Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Bal Mukund Mahato vs Eastern Railway on 11 September, 2019
:•
s
Central Actnin.istra.tlve Tribunal
Calcutta Bench
i.
Bcil Mukund Mahato S/o Lp.te Akhileshwa.r Ma.hato ageci about
,7 5 veers# retired as Mail - Exp Guard under DRM/E.RaiIwav/
k/
AsaPsol at present residing at c/o. Mahesh Kurna.r
Qrt No. 1148/A, loco Cb3.ony Asa.nsol, Post * As an sol,
Dist. Burdwan.
.. applicant
;
.! - Vs -
• i?:
f
1• Union of India through General Manager
; Eastern Railway, Fairlie Place,
•! Calcutta - 1•
>
i
2. Divisiona.l Railway Manager,
s Eastern Railway, Asansol. T4'b3<^
! ■
f 3. Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer,
i
Eastern Railway, Asansol.
4. Sr. Divisional Finance Manager,
Eastern Railway, As an sol. TH.'b'l*}
.. Responclents
k
:•
i:
t;
!•
i
x
:
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH
KOLKATA
l f
i$ No.O A.350/603/2015 Date of order: u-m
Coram : Hon'ble Mrs. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. N. Neihsial, Administrative Member
BALMUKUNDMAHATO
VS.
UNION OF INDIA &ORS.
(Eastern Railway)
For the applicant : JVlirfCX §iritfa"£0unse!
For the respondents V" : lyirt^.lDa^eounsel A \
x, A\\I / \
^ 'i- \
™ 'is
Bidisha Banerjee/Judicial l^lember< I
•a***.
i
-y /
This application^has^been fillffto4se.^-k-jfeheTpliovj/ing reliefs:-
. ov/ /
a) To set aside and quash the Impugned.Speaking Order dated 14.10.14
issued by Sr. Divisional Personnel 'Officer? Eastern Railway, Asansol
communicated under letter'"No-EfT-Tj/Court Case/Rtd. Guards/13 dated
14.10.14;
b) To direct the respondents to protect the oav of vour applicant at Rs.340
on promotion to the Post of Goods Guard in scale Rs.330-560/- w.e.f. March
1985 and accordingly recast pension and other retiral benefits based on such
pay protection with consequential benefits;
c) To direct the respondents to grant benefit of order passed bv the Hon'ble
Tribunal in OA1516 of 1992 passed by CAT Allahabad Bench and OA212 of
2005 bv CAT Patna Bench and OA 180 of 2006 bv CAT Circuit Bench at Ranchi
since applicants are similarly placed and similarly circumstanced as that of
applicants in the abovementioned OAs;
d) Any other order or order(s) as the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper."
2. The order, impugned in the present O.A. is extracted hereunder:-
2
"SPEAKING ORDER
Pursuant to the Order of Hon'ble Tribunal in OA Numbers 1128 of 2013, 1129 of 2013, 1130 of 2013, 1131 of 2013, 242 of 2013, 243 of 2013, 244 of 2013, 245 of 2013, 246 of 2013 & 247 of 2013 dt. 30.4.2014. I, the respondent No.2 have gone through the representations of the applicants, OAs and the Service Records. In k' the light of the factual verification of these documents and keeping in • view the ruling provisions it is observed as under:
The applicants altogether 10 namely, S/Shri Bhola Mahato, Gutam Rasool, Md. Tayeb, M.P. Sahu, B.M. Mahato, Arjun Tanti, Banwary Mistry, S.P. Gupta, Deo Raj Ram, S.P. Yadav who are retired Guards had filed the aforesaid OAs before Hon'ble Tribunal/Calcutta seeking following relief:
(0 To protect their pay on promotion as Goods Guard 00 To grant benefits citing order passed by Hon'ble Tribunal/Allahabad in OA No.1556 of 1992 stating themselves to be similarly placed and circumstanced.
