Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
J.Raghavan vs Union Of India on 19 January, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No.941/13
TUESDAY, this the 19th day of January, 2016
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. U.Sarathchandran, Judicial Member
J.Raghavan
S/o.K.Sreedharan
(Retd. Deputy Chief Operations Manager (FOIS) &
Principal, Multi Disciplinary Railway Training Institute
South Western Railway, Dharwar, Karnataka)
Residing at: 'Sreepadam', Muttugandi,
Ezhome Village, Payyangadi P.O,
Pin - 670 303, Kannur District .... Applicant
(By Advocate - Mr.T.C.G Swamy)
Versus
1. Union of India, represented by the
Secretary to the Government of India
Ministry of Railways, (Railway Board)
Rail Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001
2 The Director (Manpower Planning)
Ministry of Railways
(Railway Board), Rail Bhavan
New Delhi - 110 001
3. The General Manager
South Western Railway, Hubli,
Pin - 580 023
Dharwar District, Karnataka
4. The Chief Personnel Officer
South Western Railway
Hubli, Pin 580 023
Dharwar District, Karnataka ..... Respondents
(By Advocate - Mrs.P.K.Radhika)
This Original Application having been heard on 12.1.2016, the Tribunal on
19-01-2016 delivered the following:
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr.U.Sarathchandran, Judicial Member Applicant is a retired Deputy Chief Operations Manager of South Western Railway. He was working as the Principal of the Multi Disciplinary Railway Training Institute of the said Railway(hereinafter referred to as Railway Training Institute). He has approached this Tribunal being aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the respondents to grant him the benefit of teaching allowance. This is his second round of litigation for the above relief. Earlier, he had filed Original Application No.80/13, which was disposed of by this Tribunal directing respondents to consider his representations in accordance with rules, if necessary, in consultation with Railway Board and to dispose of the same by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 2 months.
2. However, respondent no.4 i.e., the Chief Personnel Officer, South Western Railway, Hubli, Dharwar rejected the representation of the applicant by Annexure A-17 communication. Applicant has impugned Annexure A-17 letter in the present Original Application alleging that the same is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.
3. According to the applicant although he was functioning in dual capacity as Deputy Chief Operations Manager and as Principal of the Railway Training Institute at Dharwar, he had spent the whole of his official time as the Principal of the Railway Training Institute. He points out that it was the Principal who has to issue competency certificates to the trainees in the Institute. He states that right from the inception of the Railway Training Institute at Dharwar, he was placed as in-charge of the Institute as its Principal vide Annexure A-7 and Annexure A-8 orders of South Western Railway.
4. The respondent Railway contends that the applicant was detailed only to look after the work of Principal of the Zonal Railway Training Institute (then existing Multi Disciplinary Railway Training Institute) at Dharwar and that he has never been made a regular Principal. According to the applicant, from the inaugural functioning onwards, he had actively working as the Principal of the aforesaid Institute till his retirement. Respondents points out that by Annexure R- 4, the Railway Board has granted recognition to the Multi Disciplinary Railway Training Institute at Dharwar as a training centre of the Indian Railways only on 14.10.2013, subsequent to the retirement of the applicant and till then it was not decided by the Railway Board as to whether training allowances have to be granted to the faculty of the training centres. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that the Railway Board has stated in Annexure R-4 that the recognition of the training centres does not imply that they would be granted training allowances automatically and that grant of training allowances would be considered by the Board separately. This obviously means that the Railway Board is yet to take a decision on the issue of granting training allowances to the faculty members.
5. The respondents emphatically deny the claim of the applicant on the ground that applicant was not holding the post of Principal on a full time basis. In this connection respondents rely on Annexure R-3 Railway Board order (RBE No.139/2005 dated 27.08.2005).
6. Nevertheless, the plea of the applicant that he has been devoting his entire time as the Principal of Zonal Railway Institute does not seem to have been fully adverted to in Annexure A-17 decision by respondent no.4. It further appears that respondent no.4 while making Annexure A-17 decision has not sought the advice of the Railway Board as directed by this Tribunal in OA 80/2013, especially when the applicant claims that he was spending his time as the Principal of the Institute though he was not made a full time Principal officially.
7. Since the applicant's contention that he has been actually spending his full time as the Principal of the Institute it is a matter to be examined by the authorities based on the records. Since the granting of training allowance is yet to be decided by the Railway Board, as indicated in Annexure R-4, it appears to this Tribunal that the grievances of this applicant have to be considered by the Railway Board itself. Accordingly, the respondent Railway Board is directed to take a decision as to whether the applicant is entitled to training allowance at the rates as applicable to the Principal of a Zonal Railway Institute for the period from 25.05.2011 to 31.12.2012 or not. While taking such decision, the Railway Board is directed to call for records and examine the claim of the applicant. This exercise shall be completed by the Railway Board within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the applicant desires, he shall be given an opportunity to produce evidence before the competent authority of the Railway Board. The aforesaid competent authority shall accord a personal hearing, if the applicant desires so, before the Board arrives at a final decision.
8. The Original Application is disposed of as above. Parties shall suffer their own costs.
( U.SARATHCHANDRAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER sv