Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Khushi Ram Mathur vs Union Of India on 13 October, 2023
O.A./1780/2012
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
****
Original Application No.1780 of 2012
This the 13th Day of October, 2023.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)
Khushi Ram Mathur aged about 62 years son of Shri Ganga Ram
Mathur, Retired J.E.-II, Railway Electrification, Lucknow-R/o Village:
Nathupur, Post: Sahawar Town, District: Etah (U.P.)
....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Ashok Kumar
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, N.C. Railway,
Allahabad.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, N.C. Railway, DRM's Office, Jhansi
3. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North Central Railway,
Jhansi
4. Sr. Divisional Finance Manager, North Central Railway, Jhansi.
5. Chief Project Manager, Railway Electrification, Lucknow.
6. Chairman, Ministry of Railways, Railway Board Rail Bhavan
New Delhi.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J) Shri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, and Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents, are present.
2. Present Original Application has been filed under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 where the applicant is aggrieved by the impugned letter dated 16.10.2012 vide which the Page 1 of 7 O.A./1780/2012 Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Jhansi has rejected the request of the applicant made in his representation dated 31.08.2012 and the applicant has sought the following reliefs:
"(i) The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the decision of the respondents given vide letter dated 16.10.2012 on representation dated 31.08.2012 of the applicant (which was communicated vide letter dated 16.10.2012 (as per Annexure A-1) along with Railway Board's letter dated 19.8.2010 (Annexure A-2) being inconsistent and redundant by Railway Board's circular dated 09.06.2011 and direct the respondents No. 1 to 4 to revise his pension and other settlement dues calculating it on his last pay drawn @ Rs.18350/- under the rules.
(ii) The Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to arrears of pension, DCRG, Commutation of Pension with penal interest @ 18% p.a. and award compensation of Rs.
25000/- for undue harassment.
(iii) Any other suitable order or direction which the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, be issued.
(iv) Award cost in favour of the applicant."
3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as Khallasi on 26.07.1974 and he worked on various posts after which he was regularly appointed as Assistant Electric Fitter (Group 'C' in artisan category) in the pay scale of Rs.260-400 vide order dated 12.01.1982. After being declared successful in the trade test, the applicant was promoted in grade of Rs.1200-1800 (RPS) vide letter dated 8/10.05.1990. The applicant was further promoted in Fitter Grade I Rs. 1320-2040 (RPS) vide letter dated 14.09.1992 and his pay was fixed @ Rs.1320/- per month w.e.f.15.09.1992. The applicant was then transferred from TRD/Central Railway, Babina to Railway Electrification/Ambala vide letter dated 24.01.1994 and joined at Ambala on 27.01.1994.
Page 2 of 7O.A./1780/2012 After joining Railway Electrification, applicant was given an ad-hoc promotion as Electrical Chargeman Grade Rs.1400-2300/- (RPS) vide office order dated 29.12.1994 and his pay was fixed @ Rs.1440/- per month. The applicant was transferred after giving willingness to Railway Electrification Project/ Lucknow-Kanpur Section in Grade Rs.1400-2300/- revised Grade Rs. 5000-8000 (RSRP) as Junior Engineer (G) vide office order dated 22.09.1998. The applicant was spared from Railway Electrification Lucknow to Ambala Cantt. in the same capacity on 31.12.2002 and thereafter he was transferred to several places before being transferred to the office of Chief Project Manager, Railway Electrification, Lucknow on 30.05.2006 as Ad-hoc Junior Engineer Grade Rs.5000-8000 and he continued on this post till his retirement on 30.06.2010.