It is observed that basically the 10 applicants belong to two (2) groups - one com^rjsing of-6 applicants who got promoted as Guard -'C'/Goods'^Gbard prior' \o .01.01l.1986 and the other one --
comprising. of'rest ^applicants who' had'", been promoted after _01.01.1986ybut befdre 31.12.1995^ The de'tails of these applicants are shown beloyvMn tabularlformat:^ r,. ^ ' Group ±A: aot^onomotion prior to 01.01.1986 ' .
ij
: .ri i
Name of the applicants i \ \ \ OA NaTj l
'
Sri S.P. Gupta. . 242 of 2013
Sri DeorajRam\ t 243,of 2013
Sri B.M. MdHdto 'V '245of.2013
SriBanwary'Mjstryf T ^ ,-cvN 247fif 2013
Sri Bhola Mahato^ 1128 of 2013
Sri Gulam Rasool 1129 of 2013
(The applicants falls in this category) Group-B: Applicants who got promotion after 01.01.1986 Name of the applicants O.A.No. Sri S.P. Yadav 244 of 2013 Sri Arjun Tanti 246 of 2013 Md. Taiyab 1130 of 2013 Sri M.P. Sahoo 1131 of 2013 The above stated applicants belonging to the first group while being posted as Sr. TNC/Head TNC in Sc. Rs.330-560/- /Rs.425-640/- respectively had opted for selection to the post of Guard - C which was in lower scale of Rs.330-530A as oer pay structure of 3rd Pay Commission i.e. prior to 01.01.1986.
3On the contrary, the applicants who belong to the second group all got their promotion as Guard - C while working as Sr. TNC in Sc. Rs.330- 560/- revised to Rs.1200-2040/- on implementation of IVth Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.1986. The Grade of Sr. TNC though in identical Scale of Rs.1200- 2040/-. however, formed part of the feeder grades for promotion in the category of Goods Guard in Sc. Rs.1200-2040/- after merger of the grades of Guard - C and Guard -D on implementation of IVth Pav Commission.
< It is because of the distant dated case of action, only the Service Records of the applicants could be treated out and it is seen that entries were made in the SRs as under:
"acceptance of the post of Guard - C in Sc. R$.330-530/- tantamount to refusal of the post of Trains Clerk in Sc. Rs.330-560/- and Rs.425-640/-(on restructuring) without further claim. "
In ail the above cases, fixation of pay as Guard - C was done with reference to pay as TNC in Grade Rs.260-400/-(RS) only without affording any protection of pay in officiating grades as Sr. TNC and above. But, in terms of Railway Board's Establishment circular No.119/99 circulated vide CPO's Serial Circular No.107/99, Sr. TNC in Sc. Rs.l200-2040/-(RPS) on being promoted as Goods Guard in identical scale of Rs:1200-2040/-, the benefit of pay fixation under Rule 1313/FRp22(i)(£i)(j) Rllferstwhile FR 22 C) was to be allowed for those whp^were promoted between 01.01.1986 to 31.12.1995. This facility was granted ^Qrflf^W'fflosg cases wherein feeder post and promotional post werejfpld'ced "ini identical Scales 'of pay, though the promotional post had dutiepand/^spohsibiffties of«gnea\er importance than those of the feeder posk^ ^h/s ^c/s/pnfvvos tfl^en by the Ministry of Railways in consultation withpthe Public Grievances and Pensions(DOP&T) and-President was pleasedito accord his kind sanction to grant this benefit in those situations'mentioned in the' s'aid Serial Circular.
