Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
S R Tiwari vs M/O Railways on 7 October, 2024
OA No. 999 of 2014
(Reserved on 20.09.2024)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD.
Allahabad, this the 07th day of October, 2024.
Original Application No. 330/00999/2014
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative)
1. Sahab Raj Tiwari S/O Sri Vachaspati Tiwari, aged about 52 years, R/O
House no. 26/1 Ajit Ganj Colony T. P. Nagar District- Kanpur Nagar (JE/
P.way. CNB).
2. Pankaj Kumar Gupta s/O Late Hari Kishan Gupta, aged about 42 years,
R/O E/46 Shyam Nagar, District - Kanpur (JE/ P.way. CNB).
3. Phool Singh S/O Mahendra Singh, aged about 31 years, R/OE.W.S/18
Neem Sarai, Mundera, District- Allahabad (JE/ P.way. Allahabad).
4. Vikash Chakrawarti S/O Late D.K. Chakrawarti, aged about 33 years, R/O
Quarter No. H-28, Railway Colony, Chakeri. District -Allahabad. ((JE/ P.way.
CHK CNB).
5. Abhishek Loother S/O Sri S. S. Loother, aged about 31 years, R/O House
No. 1/404, avas Vikash, Ambedhkar Nagar, district - Kanpur. (JE/ P.way.
PNK CNB).
6. Dinesh Kumar Mishra S/O Sir Sabhajeet Mishra, aged about 48 years,
R/O Bethua, Mirzapur (JE/ P.way. MLP).
7. Shiv kumar S/O Late Shri Ram, aged about 34 years, R/O Kathuya,
Gaipura, Mirzapur (JE/ P.way. Gaipura MLP).
8. Ram Sewak Sharma S/O Sri Dharm Dutt Sharma, aged about 53 years,
R/O House no. 452 Shobha Ram Ka Hata, Tundla, District -Firozabad. (JE/p.
way TDL).
9. Maya Ram S/O Sri Nirotam Singh, aged about Quarter no. 21-A, Railway
Colony, Barhan, Agra. ((JE/ P.way. Baliram TDL).
10. Surendra Pal Singh S/O Sri Netra Pal Singh, aged about 57 years, new
railway Colony, Tundla, Firozabad JE/P-way TDL).
11.M.P. Ojha S/o Sri Ram Murti Singh, aged about 55 years, presently
posted as J.E. /P. Way N.C.R. Allahabad. ((JE/ P.way. CNL, Alld).
12. Raj Deep Sachan S/O Sri Jagn Nath, aged about 33 years, R/O House
no. S-386, Sideshwar, Nagar, Jhansi (Sr. Pws JHS).
13. Jitendra Prasad Rajput S/O Sri Ram Prasad Rajput, aged about 35
years, R/O B-149/2 Deen Dyal Nagar, Jhansi. (Sr. pws JHS).
14. Mohd. Mohsin Mansoor S/O late Mansoor Afzal aged about 32 years,
House no. 14 Mosin Ganj, Allahabad. (JE/pway CNL Alld).
15. Dinesh Kumar Sharma S/O Sri Barmahanand Sharma, aged about 56
years, R/O company Bag, Tundla (JE/p-way TDL).
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 1 of 7
OA No. 999 of 2014
16. Rahul Mishra S/O Sri Vinod Kumar Mishra, aged about 38 years, R/O
Bati Baba Tvebel Road, Jhansi. (Sr. pws yard JHS).
17. Sanjeev Kumar Saini S/O Late S.B. Saini, aged about 41 years, R/O
1527/A Bhalla Gorment behind Jati Baba, Jhansi (Sr. pws JHS).
18. Sunil Yadav S/o Sri Lal Ji Ram Yadav, aged about 39 years, R/O 883 Jati
Baba, Isai Tola, Jhansi Sr. pws JHS).
.....Applicants.
By Advocate : Shri A.D. Singh
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary, Railway Board, Ministry of
Railways, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi.
