Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
K Rajasekaran vs M/O Railways on 21 April, 2023
|
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAT BENCH
OA NO.1245/20134
OA 1245/2014
AS a
Dated Friday, the 2! day of April Two Thousand Twenty Three
CORUM: HON'BLE MR. T.JACOB, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
&
HON'BLE MS, LATA BASWARA) PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
K.Rajasekeran
Station Supdt. Working in
Traffic Inspector, H.Qtrs.,
Chennai division
Southern Railway,
Chennai
By Advocate M/s Ratio Legis
Vs.
{. Union of India rep. By
The Secretary Raliway Board
New Delhi
2, The General Manager,
Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai 3
3, The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer
Chennai Division
Souttern Railway
By Advocate Mrs.R.Sathyabama
.. Applicant
Respondents
2 OA 1245/2014
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking for the following relief:
"To cail for the records related to the MACP orders and the seniority dated 28.06.2013 to direct the respondents te upgrade the applicant also on par with his junior on the date which he was bestowed with MAGP Rs.4800/ i.¢.15.01.2009 with all attendant benefits and to pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deer fit and proper and thus to render justice."
2. The brief facts of the case in nutsheil-are asunder:
The applicant was appointed as trainee Assistant Station Master In Chennai division of Southern Railway on the scale of Rs.330-560/1200-2040 on 23.01.1976 and on successful completion of the training was absorbed as Assistant Station Master on 18.11.1976. He was promoted as Rg. Assistant Station Master in scale Rs.425-640 w.e.f 28.06.1983 and further promoted as Station Master I] in scale Rs.1600-2660 w.e.f 20.04.1993. He was further promoted as Station Master Grade I In Pay band Rs,9300-34800 with Rs.4600 grade pay w.e.f 01.11.2003 and he was granted third financial upgradation in Pay Band Rs.9300-34800 with Rs.4800 grade pay w.e.f 26.03.2011. The applicant submits that in the class of Station Master the scale of pay Rs.425-640 extended to Station Masters, Grade III was merged with the grade of Rs.455-700 and a common scale of pay of Rs.1400-2300 was recommended by the IV Pay commission with effect from 01-01-1986 which was revised as Rs.5000-8000 with effect from 01.01.1996 on the recommendations by the Sth Central Pay Commission. Further the grade of Rs.550-750 provided to. the Station Master Grade IT which was later revised as Rs.5500-9000 by the V Pay commission with effect from 01-01-1996.3 OA 1245/2014
After the implementation of the recommendations by the VI Pay commission, the grades Viz.Rs.5000-8000, Rs.5500-9000 were merged and upgraded to Rs.6500-10500 and revised as the Pay Band of Rs.9300-34800 with Rs.4200 grade. pay and the grade of Rs.6500-10500 was upgraded to Rs,7450-11500 and revised the band of Rs.9300-34800 with the grade pay Rs,.4600/-, thereby the promotions earned after many years distorted and the juniors and seniors were brought into a block of flock without any service benefits and considering the same, the Pay commission has recommended a scheme as Modified Assured Career Progression with effect from 01-09-2008. Under these circumstances, the applicant was promoted to the grade pay Rs.4600/- with effect from 01.11.2003 and thereby the applicant was extended with MACP to the Grade Pay Rs.4800/- with effect from 26.03.2011. Although in the extire span of over decades of service the applicant has availed no promotion since his appointment as an Assistant Station Master except the new appointment to the class of Station Master and the regular promotion in 2003 fo the Grade Pay Rs.4600/- and MACP to the Grade Pay Rs.4800/- with effect from 24,12,2013 whereas his junior L. Sivakumar was extended with II Financial Upgradation to the grade pay of Rs.4800/- on and from 15-01- 2009 which is against the principles laid dawn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in catena of cases and thus on that basis his junior was drawing more pay than himself. Hence the applicant has represented ta the respondents on 26.09.2013 and since there was no response from the respondents, he has filed the present OA seeking the above said relief.