Further in terms,of the provisions of.this Circular,.jthe employees were to exercise option, witbimtbe period of 3 mpnths-frdm ttie date of issue of the said circular. Subsequently, . vide Railway ^Board's letter No.PC N/2003/PNM/NFiR/i, dt.l9.01.20Q4, docketed /Tide CPO's serial circular No.22(3)/2004 dt. 10.3.2004, the provision ..of exercising options by the employees who were covered under.the'Otders circulated by RBE No.119/99 was done away with. Since the 4 applicants as mentioned above who were promoted as Goods Guard after 01.01.1986 and were thus beneficiaries as laid down in the aforesaid circular, did not exercise option earlier, their cases were not considered for fixation of pay on promotion in identical scale even after issuance of circular dt. 2004 since they had retired. As these applicants are eligible for the said benefit, necessary action is being taken for re fixation of their pay on their promotion as Goods Guard in identical Scale of Rs. 1200-2040/-.
The Tribunal while considering the demand for pay protection of the applicants has observed that it has to be first examined if the grievance of each and every applicant in these OAs is for protection of pay in the lower scale of pay as Goods Guard and the pay is to be protected was less than the maximum pay of scale of Goods Guard. In this context the provisions laid down in Railway Board's Establishment No.195/2002 circulated vide CPO/ER's Serial No.l45(ll)/2002 need to be discussed.
Detailed guidelines regarding pay protection available under FRs in various situations of appointment in lower post on own volition have been provided. As per the existing provision of para FR 22(i)(B) i.e. Rule 1313(i)(b) 4 of R II as indicated in Serial No.(ii) of the said circular when a Government servant seeks transfer to a post from which he was promoted, it will be treated as a case of reversion and his pay wil be fixed at a stage what he would have drawn had he not been promoted. Keeping this rule in view, fixation of pay of the applicants in these OAs was done at the time of their promotion in the period pertaining to 1978 to 1986 with respect to their feeder grade of TNC, i.e. Rs.260-400/- before fixing their pay in the category i of Guard -C in Sc. Rs.330-530/-, subsequently revised to Rs.1200-2040/- as per IVth Pay Commission. Hence, it is observed that there was no error in fixing their pay on their promotion as Guard - C/Goods Guard in the respective case except for the provision laid down in RBE No.119/99 which should have been implemented in the cases of 4 applicants who got their promotions in the year 1986.
In view of the foregoing and with reference to the order of Hon'ble Tribunal/Allahabad in OA No.1556 of 1992, it is stated that the applicants of these OAs who got their promotion prior to 01.01.1986 cannot compare their cases with the applicants of OA No.1556 since they were promoted prior to 01.01.1986.
This disposes of the order of Hon'ble Tribunal/Calcutta dt 30.4.2014 in the aforesaid OAs."
V
3. We note thatthfe appliSant'h^s/hea^ily reliefLVpon the decision in \\-/A-v;:> \ O.A. 1516/1992, O.A.212/2005/ ' Gr.A.180/2006 ' as enumerated : i H "" s hereinbelow:- V; ■r " / 3 /
(i) O.A.1516 of 19£2/wasjpreferred taseej^s^ttipl aside impugned
-V. " ..........
«<•>' \ X. orders dated 30,11.1991vand; restoration of the substantive pay of the applicants and cancellation of seniority list dated 31.12.1991 and a direction to respondents to assign seniority to the applicants on the basis of length of service in the equivalent grade alongwith consequential benefits. The Tribunal observed that the applicants "were appointed as Trains Clerk in the scale of Rs.900-.... (not legible) and were, thereafter, promoted as Senior Trains Clerk in the scale of Rs.1200-2040/- and were granted further promotion to the post of Head Trains Clerk in the scale of Rs.1400-2300. It is claimed that Trains Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040/- and Rs.1400-2300/-.....(not legible) channel of promotion to the post of Goods Guard in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040/-. By letter dated 02.03.1990 applications were invited from amongst the Trains Clerk, Yard Staff, Assistant Guard and Commercial Clerks etc. The 5 applicants applied for the post of Goods Guard and were selected and empanelled. Applicants No.1,2,3 and 6 were posted by order dated 04.12.1990 and applicants No.4 and 3 were posted by order passed in August 1989 on the basis of an earlier selection. They continued to draw the scale in which they were before their induction as Goods Guard. He also received increments on due dates. They were paid Rs.1640/-, 1600/r, 1440/-, V 1560/-, 1540 and 1600/- upto December 1991 on 30.12.1991. Their pay was fixed in the scale of Rs.1200-2040/- at Rs.1380/-, 1350/-, 1320/-, 1300/-, 1380 and 1350/- respectively. They filed representation which were turned down. It is contended that the fixation of pay as well as assignment of seniority to the applicants was contrary to the rules applicable to the applicants."
