Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Uday Raj Singh vs Union Of India : Through on 5 March, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH : NEW DELHI Original Application No.4356/2010 M.A. No.3282/2010 M.A. No.3283/2010 New Delhi, this the 5th day of March, 2012 Coram: Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) 1. Uday Raj Singh, S/o Shri Ameri Singh, R/o 453, Sarvodya Nagar, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad 2. Niranjan Lal, S/o Shri Laturi Ram, R/o L-346, Railway Sain Colony, Ghaziabad 3. Herdwari Lal, S/o Shri Dwarika Prasad, R/o 71, Shankar Puri, New Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad 4. Vinod Kumar Sharma, S/o Shri Arupi Sharma, R/o L-340, Sec.9, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad 5. Purshotam Dutt, S/o Shri Siyaram, R/o House No.1296, Gali No.1, Sector-9, Old Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad 6. Satish Kumar, S/o Shri Jaipal Singh, R/o 7/DE, Railway Colony, Bharat Nagar, Ghaziabad 7. Chatram S/o Shri Kanhiya Lal, R/o Vill. Dolatpur Thikri, Post Office, Dholana, Distt: Ghaziabad 8. Vijay Singh, S/o Shri Hazari Lal, R/o H.No.963, Gali No.10, Bhim Nagar, Ghaziabad 9. Rajinder Singh, S/o Shri Khadak Singh, R/o 284/A, Sihani Nur Nagar, Ghaziabad 10. Yogender Pal Singh, S/o Shri Hira Singh, R/o Vill. Panihavar, P.O. Somna, Distt Aligarh 11. Kamal Singh, S/o Shri Gokul Singh, R/o E-107, Panchsheel Colony, Lal Kuon, Ghaziabad 12. Kalu Ram Sharma, S/o Shri Om Parkash, R/o 74-B, Radhay Puri Ext-II, Delhi 110 051 13. Vipin Kumar S/o Shri Murai Lal, R/o 165, Old Arya Nagar, Ghaziabad 14. Jagat Singh S/o Shri Haitram Singh, R/o 155/1, Sain Vihai by Pass, Ghaziabad 15. Kishan Lal S/o Shri Ghisitary, R/o H.No. 707, Old Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad 16. Balraj Singh S/o Shri Mulay, R/o H.No.174m Kube Oarm Kailash Nagar, Ghaziabad 17. Inderveer Singh S/o Shri Tej Singh, R/o C-113, Shankar Vihar-II, Lal Kuaon, Ghaziabad 18. Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Dayanand, R/o 764, Old Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad 19. Ajit Singh S/o Shri Fakira Singh, R/o 295-I, Railway Colony, Pankaj Nagar, Ghaziabad 20. Mohmad Shamim, S/o Shri Khalim Ahmad, R/o H.No.861, Kaia Kheda, Ghaziabad 21. Ram Ashray Verma, S/o Shri Deshraj Sharma, R/o Vill. Kavi, Dist Ghaziabad Applicants (By Advocate: Shri Yogesh Sharma) Versus 1. Union of India : Through The General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi 2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Delhi Division, State Entry Road, New Delhi 3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, New Delhi 4. The Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, EMU Car Shed, Northern Railway, Ghaziabad Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Vikas Dutta) O R D E R (Oral)
Dr. Veena Chhotray:
The applicants (21 in number) are working as Technician Grade-II under the Northern Railways, Delhi Division, and are presently posted in EMU Car Shed, N.R. Ghaziabad. They have challenged the impugned order dated 2.3.2010 (Annex A/1), rejecting their representation dated 9.6.2006 even after re-examination. Through this representation, the applicants had claimed that the benefit of promotion from Technical Gr-III to Gr-II should have been given to them from the date of restructuring i.e. w.e.f. 1.11.2003 instead from a subsequent date i.e. the date of promotion.
The OA seeks the following reliefs:-
8(i) That the Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned decision taken by the Senior DPO, New Delhi i.e. respondent no.3, which has been communicated to the applicants vide letter dated 2.3.2010, by which respondent No.3 rejected the prayer of the applicants for granting the actual arrears of difference of pay and allowances w.e.f. 01.11.2003 from the date the applicants have been placed on the upgraded post under cadre restructuring post, declaring to the effect that the same is illegal, arbitrary and against the Railway Board circular.
(ii) That the Honble Tribunal may further graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated Nov. 2006 only to the extent by which the applicant has been given notional fixation w.e.f. 01.11.2003 consequently pass an order directing the respondents to grant the arrears of difference of pay and allowances w.e.f. 01.11.2003 to the applicants with interest.
(iii) Any other relief which the Honble Tribunal deem fit and pproper may also be granted to the applicant along with the costs of litigation.
2. The learned counsels Shri Yogesh Sharma and Shri Vikas Dutta would argue respectively for the applicants and the respondents.
