Madras High Court
C.Appunni vs The Union Of India Rep. By The on 27 September, 2024
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
W.P.Nos.3419 & 6502 to 6506 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 27.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
WP.Nos.3419, 6502 to 6506 of 2017
C.Appunni ....Petitioner in W.P.No.3419 of 2017
A.Ahmed koya ....Petitioner in W.P.No.6502 of 2017
C.K.Bhaskaran ....Petitioner in W.P.No.6503 of 2017
B.Kumar ....Petitioner in W.P.No.6504 of 2017
K.Anandakumar .....Petitioner in W.P.No.6505 of 2017
George Mathew ....Petitioner in W.P.No.6506 of 2017
Vs
1.The Union of India rep. By the
Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
Chennai Division, Southern Railway,
Chennai – 600 003.
2. The Additional Divsional Railway Manager -II
Chennai Division, Southern Railway,
Chennai – 600 003.
1/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3419 & 6502 to 6506 of 2017
3. The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Branch,
High Court Buildings, Chennai – 600 104.
... Respondents in all W.Ps.
PRAYER in W.P.No.3419 of 2017: Writ Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.No.1026/2013
dated 26.10.2016 and quash the same and direct the respondents to re-fix
the petitioner's pay at Rs.10430/- instead of Rs.7360/- in the Pay Band of
Rs.5200-20200 + Grade Pay of Rs.1800/- with effect from 1-8-2006 and
grant him all consequential benefits including payment of arrears.
PRAYER in W.P.No.6502 of 2017: Writ Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.No.1320/2013
dated 04.11.2016 and quash the same and direct the respondents to re-fix
the petitioner's pay at Rs.8840/- instead of Rs.7230/- in the Pay Band of
2/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3419 & 6502 to 6506 of 2017
Rs.5200-20200 + Grade Pay of Rs.1800/- with effect from 1-8-2006 and
grant him all consequential benefits including payment of arrears.
PRAYER in W.P.No.6503 of 2017: Writ Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.No.1070/2013
dated 26.10.2016 and quash the same and direct the respondents to re-fix
the petitioner's pay at Rs.8840/- instead of Rs.7230/- in the Pay Band of
Rs.5200-20200 + Grade Pay of Rs.1800/- with effect from 1-8-2006 and
grant him all consequential benefits including payment of arrears.
PRAYER in W.P.No.6504 of 2017: Writ Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.No.1029/2013
dated 26.10.2016 and quash the same and direct the respondents to re-fix
the petitioner's pay at Rs.8840/- instead of Rs.7230/- in the Pay Band of
Rs.5200-20200 + Grade Pay of Rs.1800/- with effect from 1-8-2006 and
grant him all consequential benefits including payment of arrears.
3/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3419 & 6502 to 6506 of 2017
PRAYER in W.P.No.6505 of 2017: Writ Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.No.1589/2013
dated 31.08.2013 and quash the same and direct the respondents to re-fix
the petitioner's pay at Rs.9510/- instead of Rs.7240/- in the Pay Band of
Rs.5200-20200 + Grade Pay of Rs.1800/- with effect from 1-8-2006 and
grant him all consequential benefits including payment of arrears.
PRAYER in W.P.No.6506 of 2017: Writ Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.No.1069/2013
dated 26.10.2016 and quash the same and direct the respondents to re-fix
the petitioner's pay at Rs.8840/- instead of Rs.7230/- in the Pay Band of
Rs.5200-20200 + Grade Pay of Rs.1800/- with effect from 1-8-2006 and
grant him all consequential benefits including payment of arrears.