And having considered that "The respondents on the other hand have drawn attention to the provision in letter dated 02....(not legible).1990 inviting application for promotion to the post of Goods Guard in which it has been provided in the conditions of eligibility that applicants have working as Head Trains Clerk but were not confirmed will have to give in writing a declaration that reversion to the scale of Rs.1200-2040/- was acceptable to unconditionally."
'''v
\
xy V
"the letter dated^0fo4.19^89^pf^iT)e^fhief Personnel Officer of Eastern Railway which provided/$iat%the^officiating TNC'in the grade of Rs.1400- 2300/- will not-be allotted,to'babk out once,selected, as Goods Guard and their pay will be:fixed withou t protection-in officiating higher grade as Trains Clerk. %*■ - ' '6 ;
%-
. '■ _ / "that rule 1313(H) of Indian Railway :Establishment Code*is applicable to pay fixation of the applicants No.1,2,3 and 6 is correct in view of the provisions cited above of the Indian Railway-Establishment Code:"
y / "11. set dside^ impugned.,- ^orders' dated 30.12.1991 and 23.04.1992 regarding the'payjixation ofjhe applicants and others who are similarly situated" and held :
....... it should be clear that no recovery is to be made from the applicants on the basis of these orders. If any recovery has been made it will have to be refunded to the applicants. We also set aside the impugned seniority list dated 31.12.1991. The respondents are directed to pass orders regarding pay fixation after taking into consideration to provision of rule 1313(not legible)(ii) of Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume II. The respondents also directed to fix seniority after considering the ........ (not legible) of paragraph 320 of Indian Railway Establishment..... (not legible) Volume- I. These orders shall be complied with by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of communication of a copy of this order.
There shall be no order as to costs."6
In O.A.212 of 2005, the applicant preferred to seek extension of the same and similar benefits as has been granted by the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal on 27.6.2000 in O.A.No. 1516/1992 , under which similarly placed persons had been allowed and promoted to the post of Goods Guard under FR 22(C), but the respondents have not given that i pay and scale to the applicant. The applicant was working as Sr. Trains Clerk when he appeared for selection to the post of Goods Guard under the 31% Departmental Promotion Quota, and he was declared successful through Annexure A/1 dated 3.1.1985. He was posted as "Goods Guard". However,/thodgh fe^yvas promoted his pay as Sr. . \ \ ^ *' *- / i ' Trains Clerk was noftproteefliftai: tffS^time of hisVegular posting as I Guard "C\ The apjpjicantlfa^ pay protection, which he Jo*' states was available to iffn^n. With] Railway Board 1 ' o % f]\N wj I"
letter dated 22.,8.1981.<The^\iofi4h^app1ic-ant wa^ protected upto / 31.12.1985, but while'refixing' his pay Cinder thfe nfew pay scale w.e.f.
\ i y
■ v '' - ...."■ y
1.1.1986, his pay was fixed arthe 'mihimum'of pay scale of Guard© which the applicant has assailed as being bad in law, and against the Rules. The Tribunal held as under:-
// without any hesitation, it appears to us that the applicant of this O.A. is also entitled to the same relief and it is ordered that his pay also cannot be reduced on his joining the post of Goods Guard, and he shall also be entitled for his pay to be fixed to the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300/- from the date of his joining duties os Goods Guard."