3. Shri Yogesh Sharma, the learned counsel for the applicants, would submit that in the present case the applicants have been subjected to discrimination. In the case of the applicants, while giving them the benefit of promotion in the posts of Technician Gr-II, notional pay fixation has been done w.e.f. 1.11.2003 and the actual from the date of assumption of charge. However, the arrears have been made payable with effect from the latter date. On the contrary, in the case of some other employees the arrears have also been made payable from the initial date (Annex A/3). It would be contended by Shri Sharma that both these orders had been issued on the same date and the employees were similarly situated, since neither had worked in the higher post before assumption of charge. Further, these latter employees, belonging to the SC/ST categories, were also junior to the applicants.
3.1 In the Rejoinder it has further been submitted that whereas the persons junior to the applicants have been given actual monetary benefits by adjusting them against the vacancies arising out of restructuring, the applicants who are senior have been treated as adjusted against the existing vacancies and on that ground deprived of the benefits of arrears from the date of restructuring i.e. 1.11.2003.
3.2 A reference would be made to the Railway Boards Circular i.e. R.B.E. No. 5/2004 issued on 6.1.2004 (Annex A/4) stating the staff who will be placed in higher grades as a result of implantation of these orders will draw pay in higher grades w.e.f. 1.11.2993.
4. Shri Vikas Dutta, the learned counsel for the respondents would raise a technical objection about the contention in the form it was being made now not forming a part of the grounds taken in the original Application.
4.1 On merit also, the respondents have rebutted the rival contentions about the applicants having been subjected to any discrimination or there having been any arbitrariness on their part in the matter of grant of payability of the arrears. It has been submitted that since as per the instructions, the benefits of upgraded posts were to be made available as per the seniority; while giving promotions in this case the general candidates senior to the applicants had been given these benefits. Further, the applicants themselves being lower in the seniority list had been adjusted against the existing vacancies. As regards, the reserved category candidates, the same is stated to be on a different footing with a view to observe the reservation rosters.
4.2 In their reply dated 23.12.2011 to the Additional Affidavit, the following submissions have been made:
(a) Break-up of vacancies as per PS No11450 as per rule:
UR SC ST a) Vacancies as on 31.10.03 18 03 01=22 w.i.effect b) Variation on SS of 1.11.2003 17 03 02= 22(1.11.03) C) Chain resultant 74 13 07= 94(1.11.03) Total 109 19 10 = 138
Out of 109 general candidates, 91 were given promotion against restructured posts of Tech Gr-II w.e.f. 1.11.2003. The remaining 18 UR candidates were promoted against the then existing vacancies as on 31.10.2003.
Whereas the candidates promoted against the restructured posts were given the benefits of promotion w.e.f. 1.11.2003; those promoted against the existing vacancies were granted proforma fixation of pay w.e.f. 1.11.2003 to the date of their actual promotion. This is as per the provisions in the Railway Boards P.S. No.11446/2006 (Annex R/2).
16 SC candidates as per the reservation roster were granted promotion w.e.f. 1.11.2003 with actual benefits from the same date against restructured posts and 3 SC candidates were promoted against the existing vacancies.
Since the applicants (18 UR plus 3 SC) whose names appear at serial no. 92 to 109 of the seniority list issued vide letter dated 24.11.2005, they were promoted against the existing vacancies. For the same reasons they were also not eligible for actual benefit of pay from 1.11.2003, but have been given the benefits of proforma pay fixation from that date and the actual fixation from the date of assuming the charge.
5. We have carefully considered the respective submissions and also the material on record. While we are not impressed with the technical objections raised by the respondents {in as much as in the representation by the applicants, which got rejected vide the impugned order, this issue had been raised, as well as in the averments in the OA (para 4.8} : we do find a merit in their substantive submissions. The basic plank of arbitrariness and consequent discrimination raised by the applicants is simply on the contention that the benefits of higher grades as a result of the restructuring was to be given with effect from the cut off date i.e. 1.11.2003. However, the restructuring was a special scheme and these stipulations had been limited only to the number of upgraded posts as a result of the restructuring. To further clarify, this had not been extended to the vacancies already existing in the higher grades irrespective of the decision of restructuring. This aspect is clarified from the Railway Board Circular No. PC-III/05 RBE No.05/2004 dated 06.01.2004 enclosed with the Reply filed by the respondents on 23.12.2011. While issuing instructions in respect of the existing classifications and filling up of vacancies, the following inter alia had been prescribed:
4.4 All vacancies arising out of the restructuring should be filled up by senior employees who should be given benefit of the promotion w.e.f. 01.11.2003 whereas for the normal vacancies existing on 01.11.2003 junior employees should be posted by modified selection procedure but they will get promotion and higher pay from the date of taking over the posts as per normal rules. Thus the special benefit of the promotion w.e.f. 01.11.2003 is available only for vacancies arising out of restructuring and for other vacancies, the normal rules of prospective promotion from the date of filling up of vacancy will apply. The contention raised on behalf of the applicants about the employees who have been granted more monetary benefits than them by way of arrears despite being junior to them is not found to be factually tenable; in as much as it was for different reasons i.e. observance of reservation rosters.
6. In view of the foregoing, the OA is found to be devoid of merit and dismissed hereby with no order as to costs.
(Dr. Veena Chhotray) (Meera Chhibber)
Member (A) Member (J)
/pkr/m