Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ram Singh vs M/O Railways on 24 April, 2023
1
O.A. No.133/2018
Item No.47
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. 133/2018
This the 24th day of April, 2023
Hon'ble Mr. R N Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Ram Singh, Aged-48 years,
S/o Shri Sheo Dan,
Working as Keyman,
Under Divisional Engineer, Delhi Sarai Rohilla,
R/o Railway Colony, Garhi Harsaru, Gurugram.
...Applicant
(By Advocate : Shri Yogesh Sharma )
Versus
1. Union of India through
The General Manager,
Northern Railway, Baroda House,
New Delhi.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway, Delhi Division,
State Entry Road, New Delhi.
3. The Divisional Engineer,
Northern Railway Station,
Delhi Sarai Rohilla,
Delhi.
...Respondents
(By Advocate : Shri Gyanendra Singh )
2
O.A. No.133/2018
Item No.47
O R D E R (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. R N Singh, Member (J):
By way of the present OA, the applicant has challenged the order dated 15.12.2017 and order dated 27.11.2017, by which the respondents have passed an order of reversion of the applicant from the post of Keyman to the post of Gangman and have placed the applicant to a lower Grade Pay of Rs.1800.
2. The applicant has prayed for the following relief(s) :-
"(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass a order of quashing the impugned order dated 15.12.2017 along with order 27.11.2017 (Annex.A/I & A/2) only in respect of the applicant, declaring to the effect that the same is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to retain the applicant to the promotion post of Mate with all consequential benefits including the arrears of difference of pay and allowances.
(ii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the respondents to grant the Grade pay of Rs.2800/- in PB-1 to the applicant w.e.f. 8.12.2014 i.e. from the date of his promotion as Keyman as per Railway Board circular dated 22.9.2014 mentioned in the impugned order.3 O.A. No.133/2018
Item No.47
(iii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant."
3. Pursuant to notice, the respondents have filed counter reply, wherein they have opposed the claim of the applicant and also prayed for dismissal of the OA. The applicant has filed rejoinder and he reiterated his claim.
4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and we have also perused the pleadings available on record.
5. It is not in dispute that the applicant was initially appointed in the Railways to the post of Gangman/Track Maintainer w.e.f. 31.05.2008 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Keyman on 08.12.2014 after a necessary approval of the Sanctioning Authority. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents have issued an order dated 27.11.2017 (Annexure-A/2) on the subject of assignment of duties as per the Grade Pay of Track Maintainer. He submits that though said order contains names of 26 persons, however, the 4 O.A. No.133/2018 Item No.47 name of the applicant does not figure in the said order. Though the impugned communication dated 27.11.2017 does not contain the name of the applicant, however, by giving reference to the said order dated 27.11.2017, the respondents have issued the impugned order dated 15.12.2017, vide which, they have reverted the applicant from Keyman to Gangman. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 15.12.2017 is without any reason and vide the said order, the respondents have also inflicted a sort of penalty on the applicant by reverting him to the feeder post after around nine years of his service in the promotional post.
6. On the other hand, Shri Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the order dated 27.11.2017 is issued by the competent authority, keeping in view the Railway Board's Circular dated 22.09.2014. However, he does not dispute that the impugned order dated 27.11.2017 does not contain the name of the applicant. He further invites our attention to para 4.6 of the counter reply, wherein, it is asserted by the respondents that the applicant was given notice, however, a copy of 5 O.A. No.133/2018 Item No.47 such notice has not been brought on record, nor details of such notice has been referred to in the counter reply.
7. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the impugned order dated 15.12.2017 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the same is set aside to the extent the same pertains to the applicant in the present OA. The applicant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, in accordance with relevant rules and instructions on the subject. However, the respondents shall be at liberty in accordance with law.
8. The OA stands partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.
There shall be no order as to costs.
( Sanjeeva Kumar ) ( R.N. Singh )
Member (A) Member (J)
/rk/