Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Sushila Devi vs North Eastern Railway on 4 November, 2024
1 OA No. /050/0076/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA
O.A. No. 050/076/2023
Reserved on: 08.08. 2024
Pronounced on: 04.11.2024
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER [J]
1. Smt. Sushila Devi wife of late Kapildeo Sharma, Ex-Carpenter
(Khalasi)/Signal, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, Resident of
Village/Post-Dakhin Tota, District Siwan (Bihar).
.......... Applicant
Patna -Versus-
Bench
1. The Union of India through the General Manager through the
General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorkahpur - 273 001
(UP).
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, North Eastern Railway,
Varansi- 221101 (UP).
3. The Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), North Eastern
Railway, Varansi - 221101 (UP).
4. The Divisional Railway Manager (Signal & Telecom), North
Eastern Railway, Varansi - 221101 (UP).
5. The Senior Divisional Financial Manager, North Eastern
Railway, Varansi-221101 (UP).
........Respondents
For Applicant:- Shri M.P. Dixit, Advocate.
For Respondents:- Shri Deepak Kumar, Addl. CGSC.
ORDER
PER:- AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER [JUDICIAL]
1. Heard learned counsel for parties through video conferencing mode.
2 OA No. /050/0076/2023PRAYER
2. By way of present Original Application filed under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, applicant has sought the main relief (as extracted from OA) as under:-
"8.1 That Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to hold and declare the impugned order dated 06.05.2022 issued by the respondent No.3 as contained in Annexure A/1 as null, void, ab-initio wrong, illegal and contrary to Para- 15 of the order passed by Hon'ble CAT, Allahabad Bench in OA No.1627 of 2010 as contained in Annexure A/2.
8.2 That Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to issue an appropriate direction upon the Respondents to grant/accord/pay the family pension to the applicant from 11.07.2018 with all consequential benefits Patna including arrears along with statutory interest. Bench 8.3 That Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to direct/command the respondents to release the entire settlement dues of the deceased employee including DCRG, Leave encashment, GPF etc. without any further delay in favour of applicant along with statutory interest.
8.4 That Your Lordships may further be pleased to direct/command the Respondents to issue Pension Payment Order in favour of applicant henceforth accordingly.
8.5 Any other relief or relief or reliefs may deem fit and proper including the cost of the proceeding at the tune of Rs.two lacs may be allowed in favour of the applicant."
FACTS IN BRIEF
3. Briefly stated facts as adumbrated by the applicant in the instant OA that husband of the applicant late Kapildeo Sharma was initially engaged as Casual Labour on 18.07.1980 and was granted temporary status after completion of 120 days who thereafter was granted Time Scale of Pay to Rs.196-232 w.e.f. 01.12.1986 which was revised to Rs.2550-3200 in 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC) and revised as Rs.4,440-7440 in VIth CPC. After screening for regular absorption in the year 2010, respondents published result on 19.10.2010 but husband of the applicant - deceased employee and other similarly placed persons were not declared successful and under compelling circumstances affected persons filed court case which was decided in their favour. Accordingly, 3 OA No. /050/0076/2023 husband of the applicant and other similarly placed persons filed OA No.1627/2010 before Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal for extension of same benefit of regularization and payment of salary and reinstatement in service which was allowed on 11.02.2015, paragraphs 15 & 16 whereof reads as under:-
"Accordingly, relying on the view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court in writ petition No.47970 of 2004 which was upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court that if an employee is granted time scale, he should be treated as regular from the date having been given pay scale for all practical purposes. I am of the view that the applicants herein are similarly situated and are entitled to be treated as regular employees from the date when they were granted pay scale. The respondents after declaration of the screening result, have regularized the candidates placed in column 'ga' in pursuance of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad's order. The applicants in this case also similarly situated hence they are also to be regularized. Patna Bench 16. In view of the above, the original application is allowed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicants and give the arrears from the date the applicants were given pay scale without giving any effect to the result of the screening test published on 19.10.2010 as previously done in regard to the applicant in Writ Petition No.47970 of 2004. I am passing this order keeping in view the principles of parity which has been well settled in various judicial pronouncements."
