Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Salil Ghosh vs Eastern Railway on 26 September, 2022
3. _ This application has been preferred to seek the following reliefs: 1 Loe CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ae KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA | " 0.A/350/1601/2022 . Date of Order: 26.09.2022 Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member Salil Ghosh, Son of Late Sukesh Ch. Ghosh, aged about 57 years, working as Sr. Section Engineer (Mechanical) at Carriage and Wagon Workshop/Eastern Railway/Liluah, resident of 828/A,° Shyam Christan Bagan, Post- Chandannagar, District-hooghly-712136, Ph-848107 5170, email ID- [email protected] --Applicant -Versus" 1. Union of India, service through the General Manager, _ Fastern Railway, Fairlie Place, Kolkata-700001. 2. The Principal Chief Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Fairlie Place, Kolkata-700001. , 3. The Chief Works Manager, Carriage & Wagon Workshop, Eastern Railway, Liluah, P.O Liluah, Howrah -711204. 4. The Workshop Personnel Officer, Carriage & Wagon Workshop, Eastern Railway, Liluah, P.O Liluah, Howrah - 711204. vente Respondents For The Applicant(s): Mr. Arpa Chakraborty, counsel For The Respondent(s): Mr. S. Paul, counsel ORDER(ORAL Per: Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Member (J):
This matter is taken up by Single Bench in view of the revised list dated 04.04.2000 issued under Sub-Section (6) of Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and as no complicated question of law is involved this matter is taken up for disposal at the admission stage with the consent of both the parties. |
2. Heard ld. counsel for both sides.
2a) An Order do issue directing the respondents to act and praseed in accordance with.the provisions of law.
b) An Order do issue directing the respondents to extend the benefit of Order and Judgment dated 08.07.2008 passed by this Han'ble Tribunal in OA No. 188 of 2006 affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in WPCT No. 278 of 2008 and affirmed by the Hen'ble Supreme Court of India vide Order and Judgment dated 08.08.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 8293/2010 and thereby to grant total 6 increments in terms of the relevant incentives scheme of Railway at par with the similarly situated incumbents having the same degree and other incumbents.
having BME degree along with all the consequential benefits Including interest :
accrued thereon. .
¢) To grant Costs. and incidentals.
d) Certify and transmit the entire records and papers pertaining to the applicant's case so that affer the causes shown thereof conscionable justice may be done unto the applicant by way of grant of reliefs as prayed for in (a), (b}) and (c) above; :
e) Any other order or orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper."
ee 4 . Applicant has claimed for two advance increments upon passing AMIE SecA. prior to joinkue of Railway service and part B after joining service. A certificate was issued to him as such. The applicant is entitled to 6 advance increments, he has been granted four increments, out of 6 increments, and the first iwo increments are still due.
5. - Applicant has sought for benefits of the order passed by this Tribunal and a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Narugopal Ghoshal and Ors. in C. A no. 8293/2010, where the Homble Apex Court has held as under:
_ "The respondents numbering seven are employees of the indian Railways. in order fo improve the skills and acquire further qualifications, the Railways as the employer brought in schemes for the special incentives for acquiring qualifications during the course of service at the own cost of the employees.
in furtherance of the aforesaid, the relevant incentives scheme is contained in the letter dated 29.5.1989, the relevant terms of which are as under:
"On passing the relevant examination, the following awards shail be. given te be railway employee fapprentices;
(i) for passing part () or 'A' Intermediate or Pre- final examinations- two advance increments. . ;
(i) for passing part (if) or 'B' or final examination our advance increments."
XX XX XN. XX XX . XX 2: SSRs ages tet d essen retrrry et sre see ee The claim of the respondents is predicated on a plea of parity with other similarly situated persons. [t Is their say that two such other respondents are Raman Malik and Dilip Saha. These two persons amongst others acquired BME degree (degree examination) which a course of five years. The respondents cleared AMIE examination which is treated as the equivalent to a degree examination. There is no dispute that both these examinations are treated as equivalent to each other. These two persons were, however, granted benefit of six such advance increments as the course of BME is a consolidated course.
xx XX KX Xx A : AX The plea of the learned counsel for the respondents. in a nutshell is that if on completion of a substantive part of the course and only completing a small . part of the course after joining service six increments have been granted as in -- the case of BME examination, there is no reason why persons like the _ respondents who completed substantive part of the course of part B after joining the service should be denied the benefit.
a xx xt NX XN Xx On hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that there is some merit in what is contended by learned counsel for the respondents. We may note that both the impugned orders of the Tribunal and of the High Court are predicated on a rationale of equality rather than real interpretation of the circular, We may note that on a clear interpretation of the circular what was granted to the respondents was what they were entitled to. The complication has arisen on account of the appellant's having granted the benefit of six increments to such person wha completed the BME examination. Logically faking the aforesaid course contents into consideration, persons who had_ cleared BME examination would have been entitled to, at best, four advance increments as incentives. There is no other circular issued or brought to. Our notice as to why in case of a consolidated examination like BME six advance increments should be granted, In. view of the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the. | conclusion of the two concurrent judgments of the Courts below. We, however, make it clear that had the rule been uniformly applied, there would -- have been no basis for the plea of loss of increments to the' respondents. .
The appeal is dismissed .
Parties to bear their own costs.
The appellants to take necessary steps for grant of benefit to the respondents within a maximum period of three months from today." .
6. Ld. Counsel for the applicant at hearing would draw my attention to the certificate issued to the applicant upon completion of part A_ &B of the examination, as contained in Annexure A/] and a list af the Workshop staffs where his name appears below one N.G. Ghosal, in whose ease the Hon'ble Apex Court granted 6 advance increment for having passed Part B. 7, Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the claim of the respondents stating that the benefits of the judgement in Narugopal Ghoshal supra, is to be restricted to the applicant therein, is a judgement in rem not in personem.
8. - Since the applicant deserves identical benefits and a representation made to the respondents to that effect is also pending, I \ strongly feel that the applicant has been able to make out a case meriting jt grant of | 2 advance increments that are left to be released, accordingly. respondents are directed to consider the representation date 20.08.2022 and | pass appropriate order in the light of the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision supra as well a8 the order passed by this Tribunal, For the purpose, applicant shall forward copy of the order passed in such O.A alongwith copy of the order passed today.
8. if nothing stands in the way, 2 increments that are 'still due shall be 'released in favour of the applicant and to issue appropriate order within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. --
9, O.A accordingly, stands disposed of. No costs.
nee (Bidisha Banerj ee) -
' Member (J)