In all W.Ps
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajendran
For R1 & R2 : Mr.V.Radhakrishnan
4/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3419 & 6502 to 6506 of 2017
Senior Counsel
for Mr.P.T.Ram Kumar
Standing Counsel for Railways
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.) These Writ Petitions are filed challenging the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1029,1069 & 1070/2013 dated 26.10.2016, O.A.No.1589/2013 dated 31.08.2013 and O.A.No.1320/2013 dated 04.11.2016. With the consent of the learned counsels, the Writ Petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. The Petitioners, who had retired from service as Senior Trackman in the Chennai Division of Southern Railway were all initially empaneled in the cadre of Gangman in the year 1997. They were initially appointed as Casual Labour Skilled Artisan (Revitter) in Group 'C' Post in open line and on completion of continuous service of four months they were granted temporary status. Even though these petitioners were empaneled as Gangman (Group 'D') in the year 1997, they were working in Group 'C' post and continued to receive Group 'C' scale of pay. 5/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.3419 & 6502 to 6506 of 2017
3. The employees who were working in Group -D Posts and seniors to the petitioners, challenged the orders wherein these petitioners though empaneled as Gangman were allowed to continue to work in higher pay scales, on the ground that their chance of promotion to Group 'C' post will be affected. By an order dated 08.06.2000, the Tribunal directed the Railways to consider the applicants therein also to the Group 'C' post. Petitioners herein and others challenged the orders of the Tribunal in W.P.No.6127 of 2001 on the ground that adverse orders have been passed against them without impleading them as a party. This Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal to decide the matter after hearing all the parties.
4. Pursuant to remand, the Tribunal by an order dated 05.12.2003 held that, the applicants in the O.A.No.80 of 1998 are not eligible to be promoted as Group 'C' employees and the petitioners herein and others who are the private respondents in the O.A have to be retained only as Group 'D' employees and they have no right to the post under Group 'C' which they were holding, but however their pay shall be protected in 6/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.3419 & 6502 to 6506 of 2017 accordance with the Full Bench Judgement of the Jaipur Tribunal.
5. This order was challenged by the applicants therein in W.P. No.192471 of 2004 and the Division Bench by an order dated 13.03.2006 clarified the order of the Tribunal to the extent that the petitioners and others who are employed to discharge the duties of Grade C post would be entitled to the pay protection. But however as and when they are asked to discharge the duty of the Group 'D' post, they will only be entitled to get the pay scale as contemplated under 39 (ii) of Rules Regulating Recruitment and Other Service Conditions of Casual Labour and Substitutes. It was also made clear that if in future such persons are asked to discharge Group 'D' duty they cannot have any grievance regarding the applicability of pay as contemplated under Rule 39(ii) of the Rules. Further directions were also given that pending disposals of the Writ Petitions and OA if salary has not been paid as applicable to Group 'C' post, such arrears of salary should be calculated and paid to them.
6. Pursuant to the orders, the petitioners who were discharging the duties as Casual Labourers in Group 'C' post were relieved and reverted to 7/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.3419 & 6502 to 6506 of 2017 the category of Trackman and their pay was fixed under Rule 39(ii) and the arrears of the salary as directed was also paid to the petitioners. As the petitioners were reverted to the post of Trackman in Scale of Rs.2610 – 3540 were their line in service was maintained, their pay were fixed in the post of Trackman with increments as per Rule 39(ii).
7. Though the petitioners were in the higher pay scale of Rs. 4000- 6000 in the fifth pay commission due to the creation of work charged post in the Group 'C' category, however they had been reverted to the substantive post of Trackman in the scale of 2610 – 3540 with effect from 01.08.2006. Since the service of the petitioners were regularized as Trackman in the scale of Rs.2610 - 3540 in the year of 1997, the pay as on 01.01.2006 was arrived at Rs.3670 by taking into account the first and second stagnation increments. Subsequently, the petitioners were promoted as Senior Trackman in the scale of Rs.2650 – 4000 and their pay were fixed as Rs.3720 as on 01.07.2007.
8. As the petitioners were working in the Group 'C' category as on 01.01.2006 and the 6th pay commission were announced on 01.08.2008 8/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.3419 & 6502 to 6506 of 2017 with effect from 01.01.2006, though the petitioners were in the higher pay scale in the Group 'C' category, they had been reverted to the post of Trackman in the Group 'D' category on 31.07.2006. As such, the corresponding pay scales were fixed in the post of Trackman with the increments as per Rule 39(ii) and their pay was fixed at Rs.7360 as on the date of reversion on 01.08.2006 with the grade pay of R.1800.