In O.A.No.180 of 2006, the applicants five in number, sought for direction upon the respondents to restore their pay in the higher scale and set aside the orders dated 20.3.90 and 5.7.91 whereby their pay 4 V 7 has been fixed in the scale of Rs. 1200-2040/- and to fix their seniority as per paragraph 320 of IREM Vol.l. The Tribunal noted that "all the applicants were initially appointed as Train Clerk in the scale of Rs.950-1500/- and V' thereafter, promoted as in the scale of Rs.1200-2040/-. They were granted further promotion to the post of Head Train Clerk in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300/- thereafter, the applicants were invited for the posts of Good Guards in the pay scale of 1200- 2040/-. All the applicants applied for the post of Goods Guards and were selected and empanelled" and had "alleged in OA that before joining the post of Goods Guard, they continued to draw pay in the scale of Rs.1400-2300/-. They also received increments date. Thereafter the respondents vide order dated 5.7.91 posted the applicant No.l as Goo^s guard>ih fhe^scate ofRs.1200-2040/- and his pay \V- .-k o 'i.
was fixed at Rs.1280/- (mtfie scqle^oPMs^OQ-^OAO^" apcl similarly "applicant *> ' .^ \ ; . /,^ \ No (not legible) and 5 were p'osfed ds Goods'Guard and/their pay has been fixed i at Rs.1280/- per month in th&soale/ofM&2&0?2040/-". Upon ^considering the ;w ■ \ / decision in O.A.NoUSlS/ofiltheiTribunai^disposed^it^ of in terms of • v'.-v .. f directions issued in OA2iO of03 with a direction upon Respondent No.2 / :
to treat the O.A. as representation of^fhe^ipplicant to be made ,-0.o»n' available to the concerned respondents at earliest and to dispose it of in accordance with law, by passing speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order and ordered that in case the applicants are found to be similarly placed applicants of O.A.210 of 93, then the same benefits should be (not legible) them."
4. Per contra the respondents to refute their claim have averred as under "i! 8 Bal Mukund Mahato was appointed as R/TNC in scale Rs.llO-118/-(AS) w.e.f. 05.04.1966. At the time of selection for the post of Guard "C" in scale Rs.330-530(R$) he was working as r */ Sr. INC in scale Rs.330-560/-(RS). As per item No.124 of IREM Vol.ll the Trains Clerk in scale Rs.260-400/-(RS) were eligible in the zone of consideration for promotion against General Selection quota for the post of Guard 'C' in scale Rs,330-530(RS) by selection. While working as such he had opted for selection to the post of Guard - C which was in lower scale of Rs.330-530/- as per pay structure of.3r^ Pay'Gdrfim'ission i.e. prior to 01.01.1986.
i-
After the selection and.^&rfc cbrrtptetion of p'r^scribed training he was postedA-as Guard.r'-C;44;i;n^ka1e-4s-330336/-(RS) and his ■ M___ \ ■ c i fixation wasiat firsfemade^ii^frefereng^to his^supstantive pay as w f %f/i j INC in scale of Rs.'260-406/4RS')|r£ the'n .as Guard 'C in scale of i Rs.330-530(RS) w.e.f. 10.12,1985/as the stales of Guard "C" was lower than that of Sr. INC in scale 'Rs..330-560/-(RS).
The applicant along with few other candidates filed O.A. No.242 to 247 of 2013 & 1128 to 1131 of 2013 before Hon'ble CAT/Calcutta showing the judgment of Hon'ble CAT/Allahabad bench in OA No.1516 of 1992. This Tribunal ordered as under:-
"for grant of such benefits the respondents shall first examine whether the grievance of each & every applicant in these OAs are for protection of pay in the lower scale of pay as Goods Guard and the pay to be protected was less than the maximum of scale of Goods Guard. Appropriate detailed reasoned and speaking orders be passed within three months."
Accordingly the "Speaking Order" dated 14.10.2014 was passed.
9The respondents would further contend that basically the applicants of the said OAs belong to two (2) groups-one who got i.
