Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
M L Srivastava vs Union Of India on 3 April, 2025
CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00059 of 2009 M L Srivastava Vs. U.O.I. &Ors.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
Original Application No.332/00059/2009
Dated, this 3rdday of April, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member-Judicial
Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
M. L. Srivastava aged about 56 years, S/o Sri R. C. Lal, R/o B-41,
Kailashpuri, P.O. Alambagh, District Lucknow.
.....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through the Chairman, Railway Board, Baroda
House, New Delhi.
2. Director General, Research Designs & Standards Organization,
Lucknow.
3. Director, Pay Commission-II, Railway Board, Govt. of India,
Ministry of Railways, Baroda House, New Delhi.
4. Joint Director Administration-III, RDSO, Lucknow.
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta
ORDER (ORAL)
Per Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to promotion, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:
"(a) Issuing/passing an order or direction setting aside the impugned order dated 16.12.2008 passed by the respondent No. 2 as contained in Annexure No. A-1 and impugned memo No. 61 dated 13.12.2004 passed by P.P. No. 2 as contained in Annexure No. A-2 to this OA.
(b) Issuing an order or direction directing the respondent No. 2 and 3 to extend the benefit of restructuring order dated 04.12.2003 or consider the case of the applicant for awarding the benefit of restructuring in the light of decision communicated vide letter dated 21.02.2006 and 03.01.2007 treating the Traffic Department of the RDSO as organized service, and promote the applicant in pay scale of Rs. 7450 - 11500 Page 1 of 13 CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00059 of 2009 M L Srivastava Vs. U.O.I. &Ors.
w.e.f. 01.11.2003 as already recommended by the three member committee on 21.09.2004 and also direct the respondents to pay the difference of arrears of salary within two months and also award the interest thereon at the prevailing market rate.
(c) Issue any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the present circumstances of the case.
(d) To allow this application with cost."
Facts
2. The applicant joined service under the respondents on 22.07.1978 and was working on the post of Chief Technical Assistant (CTA, hereafter) with pay scale of Rs. 6,500 - 10,500/- (5th Pay Commission) in the Traffic Directorate of the Research Design and Standards Organization (RDSO, hereafter) in the Railways at the time of preferring this OA. Aggrieved at the benefit of cadre restructuring having been denied to the Traffic Directorate as well as denial of restructuring at par with the Zonal Railways, the applicant approached this Tribunal in OA No. 16 of 2007 whereupon this Tribunal, vide order dated 27.10.2008, directed the respondents to dispose of the applicant's representation dated 29.10.2004. The applicant's representation was rejected by the respondents vide their order dated 16.12.2008 which has been challenged by the applicant in this OA. Previous Litigation
3. This OA was earlier adjudicated by us taking into consideration a letter dated 11.07.2012 issued by the respondents and disposing of the OA vide order dated 13.10.2023 with the following directions:
"8. Accordingly, we direct to the respondents/competent authority to provide the benefit to the applicant in the light of the letter No. E(GP)2007/3/8 dated 11.07.2012 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. This OA is disposed of accordingly..."
(emphasis supplied)
4. The above order dated 13.10.2023 of this Tribunal was assailed by the respondents in Writ-A No. 2846 of 2024 Union of India Thru Page 2 of 13 CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00059 of 2009 M L Srivastava Vs. U.O.I. &Ors. The Chairman Railway Board and Others vs M L Srivastava and Hon'ble High Court was pleased to allow the Writ Petition on 16.04.2024 with the following observations:
"Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we find that the only recital in the impugned judgment dated 18.10.2023 in para no. 5 is that learned counsel for the respondents (who are petitioners herein) have opposed the original application but conceded the aforesaid letter dated 11.07.2012. Now, this by itself does not mean that the counsel who was appearing for the petitioners before the Tribunal conceded to the applicability of the said letter to the case of the respondent herein. Moreover, in any case, if any claim was being based by the original applicant who is respondent herein based on the letter dated 11.07.2012 then proper pleadings should have been there with opportunity to the respondents before the Tribunal to respond to the same and thereafter, an adjudication should have taken place, instead of taking the said letter on record during court proceedings as appears to have been done and then to rely upon it and dispose of the OA in the manner in which it has been done. We do not appreciate it. The judgment impugned herein suffers from apparent error and cannot be sustained. Even in the review proceedings, the Tribunal did not consider the aforesaid aspect appropriately, therefore, the said order passed on the review application can also not be sustained. Both the orders impugned herein are quashed. The OA No. 59 of 2009 shall stand restored and revived before the Tribunal for a decision afresh as per law. We expect the Tribunal to dispose of the OA which is of the year 2009 at the earliest say within four months. The OA shall be listed before the concerned Bench of the Tribunal within the next ten days. With these observations/direction, the petition is allowed."
