Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
K V Prakash vs South Western Railway on 29 September, 2023
1 OA No.442/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/0
NO.170/00442/2023
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S SUJATHA ...MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE MR.RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA ...MEMBER(A)
Shri K.V.Prakash,
S/o K.V.Venkata Ramana Setty,
Station Master, Grade-I,
Grade
Bangalore City, Aged about 62 years,
Residing at: 589/A, 1st Block,
3rd Stage , 3rd Cross,
Bangalore -560079. ...Applicant
(By Advocate Ms.Deeksha
Ms. N.)
Vs.
1. The Sr. Divisional Operations Manager,
Bangalore Division,
South Western Railways,
Railway Division Office,
Subhash Nagar, Bangalore -23.
2. The Sr. Divisional Personal Officer,
Bangalore Division,
South Western Railway,
Railway Division Office,
Subhash Nagar, Bangalore-23. ....Respondents
2 OA No.442/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
ORDER
Per: Justice S.Sujatha ...........Member(J)
Th application is filed by the applicant under Section 19 of This the Administrative Tribunals Act, Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"i) Direct the respondents to regularize the service of applicant and grant all consequential benefits like salary, PLB and pension for the period between 02.08.2015 to 06.08.2015 (Annexure A1).
ii) Grant such other further relief as may deem fit in the circumstances of the case."
2. Briefly stated the facts as narrated ated by the applicant are that he joined Indian Railways on 23.12.1983 and retired from service on 31.05.2021 on attaining the age of superannuation. At the time of retirement, retirement he was working as SM-Operating, Operating, SBC, Yelahanka and his pay scale was in level-9, level 9, drawing salary of Rs.82,600/ Rs.82,600/- per month. It is the grievance of the applicant that he has been deprived of salary and bonus on the basis of non non-qualifying service between 02.08.2015 to 06.08.2015. In this regard, representations 3 OA No.442/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH made by the applicant to regularize his service period has not yielded ed any results. Hence this OA is filed along with MA No.347/2023 seeking for condonation of delay in filing the OA.
3. Learned ned Counsel Ms.Deeksha N., representing the applicant argued that the RTI application dated 05.07.2021 filed by the applicant reveals that the period from 02.08.2015 to 06.08.2015 has been treated as leave without pay (LWP), hence it has been held that claiming of Performance Linked Bonus ((PLB) does not arise. Learned Counsel submits that the applicant attended the office and performed duty on the aforesaid days. Without causing any notice, the respondents have illegally treated the said period as absence ence and deprived the salary, PLB and pensionary benefit to the applicant. Despite the applicant furnishing the certificate duly certified by the Chief Station Master, respondents treating the said period from 02.08.2015 to 06.08.2015 as absence from duty is arbitrary and accordingly seeks to set aside the same.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and perused the material on record.
4 OA No.442/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
5. The grievance of the applicant that he has discharged the duties for the period from 02.08.2015 02 too 06.08.2015, but the said period has been treated as absence from f duty, cannot be considered at this length of time. The applicant has retired from service on 31.05.2021. During his service period, the applicant has not made any efforts to approach this th Tribunal,, on the other hand it is submitted that the matter was pursued before the Chief Labour Commissioner. Neither any substantial evidence is placed on record to establish the recurring cause of action for filing this OA at this length of time, nor any satisfactory satisfactory explanation is offered to condone the inordinate delay in filing this application. For want of sufficient cause shown to regularize the services of the applicant for the period from 02.08.2015 to 06.08.2015 06.08.2015, this OA filed after eight years deserves to be rejected.
6. We are unable to appreciate the impact of five day days absence from duty on the salary, PLB and pension pension. To elaborate on the point, point we had requested the learned Counsel to place on record the requisite explanation/clarification explanation clarification with the claim made. Except furnishing the pay slips for the months of August, 2015 and 5 OA No.442/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH September, 2015, no other convincing material is placed to substantiate the claim of the applicant. Stale claim with inchoate material cannot be considered at this leng length of time.
7. For the reasons aforesaid, OA lacks merit merit. Accordingly MA No.347/2013 and the OA stand dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S.SUJATHA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
sd.