9. The Petitioners had approached the Tribunal contending that they are entitled for a pay of Rs.10,430 + Grade pay of Rs.1800 as according to them the Group 'C' and Group 'D' posts got merged in the 6 th pay commission and all of them were brought under the pay band of Rs.5200 – 20200 with difference in the Grade Pay alone. Therefore, according to the petitioners only the Grade Pay should have been reduced, but the Basic Pay should not be disturbed from Rs.10430 to Rs.7360. The Tribunal after considering the issue by an order dated 26.10.2016 dismissed the applications holding that the applicants are not entitled for pay fixation with reference to the pay drawn by them before reversion, as the pay is fixed in accordance with Rule 39(ii) and also as per the direction of this Court. Assailing the orders passed by the 9/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.3419 & 6502 to 6506 of 2017 Tribunal, the applicants are before this Court.
10. Mr.P.Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that since admittedly the petitioners were working as Casual Laborers in the Group 'C' category till 31.07.2006, they are entitled to the pay protection under the Group 'C' category and on implementation of the 6th Pay Commission on 01.01.2006 as both the Group 'C' category and Group 'D' category got merged, all the category got fitted in the pay scale of Rs.5,200 - 20200 and thereby only the Grade Pay can differ but the Basic Pay cannot be altered. He further contended that, even though the petitioners were reverted as Trackman on 31.07.2006, when they were discharging the Group 'C' category post on the date of implementation of the 6th pay commission, their basic pay got crystallized as on 01.01.2006 in that pay scale as the categories got merged and the alteration of the pay scale by the respondents is arbitrary and the Tribunal failed to consider these aspects and erroneously dismissed the application and thus, he sought for allowing the Writ Petition.
11. Mr. V.Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 10/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.3419 & 6502 to 6506 of 2017 Railways argued that the petitioners were empaneled only as a Trackman in the Group 'D' category, where they have their line in service and for the duties rendered by them in the work charged post in the Group 'C' category, the pay protection as directed by this Court had been calculated and paid to them with arrears in the Group 'C' category and further on their reversion to Trackman, their pay has been accordingly fixed in terms of Rule 39(ii) of the Rules.
12. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that as the petitioners have been reverted to the post of Trackman on 31.07.2006, even though they had been working on higher pay scale in the work charged post under Group 'C' category, their basic pay scales had been regularized in the post of Trackman from 1997 and accordingly the increments were calculated and their pay scales were fixed.
13. Further, the learned Senior Counsel by placing reliance on Rule 7(1) of the Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 contended that the initial pay shall be fixed only in respect of the substantive pay in the permanent post on which the employee holds the line and therefore the 11/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.3419 & 6502 to 6506 of 2017 petitioners having line of service as Trackman are only entitled to the corresponding pay scale even though they are entitled for the increments on reversion from the higher pay scale. He further contended that when once this Court had specifically directed that if the petitioners are reverted to the Group 'D' category, they cannot complain regarding the applicability of the pay as contemplated under Rule 39(ii) and when the petitioners have been admittedly reverted to the post of Trackman, they cannot claim to continue to have the same benefits as granted to the work discharged in the higher post under Group 'C' category which would be in violation to the orders passed by this Court.
14. The learned Senior Counsel also contended that in fact when the petitioners earlier made a similar claim, the Railways by proceedings dated 20.09.2011 had already rejected their claim that the pay scale has been fixed as per the Rules which requires no revision and the same has not been challenged by the petitioners and only by taking note of all these aspects, the Tribunal had dismissed the claim of the petitioners which needs no interference and sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 12/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.3419 & 6502 to 6506 of 2017
15. Heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.
16. The facts are not in dispute that the petitioners were originally empaneled as Gangman in the Group 'D' category in the year 1997 and were initially appointed as Casual Labour Skilled Artisan (Revitter) which is a work charged post in the Group 'C' category. As the petitioners who are empaneled in the Group 'D' category were discharging their duties in the Group 'C' post, O.A.No.80 of 1998 came to be filed challenging the orders allowing the petitioners to continue in the post of Group 'C' category on the ground that the promotion chances of the applicants therein will get affected.
17. The O.A came to be disposed of directing the Railways to consider the case of the applicants therein against the available Group 'C' post. Challenging the same, the casual labourers working in Group 'C' post including the petitioners filed W.P.No.6127 and 13691 of 2001, wherein this Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for deciding the issue afresh as the labourers working in Group 'C' category including the 13/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.3419 & 6502 to 6506 of 2017 petitioners are not made as parties to the applications.