4. Thereafter the respondents have issued order dated 06.06.2018 (Annexure A/3) for complying para 16 of the Tribunal's order dated 11.02.2015. Even after the aforesaid order, respondents without any authority conducted screening test on 22.09.2017 in which husband of the applicant was found successful and was sent for medical test on 15.05.2018 but the Railway doctor found him temporary unfit in A-two and below due to cataract and advised to report after cataract surgery within 03 months. Meanwhile, husband of the applicant died in harness on 11.07.2018 and thereafter respondents took decision vide order dated 11.12.2018 (Annexure A-4) for making payment of arrears of pay and other benefits subject to outcome of writ petition No.29736/2015 -Union of India vs. V.B.L. Srivastava, despite the fact that Tribunal vide its order dated 11.02.2015 has already treated the applicant as regular but the respondents withheld settlement dues such as DCRG, Leave encashment, GPF and also Family Pension even after the applicant has 4 OA No. /050/0076/2023 already submitted duly filled Pension Papers along with bank accounts details, as asked for by the respondents.
5. Aggrieved, applicant sent representation dated 25.02.2022 for release of settlement dues and family pension but the same has been rejected vide order dated 06.05.2022 (Annexure A/1) treating her husband as casual labour which is absolutely illegal, unjust, punitive and contrary to para 15 of Tribunal's order dated 11.02.2015 (Annexure A/2) vide which husband of the applicant has been treated as regular employee, hence the impugned order is highly irrational and contrary to said finding of the Tribunal. Aggrieved, applicant sent a detailed representation dated 23.05.2022 against the impugned order with supporting documents so also Patna raised the point of discrimination disclosing name of Ram Karan and Bench Dulari Devi w/o of late Ramesh Prasad, who were also applicants in the said OA No.1627/2010 but they/their widows have been allowed Pension/Family Pension but the applicant has been discriminated without any valid reason. Applicant again sent a representation dated 15.11.2022 which is still pending with the respondents.
6. In view of the above submissions, applicant prays for the reliefs mentioned in para 2 above.
7. Per contra, opposing the claim of the applicant, respondents have filed written statement and stated that Hon'ble CAT/Allahabad vide order dated 11.02.2015 passed in OA No.1627/2010 directed to reinstate the deceased employee and give arrears from the date he was given pay scale without any effect to the result of screening test published on 10.10.2010 etc. In compliance thereof, screening test was conducted on 22.09.2017 and result of the same was published on 03.10.2017 in which it was clearly mentioned that before taking them into railway service, it is necessary for them to undergo medical examination and verification of educational qualification certificate & caste certificate. It was further 5 OA No. /050/0076/2023 mentioned therein that appointment shall be given in Signal Department according to medical category after allotment of post by competent authority. Applicant's husband was sent for medical examination on 14.05.2018 in pursuance to screening result. In the said medical examination, he was declared "Temporary Unfit in A-two & Below and was advised to report after cataract surgery after 03 months." Meanwhile, applicant's husband died on 11.07.2018 whereas he was to undergo medical examination again after 03 months but due to his death, the scheduled medical examination could not be completed and as such he Patna Bench could not be regularized/appointed in Railway Service. It is further stated that benefit of family pension is payable to regular employees as per rules.
Since the applicant's husband was not a regular employee in Railway Service, due to this reason family pension is not payable to the applicant.
However, husband of the applicant, vide office order No.67/2018 dated 26.06.2018, was given time scale since 01.12.1986 and arrears thereof have been paid to him as applicable to casual labour. Therefore, neither pension nor family pension of the deceased employee is admissible to the applicant.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
8. Shri M.P. Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant, vociferously canvassed and can be summarized as :-
(i) The husband of the applicant was working as Carpenter (Khalasi) Signal, North Eastern Railway Gorakhpur. The deceased employee initially engaged on 18.07.1980 as Casual Labour and on the completion of 120 days granted Time Scale of Pay Rs. 196-232 6 OA No. /050/0076/2023 w.e.f. 1.12.1986 and revised as Rs. 2550-3200 in the 5th CPC and Rs. 4,440-7,440 as per 6th CPC Pay Scale.
(ii) The husband of the applicant was granted time scale of pay on 1.12.1986 and should be treated as regular from the date of grant of pay-scale for all practical purposes i.e. 1.12.1986.
(iii) The Hon'ble CAT, Allahabad in case of husband of the applicant in OA No. 1627 of 2010 vide Order dated 11.2.2015 in para 15 held that if an employee is granted time scale, he should be treated as regular from the date having given pay-scale for all practical purposes.
