Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Dashrath vs Divisional Railway Manager N C Rly on 30 May, 2025
Reserved on 21.05.2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD
Dated: This the 30th day of May 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Original Application No. 1026 of 2012
Dashrath S/o Suraj Pal, R/o Quarter No. 13A Subedarganj, Colony No.1,
Allahabad.
...........Applicant
By Adv: Shri Ashish Srivastava
VERSUS
1. Union of India Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway,
Allahabad.
2. The Additional Divisional Engineer, Headquarter North Central
Railway, Allahabad.
. .Respondents
By Adv: Shri Saurabh
ORDER
Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J) The present O.A has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-
"i) This Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 12.03.2011 (Annexure No.A-1 to this original application) passed by the respondent No.2 as far as it does not give the benefit of upgradation from the late che juniors to the applicant have been given this benefit.
MANISH KUMAR ii) This Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to fix the SRIVASTAVA applicant's pay in the upgradated pay scale of Valve Man in the pay scale of Rs. 3050- 4590 in Group C category Artisan Staff from the date of the introduction of the scheme or from the date the juniors to the applicant have been extended this benefit.
iii) This Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to give all consequential benefits including monetary benefits after fixation of applicant's pay from the date juniors to the applicant have been upgraded.
2iv) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.
v) Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant".
2. The brief facts of the case are that the the applicant was initially appointed as a Khalasi on 08.02.1980. Since the year 1982, the applicant has been deployed as a Valveman. At the time, the post of Valveman was categorized as a semi-skilled post and carried the pay scale of Rs. 210-400. However, pursuant to the Railway Board's decisions dated 13.11.1982, 02.12.1982, and 15.12.1982, the pay scale of the aforesaid post was revised to Rs. 3050-4590, and subsequently to Rs. 5200-20200 under the new pay structure.
3. The applicant, through the present Original Application, seeks the benefit of the revised pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 / 5200-20200, in accordance with the judgment rendered by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1354 of 2003, Kharpattu & Others vs. Union of India & Others. The applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 133 of 2006, which was disposed of on 10.07.2009, with a direction to the respondents to consider the applicant's claim in light of the judgment in the case of Kharpattu & Others. In compliance with the Tribunal's order dated 133/2006, the respondents issued an order on 01.02.2010, granting the applicant the upgraded pay scale of Valveman (Rs. 3050-4590 / 5200- 20200).
4. The applicant's grievance is that the benefit of this upgradation has not been given retrospectively from the date he became eligible, i.e., from the date he started discharging the duties of Valveman, which was in 1993, or at least from the date his juniors were given the said benefit. The MANISH KUMAR applicant submits that the pay fixation should have been carried out from SRIVASTAVA the date he actually held charge of the post of Valveman and that benefit of seniority and parity with juniors has not been duly accorded. The applicant also challenges the impugned order dated 12.03.2011, issued by Respondent No. 2, whereby his representation for grant of upgraded pay scale from the date it was given to other similarly placed Valvemen was rejected. Hence, the applicant seeks retrospective grant of the upgraded pay scale from the date of eligibility or from the date of upgradation granted to 3 his juniors, and not merely from the date of consideration of his representation.
5. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have stated that the applicant's claim based on Railway Board letters dated 13.11.1982, 02.12.1982, and 15.12.1982 is misconceived, as these instructions pertain only to replacement of grades from semi-skilled to skilled, and do not support upgradation of the Valveman post to the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 / 3050-4590 / 5200-20200, which pertains to a Class-III post. It is stated that the issue of pay scale anomaly for Valve Operators/Valvemen was examined by the Joint Consultative Machinery (JCM) in its meeting held on 21st and 22nd May 1984, where it was resolved to place Valvemen in the pay grades of Rs. 196-232 and Rs. 200-250 (RS) / 750-940 (RPS) and 775- 1025 (RPS) on a 50:50 ratio, which was later clarified by the Executive Director, Pay Commission, Railway Board. The respondents refer to an identical case in O.A. No. 1158/2000, which was decided by the CAT, Principal Bench on 02.07.2001. That decision was upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, but was later remanded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 30.07.2006, with certain observations. Upon remand, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in its judgment dated 03.12.2007, held that there was no sanctioned pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 pre-revised for the post of Valveman and therefore, the directions issued by the Tribunal required modification. The Court directed the respondents to grant only the existing pay scale available to Valvemen from the date specified by the Tribunal. A review application filed against the judgment dated 03.12.2007 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 06.11.2009, with the clarification that no recovery would be made of amounts already disbursed, due to contempt petitions pending. A further review application filed by the aggrieved employees was again dismissed on 16.09.2011, with liberty MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA granted to the petitioners to challenge Railway Board orders if they so desired. The respondents emphasize that the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 / 3050-4590 / 5200-20200 pertains to Class-III posts, and that the applicant, being a Group-D employee, is not entitled to such scale. It is out-rightly denied that no junior to the applicant has been granted such upgradation pursuant to Tribunal directions, and therefore, the applicant's claim of discrimination is baseless.
46. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed in which the applicant has reiterated the same facts as stated in the OA and denied the contents of the counter affidavit.