(emphasis supplied)
4. Following the directions of Hon'ble High Court quoted above, a supplementary counter affidavit was filed by the respondents on 08.07.2024 and the applicant filed rejoinder thereto on 07.02.2025. Further, certain documents were filed by the applicant vide affidavit dated 25.03.2025 and a supplementary reply by the respondents was filed vide affidavit dated 02.04.2025.
Submissions
5. We have heard both the partiesin terms of the observations/direction of Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 16.04.2024.
Page 3 of 13 CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00059 of 2009 M L Srivastava Vs. U.O.I. &Ors. 6.1 There are two prongs of reasoning advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant in favour of the reliefs prayed for. The first is that the Railway Board itself, vide letter dated 04.12.2003 titled 'Restructuring of certain Group C & D cadres of RDSO', conveyed that Group C & D categories of posts should be restructured. It was in pursuance of this letter that the respondents, vide order dated 06.01.2004, conveyed approval of restructuring of certain posts of Technical Assistant cadre in Traffic Directorate of RDSO, including addition of one post of Senior CTA in the pay scale Rs. 7,450 - 11,500/. Further, against the post of Sr. CTA approved vide letter dated 06.01.2004, the respondents conducted a seniority-cum-suitability examination and found the applicant suitable for the post of Sr. CTA (Traffic) vide order dated 21.09.2004. In view of this position, it is averred that the applicant is entitled to be appointed to the post of Sr. CTA. 6.2 The other line of reasoning put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant is that vide sub-paragraph 9.1.1 of paragraph 9 of the Railway Board's letter dated 04.12.2003, it was directed that 'the ministerial cadre should be brought on par with the pattern of Zonal Railways/Production Units...'.It is averred that provision of benefits of Zonal Railway to Group B officers of RDSO's Traffic Directorate was litigated in OA No. 45 of 2005 C P Singh & Ors vs UOI & Ors (as RDSO had already been declared to be Zonal Railway with effect from 01.01.2003) which was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 16.03.2009, and the challenge to which was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court in Writ petition No. 1238 (SB) of 2009 on 11.11.2010. It is further averred that one Shri S C Shukla, who was also an officer (Group B) of RDSO's Traffic Directorate, was allowed the benefit of Zonal Railway by the respondents vide letter dated 11.07.2012 while the applicant's claim has been rejected being a Group C officer in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner.
Page 4 of 13CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00059 of 2009 M L Srivastava Vs. U.O.I. &Ors. 7.1 Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents states that the letter dated 04.12.2003 of the Railway Board allows restructuring of only those Group C & D posts of RDSO as are mentioned in the Annexure C thereto. The revised cadre structure of RDSO is mentioned at Annexure D to the letter dated 04.12.2003 and it does not include the posts in Traffic Directorate. It is stated that, admittedly, the process of restructuring of Traffic Directorate was initiated by RDSO and the applicant was found suitable for the proposed post of Sr. CTA, but subsequently a query was raised by the DG, RDSO with the Secretary (Pay Commission) Railway Board vide letter dated 30.07.2004; this query was raised in the context that while educational qualification of Engineering Diploma is essential for recruitment to the post of Sr. CTA in the Technical Directorates of RDSO such educational qualification is not required for the post of Sr. CTA in the Traffic Directorate of RDSO. The Railway Board clarified vide letter dated 04.10.2004 that the Cadre Restructuring Committee had not made any recommendation for restructuring of Traffic Directorate of RDSO and that the scheme conveyed vide Railway Board's letter dated 04.12.2003 cannot be made applicable to the Traffic Directorate for the reason that the recruitment and promotion rules of Traffic Directorate were different from those of the other Technical Staff.It is further stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the matter of restructuring of Traffic Directorate had been examined by the Railway Board and, vide letter dated 16.05.2005, it was decided that the cadre of Technical Assistant (Traffic) in RDSO is specific to RDSO with designation, grade structure, mode of recruitment and nature of functioning and responsibilities, being different from that of the categories available in the Traffic (Commercial)/Operating department of Zonal Railways and, therefore, the restructuring benefit applicable to the Technical Assistant cadre of various Technical Directorates cannot be extended to the staff of Traffic Page 5 of 13 CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00059 of 2009 M L Srivastava Vs. U.O.I. &Ors. Directorate of RDSO due to difference in recruitment and promotion rules.