Patna Bench
(iv) The impugned Order dated 6.5.2022 denying family pension. So also respondents not paid amount towards DCRG, commuted value of pension, leave salary, GPF and treated her husband casual labour, whereas similarly placed co-employees namely Ram Karan and Dulari Devi Wife of Late Shri Ramesh Prasad has been issued PPO (Annexure A-6 series)
(v) The husband of the applicant was granted time scale of pay and was regular employee since 1.12.1986 and held by Hon'ble CAT Allahabad Bench in husband's case OA No. 1627/2010 decided on 11.02.2015 that if employee is granted time scale, he should be treated as regular from the date having been given pay scale for all practical purposes. The respondents cannot implement said order for some and not implementing for the applicant. The impugned order and action of the respondents is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
9. Shri Deepak Kumar, Additional CGSC, learned counsel for the respondents contended and can be summarized as -
(i) The applicant's husband appeared in the screening test in year 2010 for regular absorption and result declared on 19.10.2010, but could not succeed. Applicant's husband and other co- employees filed OA No. 1627 of 2010 "Vijay Bahadur Lal Srivastava 7 OA No. /050/0076/2023 & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors." and the same was allowed. The respondents complied the order and granted arrears from the date on which, the applicant was given the pay scale.
(ii) Respondents in compliance of the order dated 19.10.2010 in OA No. 1627/2010 screening test conducted on 22.09.2017 and husband of the applicant was successful and taken up medical examination and verification of documents. In medical exam dated 14.05.2018, Mr. Kapil Dev Sharma found - "temporary unfit in A- two and below and advised to report after cataract surgery within 3 months" i.e., 14.8.2018 but meanwhile, died on 11.07.2018, whereas the applicant's husband was to undergo the scheduled medical exam.
Patna Bench
(iii) The husband of the applicant could not be regularized as his medical exam formalities were not completed. Meanwhile, Mr. Kapil Dev Sharma, died and could not be regularized/absorbed in railway service in his lifetime.
(iv) Applicant's husband was not a regular employee in the railway service, and so the applicant was entitled for the family pension DCRG, leave encashment and GPF as same are payable to regular employees as per rules .
10. The admitted facts in the present case on hand that the husband of the applicant was initially engaged on 18.07.1980 as casual labour and was granted time scale of pay Rs. 196-232 on 1.12.1986. The husband of the applicant - deceased employee and others failed in screening test for regularization and filed OA No. 1627 of 2010 before Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal. The Tribunal vide Order dated 11.02.2015 allowed the OA. In para 15 of the order dated 11.02.2015, it was held that relying on the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No. 47970 of 2004, which was upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court, that if an employee is granted time scale, he should be treated as regular employee from the date of having been given pay scale for all practical purposes.
8 OA No. /050/0076/202311. Undisputedly, the respondents have complied the order dated 11.02.2015 in OA No. 1627 of 2010 in cases of similarly placed employees, one of the applicants in OA No. 1627 of 2010. The co- applicant in the OA No. 1627 of 2010, namely, Ram Karan (Applicant No. 8 in the OA No. 1627 of 2010), PPO dated 10.07.2018 issued with all other pensionary benefits, so also in case of Ramesh Prasad (Applicant No. 4 in the OA No. 1627/2010) PPO dated 03.10.2018 issued Annexure A-6 series, but in case of the applicant (Applicant No. 10 - Kapil Dev Sharma), no PPO has been issued so also no retiral dues granted stating that husband of the applicant was casual labour and not regularized before his death in harness.
Patna Bench 11.1. It is also not disputed that the respondents granted to the husband of the applicant time scale of pay Rs. 196-232 w.e.f. 1.12.1986, revised as Rs. 2550-3200, in 5th CPC and Rs. 4,440- 7,440 in the 6th CPC and inspite of order dated 11.02.2015 in OA No. 1627 of 2010 implemented to grant arrears of time scale of pay, the applicant not been issued PPO and not released retiral dues due and admissible to deceased employee- Shri Kapil Dev Sharma.
