Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati
North East Frontier Railway Promotee ... vs M/O Railways on 27 July, 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
GUWAHATI BENCH
Original Application No. 040/00178/2017
Date of Order: This, the 27 day of July 2017
THE HON'BLE MOHD. HALEEM KHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
North East Frontier Railway Promotee
Officers' Association
{Affiliated to the Indian Railway
Promotee Officers' Federation)
(Recognised by iis General Secretary,
Sri Pramod Chanera Kalita,
Son of Late Gajendra Nath Kalita
Executive Engineer, General, Maligaon
NF Railway, Resident of Dr Binay Kumar Tamuli Path
Padumbari, Gotanagar, Guwahati |
Pin -- 781033, Assam.
... Applicant
By Advocates: Mr.B. Sharma & Mr. B. Talukdar
-Versus-
1. The Union of India
Represented by the Secretary
Minisiry of Railways, Government of India
New Delhi -- 110006, India.
2. The Railway Board |
Represented by its Chairman
Rail Bhawan, New Delhi --- 110001.
3. The General Manager
N.F. Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati - 11, Assam.
...Respondenis
nn
By Advocate: None
Os.
ORDER (ORAL)
MOHD. HALEEM KHAN, MEMBER (A):
Mr. B. Sharma, learned counsel filed this O.A. on behalf of the North East Frontier Railway Promotee Officer's Association and submitted as follows:-
"This Original Application is directed against the arbitrary, illegal, malafide and discriminatory action on the part of the respondent authorities in categorizing the promotee Assistant Officers in the various departments of the Railways in the Group -B while categorizing the direct recruitee Assistant Officers in the Group -- A and sanctioning to the said direct recruitee officers a higher scale of pay inspite of the fact that both the category of officers are discharging their duties and responsibilities against the same category of posts and the powers, duties, responsibilities and status assigned to the posts also being same in addition to the posts held by them being interchangeable and non- distinguishable.
As in the case with all government employees, service in the Indian Railways is classified in a hierarchical pattern and its employees are categorized in various Groups viz; Group -- A, B, C and D respectively depending on the posts ' held by them. This method of categorization of employees is post based and higher the powers, duties and responsibilities attached to the post, the higher is the status assigned to it. Following the said methodology, the posts figuring in the zenith of the said hierarchical patiern are categorized as Group -- A and thereafter Group -- B, C and D category posts "Page 2 of 6
follows suit respectively. The fact that this categorization of employees in the Railway service is post based is evident from ithe stipulations of Rule 106, 107 and 108 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. Rule 106 stipulates that Group - A and B posts are gazetied posts whereas Group C and D posts are non-gazetted ones. Rule 107 stipulates that the classification of employees into the categories of Group -- A, B, C and D should be based on the scale of pay attached to the posts dnd Rule 108 further stipulates that alll gazetied posis not included in the Group -A shall be categorized as Group -- B posts. Sub Rule 6 of Rule 103 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code defines Assistant Officers as an Officer in the Group A drawing scale applicable to junior scale officers. The above Rule clearly establishes the fact that an Assistant Officer in the Railway service cannot be categorized in the Group - B apart from the fact that they are to be conferred the scale of pay applicable to junior scale officers. The railway administration, in clear violation of the mandate of provisions of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, categorized the promoiee Assistant Officers in the Group --- B and sanctioned to them a scale of pay lower than the scale of pay applicable to junior scale officers but granted the said scale of pay fo the direct recrutee Assistant Officers who are categorized in the Group A. It is only after completion of 3 (three) years of service against the posts of Assistant Officers that, 80% of ihe promotee incumbents are sanctioned the Junior Scale of pay. Even after the sanction of the Junior Scale of pay the promotee Assistant Officers, who are classified as Group --- B employees are not granted the status of Group -- A employees and it is only on their selection by a Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the Senior Scale posts of Executive/Divisional Officers that they are conferred the status of Group - A _ Page 3 of 6 employees thereby resulting in arbitrary and illegal discrimination and deprivation in the matier of their regular promotion to the said Senior Scale posts inasmuch as Group A Assisiant Officers are considered ahead of the Group B Assistant Officers for their promotion to the Senior Scale Posts inspite of the facis that the Group B Assistant Officers are much senior io the Group A _ officers in the cadres/posts of Assistant Officers and the powers, duties, status and responsibilities assigned to the posts held by both the classes of Assistant Officers being same and their posts being interchangeable. Based on the stipulations contained in the relevant rules of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, the posts of Assistant Officers could not have been Classified in two categories i.e., in the Group -- A and B and definitely two different scales of pay could not have been prescribed for the said category of posts based on the mode of recruitment. When the posts are same and interchangeable apart from the powers, duties - and responsibilities attached being also same, the classification of the said posts into different categories and sanctioning of different scales of pay based on the mode of entry into the posts when both the modes of entry are validated by the relevant Rules is highly arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory and results in uncalled for deprivation to the promote Assistant Officers in the matter of enjoyment of their service benefits. Such action on the part of the Railway Authorities is clearly in violation of the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and would have no legs to stand when tested on the anvil of judicial scrutiny. It is also pertinent to mention here that sanction of two different scales of pay for the posts of Assistant Officers when the said posts are one and the same and interchangeable also do not find support from the definition of the words "Permanent Post" and "Substantive Pay" as defined in Rule 103, Sub Rule - 36 and tT.
A. Page 4o0f 6 37 inasmuch as the scale of pay of Rs. 15,600/-
- 39,100/- and Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- already having been sanctioned for the posts of Assistant Officers, the promote Assistant Officers could not have been sanctioned the | scale of pay of Rs. 9,300/- - 34,800/- and Grade ae | Pay of Rs. 4800/- at an individual level."
2. The learned counsel was specifically asked whether iT ts a demand of the Union or a dispute and complaint with respect to recruitment and conditions of service thai is to be redressed as grievance, as per Ceniral Administrative Tribunals Act, 19852 The learned counsel tried to explain that same set of posts cannot be interchangeably manned by promoted Group 'B' officers and directly recruited Group 'A' officers. According to him, the promoted officers should also be given the same remuneration and category as directly recruited Group 'A' officers. .
3. On being further questioned as to whether it ts the case of the applicants that promoted Group 'B' officers should not be assigned the role and responsibility of the posts which are also assigned to newly recrutted Group 'A' officers, the learned counsel replied in negative and submitted that the Original Application seeks to achieve the objective that Group 'B' officers should get same remuneration as Group 'A' officers.
Page 5 of 6yf
4. The learned counsel could not convince this court ihat in an organization there cannot be two set of officers one promoted and other directly recruited to manage certain type of jobs. Since the source of recruitment, qualification at the ata es level of Group B and Group A officers is not similar then remuneration can also not be similar. If this application is given any life, if will open Pandora's Box and will put the human resource management of the entire government in jeopardy.
5. The learned counsel failed to convince the couri that there is any arbiirariness on the part of the respondents. either in providing promotional avenues io Group 'B' personnel as enumerated by him or in inducting directly recruited Group 'A' personnel for the same set of posts. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed for no cause of action. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
MD. HALEEM KHAN HON'BLE MEMBER (4)
-