7.2 In regard to the other argument pertaining to parity with Group B staff advanced of behalf of the applicant,it is stated by the respondents that the status of RDSO was changed from an attached office of Railway Board to Zonal Railways with effect from 01.01.2003 vide Railway Board's letter dated 11.10.2002. Subsequently, Group B posts with pay scale of Rs. 7,500 - 12,000/- were upgraded to Rs. 8,000 - 13,500/- on the pattern of Zonal Railways. Accordingly, post of Assistant Traffic Officer of Traffic Directorate of RDSO was also upgraded to pay scale of Rs. 8,000 - 13,500/- on the plea that it is the Indian Railway Traffic Service (IRTS), an organized service. It is further stated that this Tribunal, in OA No. 45 of 2009, passed order that all Group B posts of RDSO should also be given benefit of induction in Group A organized service, which was upheld by Hon'ble High Court, and in compliance thereto the Railway Board, vide letter dated 11.07.2012 inducted Shri S C Shukla, a Group B officer of Traffic Directorate of RDSO into Junior Scale of Group A of IRTS with effect from 18.06.2009. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the case of S C Shukla mentioned in the letter dated 11.07.2012 is different from the applicant's case as the former has been given the benefit of induction as opposed to the applicant's case of restructuring which was not recommended by the Cadre Restructuring Committee. It is averred that there is material difference between induction and restructuring. In the present case, not only groups of the applicant and Shri S C Shukla are different, but the posts also carry different feeding cadres and eligibility criteria apart from having separate duties. Page 6 of 13 CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00059 of 2009 M L Srivastava Vs. U.O.I. &Ors. Our Analysis
8. On the aspect of cadre restructuring based on recommendations of expert committees or pay commissions, the scope of judicial review is limited as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd vs Rakesh Kumar Jindal 2019 (3) SCC 547 in the following terms:
"14. Ordinarily, the courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies like the Pay Commission etc. The aggrieved employees claiming parity must establish that they are unjustly treated by arbitrary action or discriminated. In Kshetriya Kisan Gramin Bank v. D.B. Sharma and Others (2001) 1 SCC 353, this Court held as under:-
"7. The next question that arises for consideration is, as to what extent the High Court would be justified in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with the findings of an expert body like the Equation Committee. In State of U.P. and Others v. J.P. Chaurasia and Others (1989) 1 SCC 121, this Court unequivocally held that in the matter of equation of posts or equation of pay, the same should be left to the Executive Government, who can get it determined by expert bodies like the Pay Commission, and such expert body would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of the posts and when such determination by a commission or committee is made, the court should normally accept it and should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration...."
15. In S.C. Chandra and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others (2007) 8 SCC 279, this Court held as under:-
"33. It may be mentioned that granting pay scales is a purely executive function and hence the court should not interfere with the same. It may have a cascading effect creating all kinds of problems for the Government and authorities. Hence, the court should exercise judicial restraint and not interfere in such executive function vide Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2007) 1 SCC 408..."
(emphasis supplied) Given the above parameters of judicial review, we now examine the merits of rival contentions.
9.1 We first address the issue of applicability of cadre restructuring to the Traffic Directorate of RDSO. Referring to the Railway Board's letter dated 04.12.2003, the instructions having a bearing on the instant case are extracted below:
Page 7 of 13
CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00059 of 2009 M L Srivastava Vs. U.O.I. &Ors.