12. The dispute in the present case is that the stand of the respondents that applicant's husband successfully cleared screening test and result declared on 22.09.2017 and sent for medical test on 15.05.2018 but temporary unfit in A-two and below and was advised cataract surgery in three months from 15.05.2018 but meanwhile died on 11.07.2018, before the due date to appear for further medical test. The respondents stand is that medical exam could not be completed and late Kapil Dev Sharma could not be regularized and retired as casual labour so applicant, the widow is not entitled for family pension, DCRG, Leave Encashment and GPF same are payable to regular employees as per rules.
9 OA No. /050/0076/2023ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
13. This Tribunal has bestowed his anxious considerations on the rival contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the available material placed on record.
THE ISSUE
14. The issue arises for the consideration - "whether the husband of the applicant continued to be casual worker with temporary status or whether he had already born in the pensionable establishment against regular/temporary post on 01.12.1986, the date of grant of time scale of pay Rs. 196-233 which Patna Bench was revised as Rs. 2550-3200 in Vth Pay Commission and revised in pursuance of VIth Pay Commission and also successfully cleared screen test for regularization and died in harness?"
THE CASE-LAW
15. The husband of the applicant namely, Shri Kapil Dev Sharma was working as Helper Khalasi and filed OA No. 1627 of 2010 Vijay Bahadur Lal Srivastava & 10 others versus Union of India & Ors. before learned CAT, Bench Allahabad. The issue for consideration was "whether the applicants who were granted time-scale pay are entitled to be called as regular employee for all practical purposes?"
The Tribunal at Allahabad decided and vide order dated 11.02.2015, allowed the OA, based on Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad Order dated 30.11.2007 in Civil Misc. W.P. No. 47970 of 2004 upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the applicants have been granted pay scale which connotes regular employment hence, they shall be treated as regular employee from the date of having given pay scale for all practical purposes. The relevant paragraph 11 to 16 of order dated 11.02.2015 in OA No. 1627 of 2010 (Allahabad) reads as under-
"11. Heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the documents on record.10 OA No. /050/0076/2023
12. It is not even disputed by the respondents that the applicants herein were engaged as casual labourers, granted temporary status after working of 120 days and also granted pay scale which in all purposes gave them the right to be treated as regular employee from the date of having been given pay scale which is 7.7.1994. They were also not given notice pay and retrenchment compensation by the respondents.
13. Even I find the name of the applicants in seniority list dated 3.6.1991. The counsel for the applicant also shown through various documents annexed with the original application and also with the rejoinder that the applicants were granted pay scale.
14. The screening test which was held and the result was published on 19.10.2010 in the declared result all the applicants herein, were not found suitable which was shown by column क. In column name of 10 persons have been shown who were also screened in pursuance of writ petition no.47970 of 2004 and in pursuance of contempt no.3204 of 2010. All of them also not Patna found suitable, but after declaring those ten persons unfit/not Bench found suitable the respondents have appointed and regularized them w.e.f 7.7.1994 by ignoring the outcome of the screening test the result of which was published on 15.10.2010 and which has been admitted by the respondents by filing their reply in rejoinder. Hence this is clearly discriminatory and the applicants have been deprived by the 'respondents adopting discriminatory attitude which cannot be accepted in respect of similarly situated persons. The Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing regarding issue of discrimination has categorically stated in the case of Indra Pal Yadav and others Versus Union of India and Others 1985 SCC (L&S) 526. Relevant portion of the order reads as under:-
"....... There is another area where discrimination is likely to rear its ugly bead. These workmen come from the lowest grade of railway service. They can ill afford to rush to court. Their Federations have hardly been of any assistance. They had individually to collect money and rush to court which in case of some may be beyond their reach. Therefore, some of the retrenchment workmen failed to knock at the doors of the court of justice because these doors do not open unless huge expenses are incurred. Choice in such a situation, even without crystal gazing is between incurring expenses for litigation with uncertain outcome and hunger from day to day. It is a Hobson's choice. Therefore, those who could not come to the court need not be at a comparative disadvantage to those who rushed in here. If they are otherwise similarly situated, they are entitled to similar treatment, if not by anyone else at the hands of this Court."
15. Accordingly, relying on the view on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court in writ petition no.47970 of 2004 which 11 OA No. /050/0076/2023 was upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court that if an employee is granted time scale he should be treated as regular employee from the date of having been given pay scale, for all practical purposes, I am of the view that the applicant herein are similarly situated and are entitled to be treated as regular employee from the date when they were granted pay scale. The respondents after declaration of the screening result, have regularised the candidates placed in column in pursuance of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad's order. The applicants in this case also similarly situated hence, they are also entitled to be regularized.