/ promoted as Guard 'C'/Goods Guard prior to 01.01.1986 and the other who had been promoted after 01.01.1986 but before 31.12.1995. In terms of CPO/E. Rly/s office Circular No.E834/2/Guard/T&C-L(R) dated 30/09/85 as mentioned in the CPO's letter dated 21.08.91, relaxation from time to time was granted for the officiating TNCs up to Gr. Rs.550- 750(RS) to opt for the post of Guard Gr. "C" in scale Rs.330-530/-(RS) subject to that "fixation as Guard Gr; will be with reference to pay as INC in Grade Rs^eOMOOlRSj^rfly^without^affofding any protection / \ ; : ■ / ' \ /;■ '• ■ ■ \ / of pay in officiating grades as Sr.'TNC and a'bove." Subsequently in the .V • ■- Mu. ' . ^ / / ij. .... fr ................ ' light of instructions of thevRa'i!.way^B#a'rd>ide1their fetter No.E(NG)l-86-
• \ 'i
/ f ■; \/ J / i \ w |
/
i
PM2-21(PNM/NFIR^ dated....^/p^^^hf^matter^wSs reviewed as } / •A •. \ / under:- £ 1 ! / ' As mentioned in CPQ'sJeTOrti^teid^T'.08.91 in supersession of / earlier order, the procedure to be followed for the purpose of selection from TNC cadre to the post of Goods Guard which was discussed therein is given below for information and guidance:-
a) As has been provided in Railway Board's circular dated 24.07.87 and para 124 of IREM Vol.((Revised edition 1989), henceforth the TNCs upto Grade Rs.l200-2040/-(RP) only are eligible to opt for the post of Goods Guard in Gr.l200-2040/-(RP) against 31% quota fixed for the TNCs. TNCs in the further higher grade i.e. 10 Rs.1400-2300/- and above are not eligible to opt for the selection as Goods Guard.
b) For the purpose of fixation of pay of the TNCs in scale Rs.950-
1500 as Guard in Gr.l200-2040(RP), FR 22(C) will be applicable.
In case of Sr. TNCs in Sc. Rs.l200-2040(RP) however, their pay is to fixed in the category of Guard in relation to their pay in existing grade as Sr. INC with pay protection,
c) In regard to fixation of pay of the higher grade TNCs (i.e.1200- 2040/- and above) already absorbed as Guard, those who have come to the category-, tff^GUard^fter'issue of the Bd's letter <5^ lt.24/07/87, wilPbe granted pay 'p'rotectionSoh the line indicated #\r \ ^ ^ „s \ \\\S/// A vide item (b'J-abovl'H^in^Mlalt^rfio^ay upfo Grade 1200*2040
- ....| C \ (RP) only and ignoring TSfeir^-officiatihg pay^inf further higher grade. . •- ■■■ 'v** . ,
d) Cases relating to the period to 24.07.87/dea!t with in terms of circular dt. 30.09.85 will remain unchanged.
However, the said benefit has been granted to the Sr. TNCs officiating in scale 1200-2040/- and promoted as Goods Guard within the period from 01.01.1986 to 31.12.1995 as per RBE No.119/99 (CPO/E. Rl/s SI.No. 107/99. Further that as per the existing provision of para FR 22(i)(B) i.e. Rule 1313(i)(b) of R II as indicated in Serial No.(ii) of the said circular when a Government servant seeks transfer to a post from which he was promoted, it will be treated as a case of reversion and his pay will be fixed at a stage what he would have drawn had he not been 11 promoted. Keeping this rule in view, fixation of pay of the applicants in i. j these OAs was done at the time of their promotion in the period ■ pertaining to 1978 to 1986 with respect to the then feeder grade of INC, i.e. Rs.260-400/- before fixing his pay in the category of Guard-C in Sc. Rs.330-530/-, subsequently revised to Rs.1200-2040/- as per IVth Pay Commission. Hence, it is observed that there was no error in fixing their pay on their promotion as Guard-C/Goods Guard in the respective case except for the provision laid down in RBE No.119/99 which should have been implemented in the cases of 4 applicants who got their promotions in the year 1986\ fWilh fref^rence to the order of Hon'ble Tribunal/Allahabad ifi?"OA N'0^55:6 jSf%1992^ itMs stated that the /< \ \ ? / / Nv ;T: • \.
applicant of this OA who^oLhisVprSm^tfon-prior tc5oi01.1986 cannot v-
compare his caseOwith t^a^Iu^ts^fNo.