18. Pursuant to the order of remand, the Tribunal by an order dated 05.12.2003 disposed of the O.A by holding that, the applicants therein were not entitled to be promoted to the Group 'C' post. The Tribunal further directed that the petitioners and others who were working as Casual Labourers in Group 'C' category shall be retained only as Group 'D' employees in the place of posting and they will not have any right to the post of Grade C which they are holding, but however their pay alone were protected. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder :
12. In the above circumstances, we consider that the applicants are not eligible to be promoted as Group 'C''employees, in the posts occupied by the private respondents. But, we consider that their apprehension that their juniors, who have been empanelled later stole a march over them can be removed by modifying the impugned order making it clear that the private respondents are not entitled to the post in which they are posted but only to the pay scale. We, therefore, consider that natural Justice would be met if a limited direction is 14/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.3419 & 6502 to 6506 of 2017 given to the respondents to modify the impugned order to the limited extent of Column, No.3 of the enclosure therein or if consider necessary to issue a separate order relating to the retention of the private respondents alone making it clear that they are retained only as Group 'D' employees in the place of posting and have no right to the posts in Grade 'C' which they are holding. Also the order issued by the first respondent dated 20-2-2001 in compliance with the direction of this Tribunal earlier in 0.A.No. 80 of 1998 vide an order dated 20-2-2001 reverting the private respondents to the lower scale is quashed and the respondents are directed to consider the case og the private respondents for protection of pay in accordance with the Full Bench Judgment of this Tribunal referred to above and the decision of the Supreme Court cited above.
Action on both the counts above shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order".
19. The respondents challenged the orders of the Tribunal in W.P.No.19247 of 2004, wherein the Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 13.03.2006 disposed of the Writ Petition by clarifying the orders passed by the Tribunal that the employees discharging the duties 15/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.3419 & 6502 to 6506 of 2017 of Group 'C' post including the petitioners will be entitled to get the pay protection as to that of Grade C employees. However in future if such persons are asked to discharge the Group 'D' duty, they will be entitled to get the pay scale only as contemplated under 39(ii) of the Rules and they cannot have any grievance in this regard.
The relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:
10. In such view of the matter, we clarify the order passed by the Tribunal by observing that the present respondents 32 to 69, who are employed to discharge the duties of Grade 'C' poats would be entitled to pay protection as that of Grade 'C' employees. However, as and when they are asked to discharge the duty of Grade 'D' posts, they will be entitled to get the pay scale as contemplated under 39 (11) of Rules Regulating Recruitment und Other Service Conditions of Casual Labour and Substitutes. It is also made clear that, if in Future, 11. exigency arises and such persons are asked to discharge the Grade duty, they cannot have any grievance regarding the applicability of pay above stated rules.
20. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the petitioners and others who were discharging their duties in the Group 'C' category post were 16/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.3419 & 6502 to 6506 of 2017 relieved and reverted to the category of Trackman where they had their line in service. Apart from paying the arrears of salary for their work done as casual laborers skilled artisans till the date of reversion, their pay were fixed in the category of Trackman as contemplated under Rule 39(ii) of the Rules.
21. For better understanding, Rule 39 of the Rules Regulating Recruitment and other Service Conditions of Casual Labourers and Substitutes is extracted hereunder, which reads as follows:
“39. Fixation of pay of Casual Labourers on their Absorption in a regular class IV post – The pay of casual labourer with temporary status, when absorbed in regular Class IV posts, will be fixed as follows:
(1) Those who have been hitherto drawing pay in identical grades, will have their pay fixed with reference to the last pay drawn and (II) Those who have been working in semi-skilled and skilled grades, but are absorbed in regular Class IV unskilled grades will have their pay fixed by granting increments in the unskilled grade with reference to their earlier service as casual labour in higher or equivalent grades."17/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.3419 & 6502 to 6506 of 2017
22. In view of the above rules, though the employee worked as Casual Labourer in Group 'C' post, on his absorption in Group -D post where he maintains his line in service, the employee will be entitled to pay as contemplated under Rule 39 (ii) ie. by granting increments with reference to their earlier service in higher grades. The pay scale for the post of Trackman in Group -D category is in the scale of Rs.2610 – 3540 and whereas the pay scale of work charged post in Group 'C' category is in the pay scale of Rs.4000 – 6000 under the 5 th pay commission. As such the employees who were empanelled in the Group 'D' category as Trackman even though were getting the higher pay scale in the bandwidth of Rs.4000 – 6000 due to the duties rendered by them in the higher pay scale, on reversion to the post of Trackman, the employees will automatically fall back to the respective pay scale in the band of Rs.2610
-3540.