16. In view of the above, the original application is allowed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicants and give the arrears from the date the applicants were given pay scale without giving any effect to the result of the screening test published on 19.10.2010 as previously done in regard to the applicant in Writ Petition No. 47970 of 2004. I am passing this order keeping in view the principle of parity which has been well settled in various judicial Patna pronouncements. No costs."
Bench [Emphasis supplied]
16. As evident from the record, the husband of the applicant namely Shri Kapil Dev Sharma was appointed as Casual Labour on 18.07.1980 and after completion of 120 days of continuous working was granted time pay scale of Rs. 196-233 and revised as Rs. 2550- 3200 in Vth Pay Commission and revised as Rs. 4,440-7,440/- in VIth CPC Pay scales.
17. The respondents conducted screening test for regular absorption and declared result on 19.10.2010 and declared not suitable. The husband of the present applicant alongwith 10 other identically placed employees filed the OA No. 1627 of 2010 titled Vijay Bahadur Lal Srivastava & 10 others versus Union of India & Others, challenging screening result dated 19.10.2010, to reinstate and grant arrears with all benefits.
18. The Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, Bench Allahabad in OA No. 1627 of 2010, decided vide Order dated 11.02.2015 in the case of husband of the applicant, the issue - "whether the applicants who were granted time pay scale entitled to be called 12 OA No. /050/0076/2023 as regular employee, entitled to be reinstated and get arrears from the date they were granted time pay scale."
19. The Coordinate Bench at Allahabad in case of Vijay Bahadur Lal Srivastava & 10 others vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) dealt the identical issue as case in hand. The Tribunal found that case was covered and similarly situated by order of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 47970 of 2004 decided vide judgement dated 30.11.2007 passed by CGIT has upheld. The Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Civil Misc. W.P. No. 47970 of 2004 vide judgment dated 30.11.2007 held that workers have been given time pay scale as they had continuously worked for more than 120 days and it is the Patna Bench admitted case that workers have been given the pay scale with OA in time pay scale but they have not been given regular status formally. So also Lordships held that "the workers be paid arrears of difference of pay and as they have been granted pay scale which connotes regular employment hence they shall be treated as regular employee from the date of having been given pay scale i.e., 07.07.1994 for all practical purposes".
20. The judgment dated 30.11.2007 passed in Civil Misc. W.P. No. 47970 of 2004 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The respondents- Railways did not dispute that applicants in the OA No. 1627 of 2010 (Allahabad) were engaged as casual labourers, granted temporary status after working of 120 days and also granted pay scales for all purposes gave them right to be treated as regular employees from date of having been given pay scale.
21. The Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 1627 of 2010 Vijay Bahadur Lal Srivastava & 10 others vs. Union of India & Others, and applicant's husband name placed as applicant no. 10, held that applicants herein are similarly situated and entitled to be treated as regular employees from date 13 OA No. /050/0076/2023 they were granted pay scale and all the applicants are also entitled to be regularized, situated similarly.
22. The bare perusal of Order dated 11.02.2015 in OA No. 1627 of 2010 (Allahabad) titled Vijay Bahadur Lal Srivastava & 10 others (Applicant No. 10 - Kapil Dev Sharma - the husband of the applicant) is clear as noon day that husband of the applicant was treated to be regularized from the date when he was granted pay scale for all practical purposes, i.e., 01.12.1986.
23. The Senior, D.P.O, North Eastern Railway, Varanasi has implemented Order dated 11.02.2015 passed in OA No. 1627 of 2010 (Allahabad) Vijay Bahadur Lal Srivastava & 10 others vs. UOI Patna Bench & Ors., vide Office Order No. 67/2018 dated 26.06.2018. The deceased employee - husband of the applicant has been granted consequential benefits from 01.12.1986. The Respondent No. 3 has already partly complied order dated 11.02.2015 in OA No. 1627 of 2010 (Allahabad) and since 01.12.1986 date on which time pay scale granted vide Office Order No. 67/2018 dated 26.06.2018, the deceased employee is held to be regularized and absorbed in the Railways as Railway servant.