"While issuing orders regarding restructuring of Group C and D categories vide Para 2 of Board's letter No. PC-III/2003/CRC/6 dated 09.10.2003, it was indicated that the orders of restructuring for the staff of RDSO will be issued separately. It has now been decided with the approval of the President that the Group C & D categories of staff as indicated in the Annexures to the letter should be restructured in accordance with the revised percentages/cadre structure indicated therein. While implementing these orders the following detailed instructions should be strictly and carefully adhered to: ....
9. Consequent to the Ministry of Railways' decision to confer the status of Zonal Railway on RDSO, a Committee was set up by Ministry of Railways to effect the change over of RDSO to Zonal Railways/Production Units structure. The Committee made its recommendations taking also into account the recommendations made by V CPC. Based on these recommendations, Ministry of Railways have decided that the categories being operated on the pattern different from the pattern prevailing in Zonal Railways/Production Units in the matter of grade structure, more of recruitment, educational qualifications etc., the categories which are unique to RDSO are be operated as per the revised.. 9.1.1 The Ministerial Cadre should be brought on par with the pattern on Zonal Railways/Production Units and posts distributed in accordance with the percentage distribution prescribed for Zonal Railways/production Units as indicated in Annexure-C... 9.5 At present, while the Scientific staff have been provided three grade structure viz. Grades Rs. 6500 - 10500, Rs. 5500 - 9000 &Rs. 5000 - 8000, the technical staff have only two grade structure viz. Rs. 6500 - 10500 & 5000 - 9000. The Apex Gr. C scale Rs. 7450 - 11500 is not available in either of these categories. Both these categories will now have the Apex Group C scale Rs. 7450 - 11500 subject to direct recruitment of:
(i) Degree holders in grade Rs. 6500 - 10500 both in Scientific and Technical categories, and
(ii) Diploma holders in grade Rs. 5000 - 8000 in Scientific categories, and
(iii) Diploma holders in grade Rs. 5500 - 9000 in Technical categories.
The Scientific and Technical Cadres which are unique to RDSO shall now be maintained as per the revised cadre structure at Annexure D (i), (ii) & (iii).
(emphasis supplied) Few conclusions can be drawn in respect of the Railway Board's letter dated 04.12.2003 quoted above. First, the letter refers to restructuring of RDSO. Second, the letter dated 04.12.2003 is based on the recommendations of a committee set up by Ministry of Railways to effect change over of RDSO's structure to Zonal Railway/Production Page 8 of 13 CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00059 of 2009 M L Srivastava Vs. U.O.I. &Ors. Units' structure and the committee has taken into account the recommendations of 5th Central Pay Commission while making its recommendations. Third, for grant of Apex Group C scale of Rs. 7,450 - 11,500 to Scientific and Technical categories, holding of Degree or Diploma is essential. Fourth, the restructuring of technical staff is mentioned at Annexure D (iii) of this letter and a perusal of Annexure D(iii) brings out that it mentions the cadre of Sr. Sectional Engineer (Mech. etc.), Section Engineer (Mech. etc.) and Jr. Engineer Gr. I (Mech. etc.), but there is no mention therein of the cadre of Technical Assistant (Traffic), to which the applicant belongs. In other words, it cannot be said that the applicant's case for grant of scale of Rs. 7,450 - 11,500 is included in the Annexures to the Railway Board's letter dated 04.12.2003.