& 15f5i5 |ince
i they
were
r^3 .■ | ^ /
promoted after 01.Ol-.l^S^/f^elappiicim-s^^OA No/l556, who were . //""*-33 / working as Sr, TNCx/were'enjoying^ the1 ^cale of Rs.330-560/-
(RS)/Rs.l200-2040/-(RP)NQn"implemeTffation of 4th Pay Commission, the pay scale of Guard "C" Rs.330-530/-(RS) and the scale of Guard "B"
Rs.330-560/-(RS) were merged as Goods Guard in identical scale of Rs.l200-2040(RP). The post of Sr. INC in scale of Rs.l200-2040/-(RP) became one of the feeder grades for promotion to the post of Goods Guard vide RBE No.ll9/99(CPO's Serial circular No.107/99).
5. Ld. counsel for the applicant would voice his grievance that the applicants deserved identical treatment with the applicants in O.A. referred to supra.
:*» 12
6. We heard the Id. counsels and perused the materials on record.
7. We would discern the following facts:-
(i) The applicants who belong to the first group as enumerated by respondents(supra) while being posted as Sr. TNC/Head INC in Sc.
Rs.330-560/- /Rs.425-640/- respectively had opted for selection to the post of Guard - C which was in lower scale of Rs.330-530/- as per pay structure of 3rd Pay Commission i.e. prior to 01.01.1986.
Therefore, such Sr. INC who got promoted to Goods Guard were in the identical scale of Rs.330^5:60/425-640/- as that of Goods Guard , ' i-
and not in higher scalelhan thatW^Sods.GuaTd G..\ \\ J / / ■ V
(ii) The resp'ondehf^hav^^dTfMtt66!^ andjrrefutably granted benefit to those Gpods promoted after 01.01.86 from Sr. TNC who were 'injtfte,id^fftieafpay.-s-caTe\of Gobds Guard 'C i.e. ■ ■ • \ ■>.} / Rs.1200-2040/- but the pay scale of Head TNC was higher, and hence their case was not mentioned. Therefore, the claim of the respondents that only those Goods Guard who came from identical scale of pay(Rs.1200-2040) post 01.01.2006 were given protection of pay, is far from truth.
(iii) It is evident that the applicants were deprived of pay protection, as according to the respondents, acceptance of the post of Guard - C in scale of Rs.330-530/- tantamounted to refusal of the post of Trains Clerk in the scale of Rs.330-560/- and Rs.425-640/-<on restructuring) whereas the applicants in O.A.212/2005 were also in the pre-revised - \ 13 scales of Senior TNC. If such applicants could be granted pay protection, the reason for depriving the present applicants becomes inexplicable and, therefore, arbitrary and discriminatory, creating a class within a class without adequate justification.
8. Due to aforesaid reasons we direct the authorities to consider and grant benefits to the applicants in the light of O.A.212/2005 by issuing appropriate order within 2 months of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
T
.v-'
\ .. y---- ^
(N. Neihsial) (Bidisha Banerjee)
Administrati lember $ \ i i / y%. ludrdal Member
s* K
\
•V'
I"'- .i■1 c \ *5
sb ... ..S
5
*.v
•:w-v _ *
W..**
4..,
V'-v.''
\
'X /
v *•, X' /
I?
/
'V
: .■ '.V
• ?■ •X • /
•s,
!