2. General Manager, North Central Railway Allahabad.
3. Divisional Personnel Officer, North Central Railway, Allahabad.
4. Divisional Railway Manager, N.C.R. Jhansi.
....Respondents
By Advocate: Shri S.C. Mishra
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative):
Shri A.D. Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri S.C. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
2. By means of this OA, the applicants have sought the following reliefs :
"i) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to allow this O.Α. and direct the respondents to implement the restructuring policy dated 8.10.2013 in respect of Senior P. Way Supervisors after implementing the judgment dated 29.8.2013, corrected on 21.11.2013 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of New Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 3637 of 2013 R. G. Yadav and others versus U.O.I. and others and consequently avoid serious complications which may arise if the restructuring order/policy is implemented before implementing the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, with all other consequential benefits.
ii) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to Grant such other relief, as the applicants might be found entitled to, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
iii) That the cost of the proceedings may kindly be granted in favour of the applicants."RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 2 of 7 OA No. 999 of 2014
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants are working as Sr. P. Way Supervisors and J.E./P. Way under the respondents at various stations. The respondent no. 1 issued restructuring order on 9.10.2003 to upgrade the Supervisors as Junior Engineer in the grade pay of Rs. 5000- 8000 working in the Engineering Branch. The respondent no.3 vide letter dated 23.7.2008, up-graded the pay scale from Rs.4500-7000 to Rs. 5000- 8000 (Grade Pay of Rs.4200) to the applicants, but did not designated Supervisors as Junior Engineer P.Way. The Railway Board passed an order on 03.07.2013 addressed to the General Manager all Indian Railways, communicating its decision of merging the Senior P. Way supervisors in the grade pay of Rs. 4200 with Junior Engineer (P. Way) with its spread effect in the higher pay grade of Rs. 4600. The General Manager (P) N.C. R. Allahabad vide its letter dated 11.7.2013 communicated the Railway Board order on 3.7.2013 to all the head of the division for making the restructuring to the Senior P. Way supervisors in the grade pay of Rs. 4200. The respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 27.3.2014 merged the Senior P. Way supervisors of pay scale of Rs. 5000- 8000, Grade Pay of Rs.4200 (now 9300- 34800 GP 4200) in the same pay scale of Junior Engineer P. Way 9300-34800 GP 4200 and to the same of the applicants, but did not designated as Junior Engineer P. Way in the grade pay of Rs. 4600. The Hon'ble High Court of New Delhi in the similar dispute of the similarly situated employees allowed the writ petition no. 3677 of 2013 vide its judgment dated 29.8.2013 in the case of R.G. Yadav and others versus U.Ο.Ι. and others and directed the respondents to grant the benefits in terms of letter dated 3.7.2013 w.e.f. 1.11.2013 with all consequential benefits. As there was a typographical mistake in the last paragraph of the said judgment rendered in the Writ Petition, the similarly situated employees therein filed C.M. No. 14729 of 2013 which was also allowed and the last paragraph in the judgment dated 29.8.2013 was corrected in terms of order dated 21.11.2013 passed in C.М. no. 14729 of RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 3 of 7 OA No. 999 of 2014 2013, vide which the respondents were directed to grant the benefits vide its judgment dated 29.8.2013 w.e.f. 01.11.2003 with all consequential benefits to the similarly placed employees, as such the applicant are legally entitled for the said benefits. In the meantime, the Respondent no. 1 issued restructuring order on 8.10.2013 in terms of which the various group 'C' cadre were restructured and a large number of post were upgraded from the lower grade to the higher grade. The technical supervisors who were in the grade pay of Rs.4600, their percentage in the grade pay of Rs.4600 has been increased from 47% to 67% i.e. 20% increased from grade pay of Rs.4200. For placing them in cadre of Junior Engineer in the grade pay of Rs. 4200 has already been allowed by the Hon'ble High Court of New Delhi dated 29.8.2013 corrected on 21.11.2013 sent upon the respondent no. 1 and 2 personally through the representation dated 6.5.2014. Although the aforesaid representation was sent on the respondent no. 1 and 2 on 6.5.2014 but there is no response nor have they implemented the judgment. Therefore the applicants have approached this Hon'ble Tribunal for immediate protection because the implementation of the restructuring order by ignoring the judgment of the Hon'ble High court of New Delhi will result in promotion of junior to the upgraded post, ignoring the applicants who will become much senior if the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi is implemented with retrospective effect from 1.11.2003. The action of the respondents seeking to implement the restructuring order dated 8.10.2013 without implementing the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. Hence, this OA.