9.2 Irrespective of the position enumerated above, admittedly, an exercise was undertaken by the respondent no. 2 with reference to the Railway Board's letter dated 04.12.2003 to restructure the cadre of Technical Assistant (Traffic) to which the applicant belongs and the post of Sr. CTA in the scale of pay Rs. 7,450 - 11,500 was added vide letter dated 06.01.2004. It is noted that the letter dated 06.01.2004, in paragraph 3 thereof, stipulates that for implementation of the revised structured cadre, adherence to paragraphs 1 to 9 and 9.5 of the Railway Board's letter dated 04.12.2003 shall be necessary. We have already noted in paragraph 8.1 above that in terms of paragraph 9.5 of the letter dated 04.12.2003, holding of degree or diploma is essential. It appears to us that this was the context in which the respondent no. 2 made a reference to respondent no. 1 seeking clarification vide letter dated 30.07.2004. In the meantime, respondent no. 2 issued memorandum dated 21.09.2004 finding the applicant suitable for the post of Sr. CTA, approved by respondent no. 2 himself. However, Page 9 of 13 CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00059 of 2009 M L Srivastava Vs. U.O.I. &Ors. respondent no. 1, vide letters dated 04.10.2004, informed that the Cadre Restructuring Committee had not made any recommendation in respect of the Traffic Directorate of RDSO. This was further elaborated by respondent no. 1 vide letter dated 16.05.2005 with reference to a letter dated 08.04.2005 of respondent no. 2, in the following terms:
"Please refer to your letter quoted above wherein Board was requested to consider restructuring of staff of Traffic Directorate/RDSO at par with staff working in Traffic Department of Zonal Railways. Board have examined the matter and it has been decided that the cadre of Tech. Asst./Traffic in RDSO is specific to RDSO with designation, grade structure, mode of recruitment and nature of functioning & responsibilities different to that of categories available tin the Traffic (Commercial)/Operating department of Zonal Railways. Further, no recommendation have been made by the CRC for the cadre of Tech. Asst./Traffic, RDSO. Keeping in view the above, Board have not agreed to restructure the Tech. Asst./Traffic, RDSO on the lines proposed."
(emphasis supplied) 9.3 It is observed that in the above letter dated 08.04.2005, the respondent no. 1 has articulated a reasoned position distinguishing the Technical Assistant (Traffic) cadre of RDSO and reasons for its exclusion from restructuring exercise which has been re-iterated in the impugned order dated 16.12.2008 rejecting the applicant's representation.Notably, the letter dated 08.04.2005 itself is not under challenge. In view of this position and the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Jindal (supra), we see no reason to interfere with the recommendations of the Cadre Restructuring Committee and the decision taken by the Railway Board thereon. 10.1 Coming to the other contention of the applicant, i.e., parity with Shri S C Shukla with reference to the letter dated 11.07.2012, the contents of the letter cited are extracted below:
"The President is pleased to approve of the appointment of under mentioned 01 Group 'B' Officer of Traffic Department of Research Designs & Standards Organization (RDSO), to Group 'A'/Junior Page 10 of 13 CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00059 of 2009 M L Srivastava Vs. U.O.I. &Ors.
Scale of Indian Railway Traffic Service (IRTS) against a supernumerary post w.e.f. the date indicated as under:
PANEL FOR 2008-09 S. No. NAME 1 S C Shukla (Promoted w.e.f. 18.06.2008) (emphasis supplied) It is noted that vide above letter, Shri S C Shukla, a Group 'B' officer of the Traffic Directorate of RDSO was appointed to Group 'A' of IRTS by creating a supernumerary post.
10.2 Admittedly, the above appointment through the letter dated 11.07.2012 came about as a consequence of this Tribunal's order dated 16.03.2009 in OA No. 45 of 2005. It would be advantageous to refer to the order dated 16.03.2009 of this Tribunal reproduced below:
"Heard the parties.
2. The applicants impugn the inaction and arbitrary action of the respondents in not implementing the facilities and privileges of zonal railways to the applicants in spite of gazette notification dated
11.10.2002, whereby Research Design and Standard Organization has been declared to be a zonal railways w.e.f. 01.01.2003. In this view of the matter the claim of the applicants as to grant of pay scale of Rs. 8000 - 13500 being acceded to by the respondents vide their letter dated 16.06.2003 the reliefs claimed in paragraph 8 (a) and (b) have been rendered infructuous, whereas in (c) the prayer is to initiate group A induction in junior scale on the basis of rule as applicable in zonal railways. This has been admitted by the respondents in their additional affidavit that the zonal rule would apply. However, the only impediment for absorption in group 'A' on the basis of seniority is that a Writ Petition in which there is an issue of pay scale is sub judice before the High Court of Delhi. When the pay scales have been implemented subject to the final outcome of the Writ Petition and in the wake of the fact that the seniority has to determine the absorption in group 'A', we direct the respondents to initiate the process of induction as per clause 6 of the Railway Board's letter dated 16.06.2003 and shall be completed within a period of three months but the result may not be declared and the final outcome shall remain subject to the outcome to be arrived at by the Delhi High Court and in such an event law shall take its own course. No costs."