24. In view of Order dated 11.02.2015 in OA No. 1627 of 2010, Vijay Bahadur Lal Srivastava & 10 others vs. UOI & Ors. passed by learned Tribunal, Bench Allahabad, the case of the applicant is squarely covered and already decided vide above order, dated 11.02.2015, that the applicant's husband was to be treated as regular railway employee for all purposes from 01.12.1986, date of grant of time pay scale as evident from Office Order No. 67/2018 dated 26.06.2018.
25. Respondents have issued office order dated 11.12.2018 (Annexure A-4) for the ready reference reads as under:-
कायालय आदे श सं० /2018
माननीय ायालय कैट इलाहाबाद म दा खल वाद सं॰
1627/2010 वी. बी. एल. ीवा व बनाम भारत संघ के िनणय के 14 OA No. /050/0076/2023 अनुपालन मे िदनां क 22.09.2017 को आक क िमको ी किपलदे व शमा की छान परी ा करायी गई एवं स छान परी ा म सफल रहने के प ात िदनां क 15.05.18 को मेिडकल जाँ च हे तु मंडल िचिक ालय भेजा गया िजसके म म मुिचिध/वाराणसी ारा जारी मेिडकल जाँ च माण प िदनां क 20.06.18 म किपलदे व शमा को िन िल खत त ों के साथ वापस कर िदया गया ।
"Temporary until in A-Two and below due to contact and advised to report after cataract surgery with 03 months"
इसी बीच किपलदे व शमा की मृ ु िदनांक 11.07.2018 को हो गई। अतः अ थ को भी माननीय के ीय शासिनक अिधकरण/ इलाहाबाद के आदे श िदनांक 12.02.15 के पैरा-16 के आलोक म एवं रे लवे अिधव ा के Legal Opinion के अनुसार टाईम े ल िदये जाने की ितिथ से मृ ु ितिथ तक िनयिमत िनयु के साथ प रणामी लाभ दे ते ए ए रयर भुगतान िदनांक Patna Bench 19.06.2018 तक एवं समापक भूगतान िकया जाना है।
उपरो आदे श माननीय उ ायालय इलाहाबाद मे
ल त रट पीिटशन 29736/2015 भारत संघ एवं अ
बनाम वी.बी.एल. ीवा व एवं अ म पा रत िनणय के
अनुसार प रवतनीय होगा।
उपरो पर स म अिधकारी का अनुमोदन ा है ।"
(Emphasis supplied)
26. The respondents have already taken decision on 11.12.2018 extracted hereinabove and applicant's husband treated as regular railway servant from 01.12.1986, the date of grant of time pay scale till date of death on 11.07.2018 and entitled for settlement of pension and all other retiral dues as admissible to deceased regular railway employee.
27. Respondents have already implemented order dated 11.02.2015 passed in OA No. 1627 of 2010 (Allahabad) in case of eleven applicants. In case of co-applicants in the above OA, namely, Ram Karan issued PPO dated 10.07.2018, in case of Ramesh Prasad also issued PPO dated 03.10.2018, whereas in case of the applicant, widow of applicant no. 10 - Kapil Dev Sharma, the respondents have rejected the claim for family pension, DCRG, commuted value of pension, leave encashment, GPF etc. vide impugned order dated 05.05.2022 (Annexure A-1) reads as -
15 OA No. /050/0076/2023"िवषयः - पा रवा रक पशन के स म, आपका आवेदन िदनां क 11.07.2014 ा िदनां क 25.02.2021 संदिभत आवेदन प पर िविध अनुभाग ने परामश िदया है िक कमचारी . किपल दे व आक क िमक है । इसिलए इ पा रवा रक पशन दे य नहीं है ।"
28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Purnendu Mukhopadhyay and others versus V.K. Kapoor & Anr., reported in (2008) 14 SCC 403. The relevant paragraph 15 for ready reference reads as under:-
"15. In a case of this nature, in particular having regard to the fact that the respondents have granted similar benefits to others, we fail to understand as to how the decision of this Court in J.S. Parihar and Patna Bench Mittanlal could be applicable. The State cannot treat employees similarly situated differently. It cannot implement the orders in relation to one and refuse to do so in relation to others. It is also not a case like J.S. Parihar where wile implementing the orders, a particular stand has been taken by the employer giving rise to a subsequent cause of action. It is also not a case where the order of this Court is capable to two interpretations. (See State of Bihar v. Rani Sonabati Kumari, State of Kerala v. Unni and Sneh Enterprises v. Commr. Of Customs.)"