4. The applicant submits that he was given only one ad-hoc promotion which is legally sustainable in terms of clarification issued by Railway Board's circular No. E(NG) I- 2008/ PMI/14 dated 10.06.2011. The applicant retired from service on 30.06.2010 while working as Junior Engineer II Grade Rs.9300-34800 PB 4200 under Chief Project Manager, Railway Electrification, Lucknow and as per last pay drawn slip, he was drawing his salary @ 18,350/- p.m. Since lien of the applicant was maintained in TRD Department under DRM/ Central Railway (Now N.C. Railway) Jhansi, therefore, the service record of the applicant after his retirement on 30.06.2010 was sent to Divisional Railway Manager (P)/ North Central Railway, Jhansi by Chief Project Manager, Railway Electrification/ Lucknow for payment of pension, DCRG, and other settlement dues. He further submits that the DRM/ North Central Railway, Jhansi reduced his pay scale and Grade i.e. from pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 PB Rs.4200/- to the scale of Rs.5200-20200 PB 2800/- and his last pay drawn Rs.18,350/- was also reduced to Rs.15,470/- and thus, his pension, DCRG and other settlement dues were reduced due to calculation made in the reduced pay scale and Grade @ Rs.15,470/- which is evident from PPO No.1310030660 dated Page 3 of 7 O.A./1780/2012 20.10.2010. Thus, the applicant states that he has suffered heavy loss in Pension, DCRG, commutation of pension in several lakhs as his last pay drawn was illegally reduced without giving any show cause notice.
5. The applicant points out that he was promoted as Junior Engineer II Grade Rs.1400-2300/5000-8000/ 9300-34800 PB 4200 on ad-hoc basis in Railway Electrification vide office order dated 17.12.1994. He was transferred vide order dated 14.01.1994 issued by DRM (P)/ N.C. Railway, Jhansi from Jhansi Division to Ambala Cantt. in Railway Electrification where he joined on 27.01.1994. Thereafter, no intimation was given to the applicant about holding of any selection/ Trade test in parent unit of Jhansi Division/ Central Railway and junior persons in Jhansi Division were given promotion in Grade Rs.1400-2300 (RPS)/ revised pay scale Rs.5000-8000 (RSRP) ignoring the claim of the applicant. He contends that DRM (P)/ N.C. Railway, Jhansi cannot reduce the pay scale from Rs.9300-34800 PB Rs.4200/- to lower pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 PB 2800 in order to save their own guilt and administrative lapse and that even pay drawn on ad-hoc promotion is counted for calculating pension and DCRG as per rules.
6. The applicant represented to Divisional Railway Manager, N.C. Railway Jhansi as well as to Senior D.P.O. and Sr. D.F.M./ North Central Railway, Jhansi vide representation dated 31.08.2012 to cancel the order of reduction of pay and re-calculate his pension on last pay drawn at the rate of Rs.18,350/- per month in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 PB 4200 and request was also made that temporary status service rendered as Khallasi/ fitter from 26.07.1974 to 31.01.1981 and thereafter upto 12.01.1982 should also be counted for calculation for qualifying service. In response, Divl.Rly.Manager (P)/ Senior Divisional Personnel Officer/ North Central Railway Jhansi vide letter dated 16.10.2012 decided the applicant's representation dated 31.08.2012 in pursuance of Railway Board's circular dated 19.08.2010. Learned counsel for Page 4 of 7 O.A./1780/2012 the applicant states that this action of the respondents is contrary to statutory provision contained in Rule 1303 (FR.9)(21)(a)(i) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol.II/1987 and also through the instructions issued by Railway Board vide their letter dated 09.06.2011 (RBE No.85 of 2011) the earlier Railway Board's circular dated 19.08.2010 has been treated as withdrawn. It was further submitted that vide Railway Board's letter dated 10.06.2011 (RBE No.86), one adhoc promotion is legally sustainable for giving retirement benefit if it was approved by the competent authority in Railway Construction. Thus, it was argued that the whole action of the respondents including impugned order is void, arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that on receipt of Railway Board's letter dated 09.06.2011 (RBE 85/11) all the cases which have been made on the basis of substantive pay have been revised and cases have already been sent to Accounts Branch of the respondent's office for payment of difference of DCRG, Pension and Commutation. The case of the applicant has also been sent to accounts for payment of difference of DCRG, Pension, Commutation and also to issue revised Pension Payment Order. It is further submitted that the applicant had already been paid settlement dues on the basis of Railway Board letter dated 19.08.2010. However, on issue of Railway Board's letter dated 09.06.2011 with restriction that settlement dues already been paid prior to 19.08.2010 should not be re-opened, and as in the case of the applicant his settlement dues payment was made in the month of October 2010, he is entitled for revision of his settlement payment. Accordingly, action has already been taken for revision/payment of difference of payment of DCRG, Pension Commutation etc and issue of revised PPO.