(emphasis supplied) It is noted that the order dated 16.03.2009 of this Tribunal in OA No. 45 of 2005 referred to induction of Group B officers to Group A based on the Railway Board's letter dated 16.06.2003.
Page 11 of 13CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00059 of 2009 M L Srivastava Vs. U.O.I. &Ors. 10.3 A perusal of the Railway Board's letter dated 16.06.2003 (RBE 93/2003) reveals the following position:
"Sub: Upgradation of 80% of Group 'B' posts of all major departments (other than Accounts Department)- procedure for allotment of the higher scale.
Attention is invited to Ministry of Railways' Notification No. PC- V/97/1/EC/1(Pt.1) dated 5.2.98, read with further notifications dated 9.2.98, 24.1.01 and 18.6.02 regarding allotment of higher pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 to 80% of Group 'B' officers on roll of Accounts Department. Instructions were also issued under Railway Board's letter no.(GP)98/2/82 dated 9.12.98, 1.7.99 and 23.4.01 regarding the procedure to be adopted for placement of Group 'B' officers against the higher pay scale of Rs.8000-13500.
2.0 Revised pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 has now been allotted to 80% of the Group 'B' officers on roll of all the other Organized Services also (i.e. other than Accounts Department), vide Gazetted Notification No. PC-V/97/1/EC/1 (Group 'B') dated 25.4.03, circulated under Railway Board's letter No. PC-V/97/1/EC/1 (Group 'B') (RBE No.72/2003) dated 30.4.03.
3.0 The Board has decided that the following procedure should be adopted for placement of the officers in the higher scale in these departments, fixation of pay etc. 4.0 Procedure for the placement in the higher scale for vacancies as on 25.4.2003.
4.1 Group 'B' officers with minimum of three years regular service in scale Rs.7500-12000, will be eligible for consideration for placement in the higher scale of Rs.8000-13500. 4.2 The Group 'B' officers who are officiating in Senior Scale, after having been found suitable by the Committee of HODs as per extant procedure, will be straightaway placed in the higher Group 'B' scale of pay of Rs.8000-13500, w.e.f. 25.4.03.
4.3 Placement in the remaining posts, if any, which have been allotted the higher scale of Rs.8000-13500 will be made by adopting the principle of seniority-cum-fitness in the following manner: ..."
(emphasis supplied) It is evident from the above that the respondents took a conscious decision to entitle 80% of Group B officers in all organized services to the revised pay scale of Rs. 8,000 - 13,500 and made Group B officers with minimum 3 years of regular service in the pay scale of Rs. 7,500 - 12,000 eligible for such consideration inter alia adopting the principle of seniority-cum-fitness. In the case of cadre of Technical Assistant (Traffic) in RDSO to which the applicant belongs, the Railway Board did not permit upgradation or restructuring.
Page 12 of 13CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00059 of 2009 M L Srivastava Vs. U.O.I. &Ors. 10.4 It is not clear to us as to on what ground the applicant can rely the Railway Board's letter dated 11.07.2012 issued in respect of Shri S C Shukla when that letter was issued following this Tribunal's order dated 16.03.2009 in OA No. 45 of 2005 relying upon the respondents' letter dated 16.06.2003 which does not at all relate to the Technical Assistant (Traffic) cadre to which the applicant belongs. The two categories, i.e., Group B officers and Technical Assistant (Traffic), are entirely different governed by separate instructions and rules and cannot be equated, in our view. This being the position, we are unable to hold that the applicant's case has been dealt with in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner by the respondents.
11.1 In view of the facts and circumstances above, we are unable to grant the relief to the applicant, as prayed. This OA is disposed of accordingly.
11.2 Pending MAs, if any, are also disposed of.
11.3 The Parties shall bear their own costs.
(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member (A) Member (J)
vidya
Vidya Ben Digitally signed by
Vidya Ben Waghela
Waghela Date: 2025.04.07
17:35:40 +05'30'
Page 13 of 13