[Emphasis supplied]
29. In case of A.K. Kalara vs. The Project & Equipment Corporation of India, AIR 1984 SC 1361. Their Lordships held that -
"Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in executive/administrative action because any action that is arbitrary must necessarily involve the negation of equality. One need not to confine the denial of equality to a comparative evaluation between two persons to arrive to a conclusion of discriminatory treatment. An action per-se arbitrary itself denies equality of protection of law."
[Emphasis supplied] 16 OA No. /050/0076/2023
30. In case of Kranti Associates Prive Limited & Anr. Versus Masood Ahmad Khan & Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 496 - Their Lordships held as under -
"a. Quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.
b. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. c. If a judge or quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithfully to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
d. Reasons in support of decision must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid Patna Bench decision making process."
[Emphasis supplied]
31. In case of Smt. Ujjam Bai vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, W.P. (Civil) 79 of 1959 decided on 28.04.1961. Lordship held -
"If the reasons recorded are totally irrelevant, the exercise of power would be bad and the order is liable to be set aside."
32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Anil Ratan Sarkar vs. Hirak Ghosh (2002) 4 SCC 21. Their Lordships held -
"Administrative ipse dixit cannot infiltrate on to an arena which stands covered by judicial orders."
[Emphasis supplied]
33. The respondents have already complied with Order dated 11.02.2015 in OA No. 1627 of 2010 "Vijay Bahadur Lal Srivastava & 10 others vs. UOI & Ors.", in cases of similarly placed co-applicants as indicated hereinabove. So also granted time scale of pay to the husband of applicant on 01.12.1986 and decasualized and at the time of death of husband of the applicant on 11.07.2018, deceased was regular employee for all purposes. So also respondents issued order dated 11.12.2018 (Annexure A-4) to grant all settlement dues with arrears but not complied own order and left the applicant - widow on torturous road to justice for no rhyme and reasons. The 17 OA No. /050/0076/2023 impugned order dated 06.05.2022 (Annexure A-1) issued by respondent no. 3 is violative of OA No. 1627 of 2010 "Vijay Bahadur Lal Srivastava & 10 others vs. UOI & Ors.", and violation of own order dated 11.12.2018 (Annexure A-4) and principles of natural justice, hence, the impugned Order dated 06.05.2022 (Annexure A-
1) is hereby set-aside and quashed. The applicant husband was already decasualized on 01.12.1986, the date of grant of time pay scale and as per Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules Pay was fixed. The respondents granted time scale pay way back on 01.12.1986 and pay as per FR 9 (21) means the amount drawn by a government servant. The Pay is fixed on evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the post.
Patna Bench
34. The husband of the applicant also successfully cleared screen test held on 22.09.2017 for regularization. So also undergone medical exam on 15.05.2018 but advised for cataract surgery - the very common surgery, within three months but meanwhile, the husband died in harness on 11.07.2018. The husband of the applicant - deceased employee was already declared successful in screening test for absorption and undergone medical exam meanwhile died on 11.07.2018, no one has control over his own death. The applicant husband, is held entitled for all pensionary benefits having been regularized from the date of grant of time scale pay, i.e., 01.12.1986.
CONCLUSION
35. In light of the aforesaid analysis, the issue is decided accordingly in favour of the applicant. The impugned order dated 06.05.2022 (Annexure A-1) is hereby set aside.
36. The applicant's husband, deceased employee is held entitled for the pension to be computed as per findings supra. The respondents are also directed to settle the family pension accordingly, pay arrears of pension and complete formalities for issuance of Pension Payment Order with other retiral dues of 18 OA No. /050/0076/2023 deceased employee along with all consequential benefits and release the arrears, family pension with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of entitlement within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the interest shall be paid @ 9% from the date of entitlement till actual final payment.
37. Resultantly, this OA stands allowed.
38. There shall be no order as to costs.
39. Any pending Misc. Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
40. Registrar is directed to communicate a copy of the Order Patna passed today to the Union of India through the General Manager, Bench North Eastern Railway, Gorkahpur- 273 001 to report compliance of the order and submit report within a period of three months. In case non-compliance, post this matter before Bench on 24th March, 2025 for reporting compliance.
41. The Order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
(Ajay Pratap Singh) Member (J) Akshaya/na