4. In their counter affidavit, the respondents have submitted that the whole reliefs are based on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of New Delhi passed in W.P.(C) No.3637 of 2013 (R.G. Yadav and others Vs. Union of India and others). It is submitted that against the judgment of Hon'ble RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 4 of 7 OA No. 999 of 2014 High Court of New Delhi, the respondents have preferred Special Leave Petition (CC) No.10825 of 2014 before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, as such that judgment do not become final till now, in view of the same, the applicants are not entitled for the relief claimed in the OA. It is further submitted that the restructuring orders dated 09.10.2013 and 03.07.2013 have been issued in consultation and in agreement with these regularized Labour Federations. The said judgment has not attained finality and applicants, who were not party in the said judgment, cannot claim the benefit of the said judgment of Hon'ble High Court, New Delhi. It is submitted that the applicants have claimed the relief w.e.f. 01.11.2003 in reference to the Railway Board letter dated 09.10.2003, whereby restructuring was introduced after gap of 11 years, as such the claim of the applicants in the present Original Application is barred by time as prescribed Under Section 21 Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. It is further submitted that as per the instructions contained in sub para (b) of para 13 of Railway Board letter dated 09.10.2003, only 17.26% of existing posts P.Way Mistries at the relevant time were to be upgraded and were to be merged with the posts of junior engineer Grade II. Accordingly 17.26% of the existing posts P. Way Mistries at the relevant time was worked out which comes to 20 posts, such senior most 20% P. Way Mistries were promoted in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 and designated as Junior Engineer Grade II under the restructuring scheme w.e.f. 01.11.2003 vide letter dated 20.07.2004. Since the applicant No.12, 13, 16, 17 & 18 were not in the zone of consideration, on account of their seniority position, as such they could not be promoted in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 and designated as Junior Engineer Grade II under the restructuring scheme. It is further submitted that the Railway Board has decided with the approval of the president to phase out the existing category of Track Supervisors (erstwhile P. Way) Mistries/Supervisors Permanent Way in scale of Rs. 4500-7000 and had introduced the category RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 5 of 7 OA No. 999 of 2014 of Senior Supervisors in pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000, vide letter dated 22.03.2007. In the said letter it is clearly mentioned that these instructions are effective from the date of the issue of instructions. Accordingly the benefit was extended w.e.f. 22.03.2007 to whole category including the applicants and they were placed in the category of Senior P. Way Supervisors in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 w.e.f. 22.03.2007, vide letter dated 10.02.2009. It is also relevant to mention here that placement in the higher category i.e. Senior P. Way Supervisors in the pay scale of Rs. 5000- 8000 was also treated as promotion and benefit and increment @ 3% was also given to them. Accordingly all the Senior Supervisors grade pay of Rs. (Rs. 4200/- grade pay) has been merged in the grade pay of Rs. 4200/- with Junior Engineers w.e.f. 03.07.2013. Resultantly, the new posts in grade pay of Rs. 4600/- have been created and the same have been filled up by promoting the Junior Engineers of grade pay of Rs. 4200/- under the restructuring. The restructuring introduced vide letter dated 08.10.2013 has already been implemented. On the basis of above submissions, learned counsel for the respondents has requested to dismiss the OA as devoid of merit.
5. In rejoinder affidavit, the applicants have reiterated the same facts as given in the OA and added that the respondents are bound to grant the benefit of the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court subject to outcome of the S.L.P. It is further submitted that the applicants are fully eligible and they are legally entitled for the benefit of grade pay of Rs.4600/- in the cadre Junior Engineer (P.Way) in pursuance of Railway Board's order dated 03.07.2013.
6. Considered the rival submissions and verified the documents available on record.
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 6 of 7 OA No. 999 of 2014
7. Learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & ors. Vs. R.G. Yadav & ors. in SLP No.25769 of 2014 decided on 22.11.2027. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as below :-
"We have noted the decision of this Court in Union of India and Ors v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 to the effect that in belated claim relief of arrears should be restricted to three years prior to date of filing petition before the High Court but seniority and promotion should not be disturbed belatedly.
In view of above, while upholding the impugned order, we clarify that the respondents shall not be entitled to any other relief except the financial benefit upto 31 December, 2005 in compliance of the impugned order.
The special leave petition is accordingly disposed of."
8. The main plea taken by the respondents to deny the benefit was pendency of SLP leading to non attainment of finality of the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India Vs. R.G. Yadav. Once the Apex Court has decided this issue in favour of Shri R.G. Yadav, the applicants in the present OA are entitled to similar benefit.
9. In view of the above, the OA is allowed in the light of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No.25769 of 2014. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit provided in the case of Shri R.G. Yadav Vs. Union of India & ors. to the applicants in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No.25769 of 2014. No order as to costs.
10. All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member(Administrative) Member(Judicial)
RKM/
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 7 of 7