7. We have heard Sri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Saurabh, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that that he has been denied equal treatment despite being similarly situated employee, who have been granted the benefit of the upgraded pay scale. The applicant holds the same post and discharged identical duties as his juniors, yet has not been accorded the same financial benefits from the relevant date. This constitutes a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality before law and equal opportunity in public employment. The principle of "equal pay for equal work", as laid down in a catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, mandates that an employee performing the duties of a higher post must not be denied the corresponding pay scale merely due to non-issuance of a formal order. Learned counsel for the applicant next argued that the applicant's claim is squarely covered by the decision of this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. No. 1354 of 2003, Kharpattu & Others v. Union of India, which has been upheld and followed in several similar cases. The respondents were bound to implement the same relief in the case of the applicant also. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the respondents have erroneously granted the upgraded pay scale to the applicant only from the date of the representation, rather than from the date of eligibility or from the date the benefit was extended to his juniors.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents refuting the argument advanced MANISH KUMAR on behalf of the applicant argued that applicant is also entitled for the SRIVASTAVA benefit w.e.f. 1993 at par with other Valveman in whose matter on direction of the Tribunal direction benefit has been allowed. Learned counsel for the respondents also referred to the facts disclosed in the counter affidavit and further argued that OA lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. It was next argued that similar issue also raised before the C.A.T. Principal Bench New Delhi and against the decision passed in the OA, matter reached before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court but Hon'ble Delhi High Court dismissed the 5 petition, which was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP which was allowed and matter was remanded to decide afresh with the observation that no such pay scale as has been claimed is existing in regard to the post of Valveman. On receiving the matter, Hon'ble Delhi High Court also observed the same facts but direction was issued to the respondents to extend the benefit of existing pay scale. Thus, referring to the aforesaid facts, it was also argued that on this ground also, applicant is not entitled for any relief. Benefit has already been allowed on dated 1.2.2010. Applicant cannot be granted retrospective benefit, thus, argued to dismiss the OA.
10. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the record carefully.
11. Upon careful consideration of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the following issues arise for determination:
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the upgraded pay scale of Rs.
3050-4590 / 5200-20200 for the post of Valveman from the date he assumed the duties of the said post in 1993, or from the date the benefit was extended to his juniors?
2. Whether the applicant's claim is barred in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 03.12.2007 and the subsequent review orders?
12. It is an undisputed fact that the applicant was initially appointed as a Khalasi on 08.02.1980 and has been working as a Valveman since 1993. It is also not in dispute that the applicant's representation seeking upgraded pay scale was considered and partially accepted, resulting in the grant of the MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA revised scale of Rs. 3050-4590 / 5200-20200 only from the date of consideration of representation, i.e., 01.02.2010.
13. The applicant has built his claim for retrospective benefit on the principles of "equal pay for equal work" and parity with juniors. He also relies on the judgment of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1354 of 2003 - Kharpattu & Others vs. Union of India, which had directed similar upgradation for similarly placed employees.
614. However, the respondents have rightly pointed out that the issue of upgradation of the post of Valveman was considered and concluded by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 3616/2002, decided on 03.12.2007, wherein the Court, after remand by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, clearly held that the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 (pre-revised), which corresponds to Rs. 3050-4590, was never sanctioned for the post of Valveman. The Hon'ble Court directed that only the existing sanctioned pay scale be extended. This judgment has attained finality after the dismissal of review petitions on 06.11.2009 and 16.09.2011.
15. It is a settled position of law that once a judgment has attained finality, it becomes binding on all similarly placed persons, including those who seek relief on the same grounds later. The Tribunal, being subordinate to the Hon'ble High Court, cannot take a view contrary to the binding precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the said case.
16. While the Tribunal had earlier directed the respondents to consider the applicant's claim in light of Kharpattu & Others, the decision in Kharpattu must now be read in consonance with the Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment dated 03.12.2007.
17. As regards the plea of discrimination, the respondents have categorically denied that any junior to the applicant was granted the higher pay scale under Tribunal directions. The applicant has not placed on record any conclusive evidence to the contrary. In absence of any clear proof of discriminatory treatment, this claim cannot be sustained.
18. The applicant's reliance on Railway Board letters dated 13.11.1982, 02.12.1982, and 15.12.1982 is also misplaced, as these instructions pertain to the replacement of semi-skilled pay scales and do not deal with the MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA upgradation or reclassification of Valveman to a Class-III post.
19. While the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is well-recognized in service jurisprudence, its applicability must be within the framework of sanctioned posts, prescribed recruitment rules, and judicial pronouncements. In the present case, the applicant, being a Group-D employee, cannot claim entitlement to a Group-C/Class-III pay scale in the absence of a formal promotion or reclassification from the back date.
720. In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the applicant has not made out a case for grant of the upgraded pay scale retrospectively from 1993, or from the date it was allegedly extended to his juniors. The impugned order dated 12.03.2011 rejecting the representation cannot be termed arbitrary in light of the settled legal position.
22. In view of the above findings, the Original Application is dismissed. No order as to costs. All associated MAs are disposed of.
(MOHAN PYARE) (JUSTICE OM PRAKASH VII)
Member (A) Member (J)
Manish
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA