Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
J Kishore vs M/O Railways on 18 August, 2023
1 OA 1126/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/01126/2017
th
Dated Friday the 18 day of August Two Thousand Twenty Three
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, Member (J)
J.Kishore,
Chief Controller,
Tiruchirapalli Division,
Southern Railway. ....Applicant
By Advocate M/s. R. Pandian
Vs
Union of India rep by,
1.The General Manager,
Southern Railway,
Park Town,
Chennai 600003.
2.The Chief Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway,
Park Town, Chennai 600003.
3.The Divisional Personnel Officer,
Tiruchirapalli Division,
Southern Railway,
Tiruchirapalli. ....Respondents
By Advocate Mr. Su. Srinivasan, SCGSC
2 OA 1126/2017
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) By this OA, the applicant has prayed the following reliefs :-
"To call for all the records relating to the denial of fixation of pay of the applicant on promotion from the post of Yard Master in scale of 5500-9000 to the post of Traffic Controller in scale of 5500-9000 and to quash the impugned order No. T/P 524/CHC/Court Case dated 19.06.2017 passed by the 3rd respondent; consequently to direct the respondents:-
i. To refix the pay of the applicant at Rs. 6900/- from 21.02.2004 ie from the date of taking over higher responsibility and at Rs. 7250/- w.e.f. 01.03.2004 ie., from the date of his usual increment in the old post as provided under Rule 1313 (FR 22) (I) (a) (1) of Indian Railway Establishment Code;
ii. To provide other consequential benefits as per rules and iii. To pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper and thus to render justice"
2. The brief facts of the case in nutshell are as under:-
The applicant while working as a Yard Master in the scale of Rs. 5500 - 9000, after selection process, he was promoted as Traffic Controller carrying same pay structure. The respondents have fixed his basic pay in terms of Rule 1313 (FR22) (I) (a) (1) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. Consequent to order of this Tribunal and by Hon'ble High Court of Madras granting pay fixation benefit to similarly placed persons following the dictum laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP Civil No. 12847 of 2010 in the case of Union of India Vs. R. Pandian, the 2nd respondent has directed the Divisional Railway Administrations to comply with the orders of this Tribunal by granting pay fixation benefits. As the applicant is also similarly placed, he made a representation dt. 07.03.2017 for granting similar benefit which was rejected by 3 OA 1126/2017 the 2nd respondent vide impugned order dt. 19.06.2017. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA.
3. After notice, the respondents have appeared through their counsel and filed detailed reply, They have raised objection on the ground that since the elevation from Yard Master to Traffic Controller does not involve assumption of duties and responsibilities of more greater importance. Hence the applicant is not entitled for benefit of fixation of pay for the 2nd time to identical scale.
Moreover, the judicial precedents relied upon the applicant is in personam and not in rem. Hence, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the OA.
4. Learned counsel for respondents vehemently opposed the relief since the applicant has been promoted to the said post of Traffic Controller but there is no assumption of greater importance which varies the duties as per the Railway Board Establishment letter dt. 24.05.1999. The movement of the applicant from the post of Yard Master in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 to the post of Traffic Controller in same scale of pay is covered under change of one category to another without shouldering higher responsibility in terms of Para 211 (1) of Indian Railway Establishment Manual Volume I, the relevant provision reads as under:
" "Promotion" includes promotion from a lower grade to a higher grade, from one class to another class, from one group to another group."
5. Learned counsel for respondents further argued that the Railway Board vide letter dt. 24.05.1999 had listed certain categories for which the benefit of 4 OA 1126/2017 pay fixation is to be allowed under Rule 133 (FR 22) (I) (a) (1) of Indian Railway Establishment Code Volume II, where feeder category and promoted category carry identical scale of pay. The categories of Yard Master ie., feeder category and the category of Traffic Controller has not been listed in the abovesaid letter dt. 24.05.1999. Hence the benefit of pay fixation was not allowed to the applicant.
6. Learned counsel for respondents has relied upon the circular 25.06.2018 wherein it is stated that, " The issue regarding grant of financial upgradation to Section Controllers ignoring the movement from the post of Station Master to Section Controller has been under consideration of Board for some time. It has been decided that appointment to the post of Section Controller (GP Rs. 4200/-)/Rs. 5500-9000 (5th CPC) from the post of Station Master (GP Rs. 4200/-)/Rs. 5000-8000 (5 th CPC) is to be treated as lateral shift instead of promotion and therefore, should not be reckoned for the purpose of MACPS.
2. However, in cases where benefit of pay fixation under Rule 1313 FR- 22(I)(a)(i) R-II, IREC Vol.II has already been extended on appointment as Section Controller (GP Rs. 4200/-)/Rs. 5500-9000 (5 th CPC) from the post of Station Master (GP Rs. 4200/-)/Rs. 5500-9000 (5 th CPC) treating the same as promotion (including under Court's directions) this should be reckoned for the purpose of MACPS so that double benefit of promotional pay fixation and MACPS is avoided."
7. Heard both sides and perused the records.
8. It is not in dispute that the applicant was working as a Yard Master before getting promotion as Traffic Controller and the said post is having higher responsibilities. For the post of Traffic Controller/Section Controller/Chief Controller, the post of Station Master/Yard Master is the feeder category. As such, as the selection consisted as both written examination and viva voce by a duly constituted selection committee, therefore, denying the said benefit citing 5 OA 1126/2017 the Railway Board letter dt. 24.05.1999 is unsustainable. Learned counsel for applicant has relied upon the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 717/2006 in the case of R. Pandian Vs. Union of India, Southern Railways. Vide its order dt. 22.06.2007, this Tribunal has considered the provisions under Rule 1313 (FR 22) I (a) (1) on joining from one post to another carrying identical scale of pay and examined in detail after considering General Rules, 1976 which defines "Controller" and "Station Master" and observed thus, "The same reads as follows:-
"Controller" means a railway servant on duty who may for the time being be responsible for regulating the working of traffic on a section of a railway provided with the system of speech communication.
"Station Master" means the person on duty who is for the time being responsible for the working of the traffic within station limits and includes any person who is for the time being independent charge of the working of trains under the system of working in force.
From the above, it is seen that the Station Master is in charge of the particular Station only whereas the Section Controller controls various stations comes under him. Thus the Section Controller post functionally a higher post having greater responsibilities and duties than that of Station Master. As such, the contention of the respondents in this regard is rejected. The contention of the respondents that since both the posts of Station Master and Section Controller are having the same scale of pay, the promotion to the post of Section Controller does not involve duties and responsibilities of greater importance is not accepted. Further, non-inclusion of the category of Station Master and the Section Controller in the letter of the Railway Board dated 24.5.1999 is not a ground to reject the benefit claimed by the applicant. The fact remains that the applicant fulfills the conditions laid down in Rule 1313 (FR 22 (1)(a)(1) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. The promotion order of the applicant dated 5.11.2003 clearly says that the promotion will take effect from the date he assumes higher responsibilities. This itself shows that the post to which the applicant was promoted ie. Section Controller is having higher responsibilities. It is to be noted that the applicant was promoted to the post of Section Controller w.e.f. 23.11.2003 by the above said order after completing his training successfully. Hence he is eligible for higher pay fixation with effect from 23.11.2003.
8. In the result, we find that the applicant has made out a case for the grant of relief sought for by him. The impugned order dated 19.9.2005 rejecting the request of the applicant for higher fixation of pay is set aside and the respondents are directed to issue necessary orders refixing his pay with effect 6 OA 1126/2017 from the date he assumed higher responsibilities ie. 23.11.2003, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The O.A. is allowed as above. No order as to costs."
9. The said order has been challenged by the respondent department before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP No. 30151 of 2007. Vide order dt. 25.02.2010, after considering the issue in detail, the Hon'ble High Court observed thus, "14. In the above said case before the Honourable Apex Court, the employee, while working as Junior Engineer in pay-scale of Rs.1640-2900 was granted Assistant Engineer's pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 on personal basis, on completion of 15 yeas' service as Junior Engineer and his pay was fixed under FR 22(I)(a)(1) and the employee there also availed the benefit of getting his pay fixed under the said Rule from the date of his next increment. Thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant Engineer on functional basis in pay scale of Rs.2000- 35000. In those circumstances, since the employee already availed the benefit of fitment under FR 22(I)(a)(1) by granting him the pay scale of the promotional post, the Honourable Apex Court has held that on his promotion on functional basis, he cannot be granted the benefit of the Rule for a second time.
15. But, same is not the situation in the case on hand. Here, though the first respondent/employee was granted 'promotion', after subjecting him to a process of selection, to a post carrying higher duties and responsibilities, just for the reason that both the posts are carrying the same scale of pay, he has been denied the monetary benefit attached to such a 'promotion'. The reasons assigned by the Administration that their proposal to grant monetary benefits to the employee has not been approved or recommended by the Railway Board cannot be appreciated, since such a rejection made on the part of the Railway Board does not seem to be on sound principles of service jurisprudence.
16. The Tribunal below has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case in their proper perspective and has arrived at an unerroneous conclusion of granting the relief sought for on the part of the employee, wherein we find no reason to cause our interference.
In the result, this writ petition filed by the Administration fails and the same is dismissed. The petitioners are directed to implement the order of the Tribunal within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 of 2007 and 1of 2008 are closed."
10. Again, the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court had been tested before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) (CC 7 OA 1126/2017 12847/2010). Vide its order dt. 30.08.2010, after condoning the delay, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the petition of the respondent department with an observation that the Tribunal had rightly interpreted Rule 1313 of the Railway Establishment Code.
11. It is also to be noted that while dealing into the similar issue, this Tribunal in OA No. 1270/2014 in the case of Y.Yesudoss Vs. Union of India, Southern Railway vide its order dt. 21.07.2015 relying upon the order passed by this Tribunal in the case of R. Pandian has dealt with the issue in detail and ordered the OA in favour of the applicant with a direction to the respondents to refix the pay of the applicant for which he was eligible and entitled otherwise. The said order has also been tested by the department before the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 30170 of 2016. Considering the similar circumstances in which the order passed by the Tribunal has attained finality in the case of R. Pandian, the Hon'ble High Court has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent Railways.
12. It is to be noted that while relying upon the earlier orders and being the similar ratio of facts, this Tribunal in OA No. 66/2015 in the matter of M. Saravanan Vs. General Manager, Southern Railway, vide its order dt. 27.07.2016 has ordered in favour of the applicant therein.
13. It is to be noted that in respect of pay fixation in the issue of movement from Station Master to Section Controller has already been dealt in detail by this Tribunal which has attained finality before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This 8 OA 1126/2017 Tribunal has passed orders in similar cases and extended the benefit of pay fixation to the employees. The respondents have implemented the said orders and after considering the facts of those cases and in view of the settled law, it is clear that the applicant's case is squarely covered by the ratio of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements as it has been held in similar cases that the post of Section Controller/Traffic Controller/Chief Controller carried higher functional responsibilities than the post of Station Master/Yard Master.
14. In view of the above, the impugned order dt. 19.06.2017 does not stand in the scrutiny of eyes of law. Hence, the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to issue necessary orders refixing the pay of the applicant with effect from the date he assumed higher responsibilities on promotion ie 01.03.2004 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
15. OA is allowed in terms of above. No order as to costs.
(Lata Baswaraj Patne) Member (J) 18.08.2023 SKSI