8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
9. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant joined the service under the respondents department on 26.07.1974 as Khalasi. He was granted the temporary status and Page 5 of 7 O.A./1780/2012 he worked on various posts till his retirement on 30.06.2010. It was further argued that at the time of retirement the applicant was drawing basic pay of Rs.18350/- on the basis of ad-hoc promotion granted as Junior Engineer Grade II in Construction division. It was further argued that when PPO was issued by the respondents they prepared the same on the basis of basic pay amounting to Rs.15,470/- . No show cause notice was issued nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the applicant. Entire retiral dues calculated on the basis of basic pay of Rs.15,470/- is also illegal. Referring to the office letter dated 19.08.2010, it was further argued that the same has been withdrawn through the RBE letter No.85/2011. Learned counsel for the applicant referring to the RBE No.85/2011 further argued that the only restriction contained in the RBE is that "Cases decided prior to 19.08.2010 need not be reopened". It was further argued that respondents have filed a supplementary affidavit and have annexed as annexure No.1 a letter dated 24.01.2013 issued by DRM (P) NCR Jhansi mentioning therein that process for calculating pension on the basis of basic pay amounting to Rs.18,350/- has been started. Concerned authority has also been directed vide aforesaid letter to revise the PPO on the basis of basic pay of Rs.18,350/- and to pay the arrears thereon. It was next argued that although process for revision of the PPO has been started but no revised PPO has been issued till date nor any arrear has been paid to the applicant. Thus, prayer was made to allow the O.A. and to direct the respondents to revise the PPO as contended in the aforesaid letter and pay his entire retiral dues.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that since the PPO has been revised, the entire retiral dues will be paid to him.
11. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the entire record.
12. In view of the letter dated 24.01.2013 issued by DRM (P) NCR Jhansi with directions to revise the applicant's PPO making the payment of the retiral dues on the basis of basic pay of Page 6 of 7 O.A./1780/2012 Rs.18,350/- to the applicant as their previous calculation based on the basic pay of Rs.15,470/- is not valid because vide the Railway Board's letter dated 10.06.2011 (RBE No.85/2011) its previous letter dated 19.08.2010 has been withdrawn and it has been provided that "...the basic pay drawn by an employee on adhoc promotion in the Construction Organisations shall be reckoned as pay in terms of clause (i) of Rule 1303 ((F.R.9) (21)(a)(i) of Indian Railways Establishment Code Vol.-II/1987 Edition for the purpose of reckoning the emoluments in terms of Rule 49 of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993. Consequently, the instructions contained in this office letter of even number dated 19.8.2010 may be treated as withdrawn. Cases decided prior to 19.8.2010 need not be reopened." Applicant's PPO had been issued on 20.10.2010 which is after 19.08.2010, thus, the O.A. is undoubtedly liable to be allowed.
13. Thus, the O.A. is allowed. Impugned letter dated 16.10.2012 is hereby quashed and the competent authority amongst the respondents is directed to issue the revised PPO of the applicant based on the basic pay of Rs.18,350/- and pay the arrears of pension, DCRG and commutation of pension with an interest @ 6% simple interest per annum within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. All associated M.A.s also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Sanjiv Kumar) ( Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (A) Member (J)
Madhu
Page 7 of 7