23. As such the petitioners who had been receiving the higher pay scale of Rs.4000 – 6000, pursuant to their reversion to the post of Trackman as on 31.07.2006, they were only entitled to the pay scale of 18/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.3419 & 6502 to 6506 of 2017 their substantive post as Trackman with effect from 01.08.2006. Since the petitioners were regularized as Trackman in the scale of Rs.2610 -3540 in the year 1997 as fixed on 01.08.2006, they continued in the scale of the substantive post and by taking into account of the 1st and 2nd stagnation increments, their pay has been arrived at Rs.3670/- in the scale of Rs.2610 -3540.
24. It is the claim of the petitioners that even though they had been reverted to the post of Trackman on 31.07.2006, since the 6th pay commission which was introduced on 01.08.2008 was with effect from 01.01.2006, the date on which the petitioners were discharging the duties in the Group 'C' category in the pay scale of Rs.5200 to Rs.20200, their pay scale cannot be disturbed. It is their further contention that, since the post in the Group 'C' category and Group 'D' category were merged in the 6th pay commission, their reversion to the post of Trackman will not alter the pay band of Rs.5200 to Rs.20200 and they will be entitled to the pay fixed at Rs.10050 prior to the reversion and only their Grade Pay will differ from Rs.1900 – 1800.
25. When the entitlement of the petitioners to the pay scales of 19/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.3419 & 6502 to 6506 of 2017 Grade D posts was already gone into and decided by this Court and the Division Bench by order dated 13.03.2006 had made it clear as extracted herein above that the petitioners will be entitled to the benefits of pay scale in the Group 'C' category only as long as they discharge their service in the Group 'C' category post. Further as it has been held that as and when they are asked to discharge the Group D duty, they cannot have any grievance with regard to the applicability of pay as contemplated under Rule 39(2). Therefore, in view of the aforesaid categorical decision arrived at which has been accepted by the petitioners and also in view of Rule 39(2) extracted above, petitioners even though were working under the Group 'C' post in the higher pay scale, on their reversion to the post of Trackman as on 31.07.2006, they will be entitled only to the pay scale of Trackman with the appropriate grade pay, of course with the increments as they have been reverted from the higher post. When admittedly, now the pay scale has been fixed to the petitioners in the pay band applicable to the post of Trackman at Rs.2610 -3540 as on 01.01.2006 and the petitioners have been promoted as Senior Trackman II in the scale of Rs.2650 – 4000 as on 01.07.2007, their claim cannot be sustained. 20/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.3419 & 6502 to 6506 of 2017
26. The respondents in para (27) of their counter had stated about the Grade Pay allotted to each posts as per the Fitment Table and the same is extracted hereunder:
Though the pre-revised scales of Group 'D scales and certain Group 'C' scales are merged in Pay Band Scale of Rs.5200 – 20200 [Pay Band I] the Grade Pay was alloted differently to each post as under:
Pre-revised Name of Pay Corresponding Grade
scale Band 6th CPC Pay
recommended attached
Pay band
Rs.2550-3200 PB1 Rs.5200-20200 Rs.1800/-
Rs.2610-3540
Rs.2650-4000
Rs.2750-4400
Rs.3050-4590 PB1 Rs.5200-20200 Rs.1900/-
Rs.3200-4900 Rs.2000/-
Rs.4000-6000 Rs.2400/-
Rs.4500-7000 Rs.2800/-
Though the pre-revised pay scales starting from Rs.2550 - 3200 to Rs.4500-7000 are placed in common Pay Band scale of Rs.5200- 20200 [PB 1], fitment tables were provided separately for each stage of pre-revised scales as in the manner prescribed in Rule 7 of Railway [Services] Pension Rules, 2008. In the instant case, the fixation table 21/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.3419 & 6502 to 6506 of 2017 (S-2) for pay scale Rs.2610-3540 for substantive post of Trackman and the fixation table (5-5) for pay scale Rs.3050-4590 for officiated work charged post of Skilled Artisan were used for determining the pay of the applicant on 6th Central Pay Commission and corresponding Grade pay to the corresponding post were added along with the pay so determined. The contention of the Petitioner that the pay fixed under VI Pay Commission in the pay band scale of Rs.5200- 20200 in the Group 'C' post of pre-revised scale of Rs.3050-4590 from 1.1.2006 to 03.08.2006 should be protected even after his reversion / relief to pre-revised scale of Rs.2610-3540, which he hold on substantive capacity and where his lien is maintained for the reasons that the pay band scale allotted to both the pre- revised scales is common could not be accepted, since the fitment tables corresponding to the pre-revised scales are different. Similarly The Railway board by its letter No.PC- VI/2008/1/3/1 29.10.2008 dated (RBE No. 160/2008) categorically distinguished that the existing Group 'D' staff placed in PB-1 grade pay Rs. 1800 would continue to perform the existing functions, in addition to the functions that may be prescribed subsequently i.e. after placement in PB-1.
