBE Estt. No.89/2005 dated 26.05.2005, which is also quoted in order impugned, the employee undergoing disciplinary penalty is not to be promoted during currency of such penalty, the eligibility service in promotional grade for further promotion shall commence only from the date of actual promotion and in no case it may be related, even notionally, to 6 the date of promotion of the junior. Hence, claim of petitioner for proforma fixation of pay to the post of Loco Pilot Shunter has rightly been rejected by the department as also the Tribunal, which does not call for any interference. 8. He further submits that benefit contemplated under the Rule 222 of IREM is subject to fulfillment of the conditions prescribed therein, including the employee’s eligibility, seniority, suitability and the existence of a legitimate promotional entitlement in the relevant cadre and avenue of promotion. Mere subsequent promotion to a higher grade does not, by itself, create an indefeasible right to retrospective or proforma promotion to an intermediate grade. Hence, claim of the Petitioner for grant of intermediate grade on a proforma or notional basis is misconceived and contrary to the applicable Railway Rules. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available in writ petition. 10. It is not in dispute that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against petitioner on allegations relating to suppression of material information and submission of false documents, and a penalty was imposed upon him which was in existence till 19.2.2017. Meanwhile, petitioner’s juniors were promoted to the post of Loco Pilot Goods. After expiry of period of disciplinary punishment, petitioner was 7 straightaway promoted to the post of Loco Pilot Goods on 23.03.2017, making it effective from 19.02.2017. Grievance of petitioner is that he was though granted seniority in the panel with effect from the date his juniors were promoted, but he has not been considered for stepping-up of pay in terms of Rule 222 (b) of the IREM. 11. The crux of contention advanced by learned counsel for petitioner is that, in terms of Rule 222 (b) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM), Vol. I, petitioner is entitled to grant of proforma promotion to the intermediate grade. In order to appreciate said submission, it would be apposite to have a look at Rule 222(b) of the IREM, which reads as under:- “(b) Non-selection post.- in the event of an intermediate grade being a non-selection post, the employees would get a proforma position in such intermediate grade only if such a position was due in accordance with seniority, suitability being accepted by virtue of fitness for the higher grade by a process of selection.” 12. A plain reading of above quoted Rule 222(b) makes it clear that it contemplates a situation where an employee is considered for promotion to a higher grade and there exists an intermediate grade which is a non-selection post. In such a 8 case, the employee is entitled to a proforma/notional placement in the intermediate grade only where, on the basis of the employee’s seniority, such placement had become due. The expression ‘only if such a position was due in accordance with seniority’ is significant. It makes seniority the condition precedent for grant of proforma placement in the intermediate non-selection grade. It does not confer an automatic or unconditional right to proforma promotion upon every employee selected for the higher grade. The grant of a proforma position in the intermediate grade is expressly made subject to the condition that such position was due to the employee in accordance with his seniority. 13. In the present case, when the juniors to the petitioner were promoted, he was undergoing disciplinary punishment and as such, he was not promoted during currency of penalty in terms of applicable rules/instructions. After expiry of punishment period, as the petitioner was fit for higher grade, he was directly promoted to the higher grade. Promotion of petitioner to higher grade may establish his fitness for the purpose contemplated under Rule 222, but such selection, by itself, does not establish that intermediate-grade position was due to him on the date claimed, nor does it confer an automatic right to retrospective fixation of pay. Petitioner’s suitability for the intermediate grade cannot be presumed, 9 when he was not found fit for promotion due to currency of disciplinary punishment. 14. In the above context, it will be useful to refer to RBE Estt. No.89/2005 dated 26.05.2005 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi. This Circular deals with the effect of a disciplinary penalty upon promotion and consequential financial benefits. It regulates pay fixation and stepping up in the case of an employee undergoing penalty. Relevant portion of RBE Estt. No.89/2005 reads thus:- 2.Ministry of Railways have since considered the question of pay fixation and date of commencement of eligibility service in such cases, in the light of clarification issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, and have decided that since the promotion is to take effect only from a date subsequent to the expiry of the currency of the penalty, the employee would be entitled to pay fixation in the promotional grade w.e.f. the date of actual promotion only. Even if a person junior to him in the panel is promoted earlier, it will have no bearing on the pay to be allowed on promotion to the employee on whom a penalty was imposed and there shall be no stepping up of his pay with reference to his junior. Similarly, as the employee undergoing penalty is not to be promoted during the currency of the penalty' the eligibility service in the promotional grade for further promotion shall also commence only from the date of actual promotion and in no case it may be related, even notionally, to 10 the date of promotion of the junior in the panel. However, his late Promotion will not have any affect on his seniority which would be fixed according to his Position in the panel on the basis of which he is promoted on expiry of the period of currency of the Penalty. 15. Reading of above clearly reveals that clarification was issued by the respondent Department and it was decided that in such type of cases promotion is to take effect only from the date subsequent to expiry of currency of the penalty. Such employee would be entitled to pay fixation in the promotional grade with effect from the date of actual promotion and that there is no stepping up of pay with reference to a junior merely because the junior was promoted earlier. 16. In such a situation if the language used in the aforesaid R.B/Estt. No. 89/2005 is taken into consideration, no illegality or infirmity is found in the action of respondent Department whereby they have rejected claim of petitioner for automatic empanelment in intermediate grade and fixation of pay accordingly on next promotional post because his promotion was actually affected by the currency of penalty imposed upon him vide order dated 20.02.2014 and was continuing during the period when juniors to petitioner were promoted. 17. In view of discussion made herein above and in view of the guidelines laid down in RB/Estt. No.89/2005 dated 26.05.2005 as well as Rule 222 of the IREM, we are of the 11 considered view that the Tribunal was justified in dismissing original application of petitioner because the claim of petitioner lacks merit, as such it does not call for any interference. 18. Consequently, this writ petition being meritless is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge roshan/-