3, After notice, the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel and filed a detailed reply statement opposing the relief claimed by the applicant in the OA stating therein that comparison cannot be drawn between the applicant and his junior Shri L. Sivakumar. Snri L. Sivakumar, 4 OA 1245/2014 was selected by the Railway Service Commission for the post of Traffic Apprentice in scale 455-700. After completion of two years training, absorbed as Station Master in scale Rs. 1400-2300, with effect from 15.1.1989. He was further promoted as Station Master Grade II in scale Rs.5500-9000 with effect from 1.11.2003 on account of cadre restructuring. In terms of the MACP scheme, in RBE No.101/2009, Shri LSivakumar, having not earned any promotion in his entire career, was granted Financial Upgradation to the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- and Rs.4800/- and his pay was fixed at Rs. 15,720/- + Rs.4600/- Rs.20,320/- with effect from 1.9.2008 and Rs. 16,330/- + Rs.4800/ Rs.21,130/with effect from 15.1.2009. The said junior was not similarly appointed as trainee Assistant Station Master, when compared with the applicant. In terms of Clause 20, there cannot be any comparison with the junior. The respondents submit that the applicant has already been granted higher pay as well as Grade Pay of Rs.4800 on account of MACP his pay was fixed at Rs.22,770/- with effect from 01.09.2008 prior to his junior whereas, the junior was granted 2nd MACP to the Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- with effect from 15.1.2009 and his pay was fixed at Rs.21,130/-, on which date the applicant was drawing higher pay than his junior. Hence the question of stepping up of pay does not arise. Even otherwise clause 20 prohibits stepping up of pay in the MACP Scheme. Further the applicant was entitled for 2nd and 3rd MACPs i.e. on completion of 20/30 years with effect from 1.9.2008 / 24.12.2013 respectively, whereas the junior in terms of clause 5, being In the entry grade and not having any promotion had to be extended with First and Second Financial Upgradations in the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/+ and Rs.4800/-.and there cannot be any comparison with his junior who had no promotion at all and who stood at the entry level of his service, even after completion of 20 years of his service. The respondents submit that 5 OA 1243/2014 in terms of FR 22, the applicant is receiving more pay than the junior. As on 15.1.2009, Shri L.Sivakumar was drawing Rs.21,130/- and the applicant was drawing Rs.22770/-. As on 1.7.2014, Shri L. Sivakumar, the junior was drawing the basic pay of Rs. 25,260/- whereas the applicant was drawing Rs.27220/-. Thus, there is no violation of FR 22 and this ground is without merits and baseless. There Is a vast difference in the Basie pay of the applicant when compared with . the junior. Therefore further upgradation/stepping up Is impermissible. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the OA.
4, Heard M/s.Ratio Legis for the applicant and Mrs.R.Sathyabama for the respondents and perused the OA along with relevant records,
5. The applicant in support of his case has relied upon the following dacisions:
(i) The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme. Court dated 06.04.2022 in CA Nos.2087-2088/2022 in the matter of UOI Vs. C.R.Madhava Murthy & Anr.
(ii) Order of this Tribunal in OA 370/2015 dated 23.09.2016 & OA 670/2015 dated 12.09.2016 & OA 1029/2014 dated 06.10.2016.
(iit)The order of Hon'ble High court of Madras in WP No.24548 of 2017 dated 26.09.2018.
6. The respondents in support of their contention has relied upon the following decisions:
(I) The decision of the Hon. High court of Madras in W.P.No.12808/2014 dated 21.08.2014
(ii) The order passed by the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in OA 1103/2011 dated 22.03.2013 4 OA 1245/2014 (ili) The order passed by this Tribunal in OA 951/2011 & batch dated 31.10.2014.
7. tis to be noted that the applicant was appointed as Assistant Station Master w.e.f 18.11.1976 and after three years he was subsequently promoted to the post of Station Master Grade III:on 28.06.1983. His further promotion to the post of Station Master Grade II on 20.04.1993 was annulled by the merger of the scales In the consequent pay commission. Therefore he is eligible for second financial upgradation to the Grade Pay of Rs.4600 w.e.f 28.06.1993, i.e., 10 years from 28.06.1983., but he was given promotion as Station Master I to the said Grade Pay of Rs.4600 w.e.f 01.11.2003 only. He is eligible for the 3" financial upgradation to Grade Pay of Rs. 4800 wef 28.06.2003, i.e, 20 years from the date he became eligible for zoe upgradation and he ought to be granted his 3" financial upgradation w.e.f 01.09.2008, i.e., from the date of introduction of the MACP Scheme. The above said position was upheld by this Tribunal in OA 370/2015 dated 23.09.2016 & OA 670/2015 dated 12.09.2016 & OA 1029/2014 dated 06.10.2016. The order dated 06.10.2016 in OA 1029/2014 has been upheld by the Hon'ble High court of Madras in WP No.24548 of 2017 dated 26.09.2018, the relevant paras of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
7, It is seen that the first respondent was selected as Assistant Station Master on 29.11.1980 and promoted as Station Master Grade-III on 01.08.1982 and promoted as Station Master Grade-II on 01.11.2003. Therefore, the first respondent herein is eligible for second and third financial upgradation as on 01.08.1982 and 01.08.2002 spanning 10 years each. Since MACP came into force on 01,08.2008, both second and third financial. upgradation ought to have been given effect on 01.08.2008. It appears from the records that the Railways gave only two MACP on 01.08.2008 which was found fault by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
8. After perusal of the paragraph No.28 of the MACP scheme which came into force on 01.08.2008, when a promotion is granted earlier than 10 years than subsequent 7 OA 1245/2014 upgradation. will be with effect from 10 years from that date and therefore, there is no need a person to wait for 30 years to grant such benefit. A similar interpretation given by the Central Administrative Tribunal does not suffer from any illegatity or irregularity warranting interference by this Court.
9. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
8. Itis to be noted that while dealing with the Issue of junior getting more pay than the senior on account of upgradation under ACP/MACP Scheme, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA Nos.2087-2088/2022 in the matter of UQI Vs. C.R.Madhava Murthy & Anr. by order dated 06.04.2022 has held as under:
"A, Having heard Ms Madhvi Divan,learned ASG and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, which has emerged from the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, It carinot be said that the original writ petitioners were as such claiming the stepping up of the pay under the ACP Scheme. Their grievance was with respect to the anomaly in the pay scale and their grievance was that while granting upgradation under the ACP Scheme, their juniors were getting higher salaries than what they receive. Therefore, it was a case of removal of anomaly by stepping up of pay of sentors on pramotion drawing a less pay than their juniors.
5, The High Court has therefore rightly relied and/or considered FR 22 and the order issued by the Government of India on removal of anomaly by stepping up of pay, which reads as under:
22) Removal of anomaly by stepping up of pay of Sentor on promotion drawing less pay than his junior-(a) As a result of application of FR 22-C, [Now FR 22 (1) (a) {1)).
In order to remove the anomaly of a Government servant promoted or appointed ta a higher post on or after 1 4.1961 drawing a lower rate of pay in that post than another Government servant junior to him in the lower grade and promoted or appointed subsequently to another identical post, it has been decided the in such cases the pay of the senior officer in the higher post should be stepped up to a figure equal to the pay as fixed for the junior officer in that higher post. The stepping up should be done with effect from the date of promotion or appointment of the junior officer and will be subjectto the following conditions, namely:
(a)Both the junior and senior officers should belong ta the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted or appointed should be Identical and in the same cadre;
(b)The scales of pay of the lower and higher posts in, which they are entitled te draw pay should be identical;
(c]) The anomaly should be directly as a result of the application of FR 22 C. For example, if even in the lower post the junior officer draws from time to time a higher rate of pay than the senior by virtue of grant ofadvance increments, the above provisions willnatbe invoked to 8 OA 1245/2014 step up the pay of the senior officer."
The orders refixing the pay of the senior officers in accordance with. the above provisions shall be issued under FR 27. The next increment of the senior officer will be drawn on completion ofthe requisite qualifying service with effect from the date of refixation of pay. [G.L, M.F,0.M. No.F2. [78) E.Ul (A}/66, dated the 4th February, 1966)".
6. Therefore,it was a case whereajunior was drawing merepay on account of upgradation under the ACP Scheme and there was an anomaly and therefore,the pay of senior was required to be stepped up. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Courthas rightly directed the appellants herein to step up the pay of the original writ petitioners keeping in view of pay scale which has been granted to the juniors from the date they have started drawing lesser pay than their juniors. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. No interference of this Court is called for.
7.lIn view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeals deserve to be dismissed and the same are dismissed, accordingly. "
9, In view of the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the ratio of the case laws relied upon by the respondents Is not applicable to the present case. It is not in dispute that the applicant's junior L.Sivakumar has been given 2" financial upgradation to the Grade Pay of Rs.4800 w.e.f 15.01.2009 and his basic pay as on 15.01.2009 is Rs.21,130. Though the respondents in their reply has stated that the applicant has been given 3"
financial upgradation to the grade pay of Rs.4800 w.e.f 01.09.2008, the Office Order Na,T/OPTG/62/2011 dated 22/24.05.2011 clearly shows that the applicant has been given the grade pay of Rs.4800 w.e.f 26.03.2011 only. In the said circumstances, we are of the considered opinion, that that the applicant is entitled for grant of 3° financial upgradation to the Grade pay of Rs.4800 as granted to his junior Shri L.Sivakumar w.e.f 15.01.2009, as the applicant is also eligible and entitled to the said benefit. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the applicant for arant of the said financial upgradation granted to his junior Shri L.Sivakumar, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA Nos.2087-2088/2022 in the matter of UOI Vs. C.R.Madhava Murthy & Ann by order dated fy 9 OA 1245/2014 06.04.2022 and pass appropriate orders. The said exercise shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. OA is allowed as above. No order as tocosts...
So |