27. As the Group 'D' category post and some of the Group 'C' 22/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.3419 & 6502 to 6506 of 2017 category post were merged in the 6th pay commission in the pay band scale of Rs.5400 – 20200, however the Grade Pay was allotted differently to each posts as per the Fitment Table. Rule 7 of the Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 prescribes for fixation of initial pay in the revised pay structure. As such, though the pre-revised scale starting from Rs.2550 – 3200 to Rs. 4500 to 7000 are placed in common pay band scale of Rs.5200 – 20200, Fitment tables have been provided separately for each stage of pre-revised scale as set out in Rule 7 of the Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.
28. Therefore, in the instant case pre revised pay scale of Rs.2610 – 3540 for the substantive post of Trackman has been adopted as per the Fitment Table, for determining the corresponding pay scale and the Grade Pay has been added along with the pay so determined. When once the petitioners have been reverted from the post of Group 'C' category to the post of Trackman in the Group 'D' category, their claim that their pay scale cannot be disturbed and they will continue to have the same benefits as fixed in the higher pay scale in the Group 'D' category cannot be sustained.
23/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.3419 & 6502 to 6506 of 2017
29. When once the reversion has been adopted on 31.07.2006, petitioners are only entitled to their pay fixed in the category of Trackman as contemplated under Rule 39(ii) along with the increments provided thereunder. The merger of the Group 'D' category and some of the post in the Group 'C' category in the sixth pay commission will not come to the advantage of the petitioners when their services have been regularized in the category of Trackman from 1997 and they having been reverted to the post of Trackman as on 31.07.2006 will be entitled to be fixed in the time scale of the corresponding pay band of Rs.2610 – 3540 for the substantive post with the benefits as provided under Rule 39(ii). When admittedly this procedure has been adopted by the Railways as provided under the Rule and as per the directions issued by this Court, the petitioners after retirement at this length of time cannot have a grievance and make a claim that they will be entitled to continue in the same pay scale fixed at Rs. 10,430/-, when admittedly the same was fixed in the higher scale when they discharged the functions in the Group 'C' category.
30. In such circumstances, the pay fixed at Rs.7,360/-, along with 24/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.3419 & 6502 to 6506 of 2017 Rs.1,800 Grade Pay with effect from 01.08.2006 is only pursuant of the reversion of the petitioners to the post of Trackman in the Group 'D' scales and when admittedly they belong to the Group 'D' service where they have their line in service, they cannot make a claim which they are not entitled to. Only by taking note of all these aspects particularly since the pay of the petitioners has been fixed in the pay band to the post of Trackman as per rule 39(ii), the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioners are not entitled for the pay fixation with reference to the pay drawn by them before reversion. We see no error or infirmity in the conclusions arrived at the by the Tribunal which warrants interference.
31. In view of the same, the order of the Tribunal is sustained and the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. No costs.
(A.S.M.,J) (G.A.M.,J)
27.09.2024
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sma
25/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3419 & 6502 to 6506 of 2017
To
1.The Union of India rep. By the
Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
Chennai Division, Southern Railway,
Chennai – 600 003.
2. The Additional Divsional Railway Manager -II Chennai Division, Southern Railway, Chennai – 600 003.
3. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Branch, High Court Buildings, Chennai – 600 104.
26/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.3419 & 6502 to 6506 of 2017 Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.
sma WP.Nos.3419, 6502 to 6506 of 2017 27.09.2024 27/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis