Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Rudra Narayan Mishra vs East Coast Railway on 16 November, 2023
Reserved on: 15.11.2023 CORAM:
3 GA R60 SSD a S02 I CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH OA 260/00230 of 2011 Pronounced on 16.11.2023 HON'BLE MR. PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (4) HON'BLE MB. RATNISH KUMAR RAL, MEMBER () Rudra Narayan Mishra, Aged about 34 years, Son of Debraj Mishra, At present working as Chief Goods Supervisor uner DRM(C) East Chast Railway, Sambalpur Division, Sambalpur, Resident of Near Tool Gate, New Jeera Bridge, Po/Dist-Baragarh, Grissa-7 68028.
ww wdpplicant ¥ERSUS {. Union of India represented through the General Manager, East Coast Railway, ECOR Sadan, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar, Dist- Khurda.
2 Divisional Railway Manager, East Coast Railway, Sambalpur Division, At/Po-Kshetarajpur, Town, Dist-
"
Sambalpur.
2. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Coast Railway, Sambalpur Division, At! Po-Kshetarajpur, Town Dist- Sambaipur.
4, Senior Divisional Operating Manager, East Coast Railway, Town Dist-
Sambalpur Division, At/Po-Kshetarajpur, Sambalpur. :
DA ZOU /GOAIG of NN fF ted Boal S Chief Personnel Oficer, East Coast Railway, ECOL. Sadan, Chandrasekharpur Bhubaneswar. & Senior DNvisional Commercial Manager, East Coast Railway, Sambalpur Division, At/Po-Rshetaraipur, Town /Dist-Sambalpur.
ow Respondents For the applicant > Mp NB. Reutray, Counsel For the respondents > Mr. B.R.Awain, Counsel PRAMOD KUMAR This OA was heard along with DA No. 229/201 and was dismissed by this Tribunal, vide common order dated 15.10.2014. The said arder was challenged by the applicant before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No. 21197/2014 and the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa vide order dated 26.10.2022 quashed the order of this Tribunal and remitted the matter back to this Tribunal for fresh adjudication by siving opportunity of hearing to all the parties. Accordingly, this matter ® X i" wa ts os e was restored to Ale and listed for hearing. Upon hearing Ld. Counsel for both sides, perused the records.
3 BA THY QITTO of FOL
2. Uneontrovertedly, it appears from the record that the applicant was initially appointed as Goods Guard under the respondent railways on 06.10.2003 in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000//- phis 305 pay element. While working as such, through a General Departmental Competitive Examination (GDCE), he was selected for the post of Traffic Apprentice in the year 2005 and on successful completion of the training he was pasted against the working post of Dy. Station Superintendent, Dungrupali wef 25.05.2008 and his pay was fixed in the pay scale of Rs, 5500-9000/- without granting him 30% pay element. On his RTI application dated 29.07.2009, he was replied vide order dated 07.08.2009 (A/3} that the benefit of reckoning of pay element for the purpose of fixation of pay on their appointment in new past under GDCE is not admissible as per extent rule vide RBE Ne. 1352/2006. He submitted representation dated 23.11.2010 for granting him 30% pay element, which was rejected and communicated to him vide letter dated 64.01.2011 (A/6) stating therein that RBE No. 1932/2006 circulated under ECoRIy's Estt. SL No. FIXN-1/2006 supersedes Board's references of 1958-59 and, hence, consequent upon bis appointment under the GDCE his pay fixation taking into account the pay element of 30% ruming allowance element is not permissible. Being aggrieved, the 4 SA BOQPHOTIO oT ANY applicant fled this OA stating inter alia that his promotion to the past af Traffic Apprentice is guided by the old rule (RBC of 58-59) and, therefore, RBE No, 1382/2006 having prospective application, is not applicable to his case and, therefore, the order of rejection Is liable to be quashed and respondents should be directed to allow him 30% pay element,
3. Respondents filed their counter opposing the stand of the applicant in the light of the counter filed in GA 229/2011, the sum and substance of which is that the applicant was Initially appointed as a Goods Guard on 06.10.2003 and he was posted at Titlagarh Railway Station. Subsequently. he was selected fer the post of Trafic Apprentice in the year 2005 against GDCE Quota. Ne was sent for in-service training commencing from 01.08.2005. After completion of training be was posted as Dy. Station Superintendent at Dungaripall Railway Station of Sambalpur Division. The scale of pay of Goods guard as on 2005 was 4500-7000/-. After joining In the promotional post, his pay was fixed in the scale of pay of Re. S500-9000/.. The applicant was selected to the post of Traffic Apprentice /Dy. SS through GDCE, which Is voluntary in nature and hence the benefit of recurring of pay clement for the purpas ot QA ZHU SQGL 38 of BOVE of fixation of pay of running staff on their appointment to the past under GDCE Scheme is not admissible as per the extent rule vide RBE No, L3e/2006 (R/1). Accordingly, respondents have stated that there being no Injustice caused of the applicant in rejecting his claim for fixation of pay in the promotional post by adding 30% pay element, this GA sans any merit and is Hable to be dismissed, Applicant has also Sled rejoinder, 4 Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that RB's E(S}-IS8RS/27 dated 23.09.1959, SL No. ER 3482, provides that even if a running staff fs promoted at his own request to a stationary post in a channel other than the one normally open to the running staff the element of running allowance will be taken into account for the purpose of fixation of pay In his new past. The above provision was abandoned with by the RBE No. 132/2006, which came into effect fram 15.09.2006, with specific instruction that "past cases decided otherwise need not be reopened* and that the said RBE having no retrospective implication cannot be made applicable to the case of the applicant. [t has further been submitted that when the pay af the applicant was Axed on profurma basis by treating the training period from O1.08.2005 as duty for PRA SS § Ce TRUMNE Na S014 purpose of drawing increment, his case ought to have been considered by the provisions, which were in vogue before 15.09.2006 (RBE No. 132/2006 came inte effect). In other words, according to the Ld. Counsel for the applicant treating the period wet Q 7.08.2005 for the purpose of drawing increment means he was entitled to Increment On 2a particular pay scale and the said pay scale ought ta have been Axed by taking Into account 30% pay element. Thus, rejection of his claim af 30% pay element by Invoking RBE No. 1982/2006 is bad in law a nd ta substantiate the said stand, Ld. Counsel for the applicant has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Y.V.Rangaiah & Ors. Vs. ].Sinivas Rao & Ors. [1983) 3 SCC 284, and P.Mahaendra & Ors. Vs. State af Karnataka & Ors, AIR 1990 SC 405. In support of his stand that he is entitled to the 30% pay element, he has also relied on the decision ofthe Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of UOT Ors. Vs. Subhasis Haldar & Anr, Civil Mise. Writ Petition No, 33309 of 2011 disposed of on 01.02.2012. Accordingly, he has prayed for the relief claimed in the GA.
5 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents reiterated the stand taken in the counter as noted above and has stated that the submission tod SES, 20 SOIRAG af ZOET of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant that the RBE No. 132/2006 having prospective effect cannot be made applicable to the case of the applicant as his pay was fixed much before the RBE came inte effect is not correct because in the order of promotion it was specifically stated that he having been empanelled as Traffic Apprentice In pursuance of GDCE Scheme, was sent for training and on completion of training he was pasted as Traffic Apprentice ar Dy. SS as the case may be in the scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- having his pay in the same scale fixed on proforma basis by treating the training period from 01.08.2005 as duty for the purpose of drawing increments. Accordingly, he has prayed for dismissal of this DA.
& Heard and perused the records.
7. As noted above, this matter was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 15.10.2014, which order was challenged by the applicant hefore the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in W.P(C) No. 21197/2014 and the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa while remitting the matter back to this Tribunal by quashing the order of this Tribunal dated 15.10.2014 was pleased to abserve as under:
CEA TROQUE SN af I ea "5 Mr, D. Gochhayat, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the opposite parties relying upon the counter affidavit stated that the tribunal is well justified In passing the order impugned, which does not warrant any interference of this Court at this stage. [t is Aether contended that the scale of pay of the petitioner has been fixed on his appointment to working past Dy. 5.3.
considering notional pay at Bs.5500/- wal OLO82005 under RS (RP) Rules, 1997, getting pay fixation notionally wif OLUL2006 as per RS (RP) Rules, 2008 and allowing anwards sotional Increments as per extant rules applicable for direct recruitees, Therefore, it is contended that this Court should not interfere with the order passed by the tribunal.
& Naving heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that the petitioner claims for fixation of his scale of pay and, as such, it is contended that the reliance placed on RBE No.132/2006 issued by the East Coast Railway Establishment has no application to the present case and, therefore, the contention raised by learned counsel for the opposite parties cannot sustain In the eye of law..." femphasis supplied)
8. In wiew of the aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble High Court of Grissa and the fact thar the applicant was allowed the pay In the promotional post wef. 01.08.2005 for the purpose of increments, which can only be worked out after Axing the pay. The RBE No. [az /e006 which has come much after 2005, having not retrospective implication, rather with emphasis that past cases should not be reopened, the impugned order of rejection dated 04.01.2011 (4/6) is hereby quashed.
§ DA SAQA S0 af HY The respondents arg directed to fix the pay of the applicant in the pay scaie of Rs. 5500-9000/- In terms of the RBE in vogue prior to RBE 1132/2006 and pay the applicant the differential amount after refixation af his pay by adding 30% pay element. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period af 180 days from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis carder.
, In the result, the QA stands allowed leaving the parties to bear their awn costs.
{Rajnish Rimar Ral) (Pramod Kumar Das' Member GudL} Member (Admn.}