Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
K.N. Radhakrishnan vs Union Of India on 22 November, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No. 1106 of 2010
Tuesday, this the 22nd day of November, 2011
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.R. Raman, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. K. George Joseph, Administrative Member
1. K.N. Radhakrishnan, aged 47 years,
S/o. N.R. Narayana Pillai (late),
Sr. Loco Inspector, Southern Railway/
Ernakulam Junction, Residing at :
Mulleppillil Padmalayam,
Mulleppilly Road, East Kadungallur,
U.C. College P.O., Ernakulam Dt.
2. P.N. Jayaraj, aged 47 years, S/o. V.K. Nadarajan (late),
Sr. Loco Inspector, Southern Railway/Kollam Jn.
Residing at : Pushpavadiyil House, Malayalappuzha Eram P.O.,
Pathanamthitta Dt. ..... Applicants
(By Advocate - Mr. T.C. Govindaswamy)
V e r s u s
1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the
Government of India, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhavan,
New Delhi.
2. The General Manager, Southern Railway,
Headquarters Office, Park Town P.O.,
Chennai-600 003.
3. The Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway,
Headquarters Office, Park Town P.O.,
Chennai-600 003.
4. The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway, Palghat Division,
Palghat.
5. The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway, Trivandrum Division,
Trivandrum-14. ..... Respondents
(By Advocates - Mr. Sunil Jacob Jose, SCGSC)
This application having been heard on 22.11.2011, the Tribunal on the
same day delivered the following:
O R D E R
By Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.R. Raman, Judicial Member -
The applicants are presently working as Senior Loco Inspectors in the pay band of Rs. 9300-34800/- with grade pay of Rs. 4,600/-. They are aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the respondents to step up the pay of the applicants on par with their juniors applying Rule 7 of Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 and the Railway Board orders in this regard.
2. The applicants were initially appointed as Diesel Assistants on 31.7.1984 and 1.8.1984 respectively in the Palghat Division of Southern Railway. They were subsequently promoted as Goods Drivers on 7.11.1989 and further promoted as Loco Inspectors/Loco Running Supervisor on 10.12.1992 and 28.11.1992 respectively. The applicants were further promoted as Senior Loco Inspectors prior to 1.1.2006. The scale of pay of Goods Drivers, Passenger Drivers and Mail Drivers on and after 1.1.2006 as recommended by VI Pay Commission was given a common replacement pay band of Rs. 9300-34800/- plus a grade pay of Rs. 4,200/-. Similarly, the erstwhile Loco Inspectors and Sr. Loco Inspectors in the existing scales of pay of Rs. 6500-10500/- and Rs. 7450-11500/- respectively were given a common replacement pay band of Rs. 9300-34800 plus a grade pay of Rs. 4,600/-. Both the applicants is said to be drawing basic pay of Rs 10,375/- in the then scale of Rs. 7450-11500/- and their pay was fixed at the stage of Rs. 19,300/- plus grade pay of Rs. 4,600/- in PB-2 with effect from 1.1.2006. As on 1.7.2006, their pay after drawing the increment was fixed at the stage of Rs. 20,020/- with grade pay of Rs. 4600/-. It is alleged that the applicants' juniors Shri N.B. Sasikumar was also promoted as a Loco Inspector on 31.12.2005 and his pay was fixed at the stage of Rs. 18,790/- plus grade pay of Rs. 4200/- as on 1.1.2006 i.e. at a stage much lower than the applicants. They rely on Annexure A-1 memorandum dated 3.8.2009 issued by the 5th respondent in this regard. The Annexure A-5 is one of the representations made in this behalf. Annexure A-6 is the seniority list of Goods Drivers published by the 4th respondent wherein the applicants are at serial Nos. 206 and 215 respectively. It is their case that one Issakki and applicants were working in the Palghat Division and Shri Issakki at the time of empanelment and as on the date of promotion with effect from 18.1.2008, happened to be in the un-bifurcated common cadre of Loco Inspectors/Sr. Loco Inspectors of Palghat Division. It is their contention that they are entitled for stepping up of their pay on par with their junior Shri N. Issakki with effect from 1.7.2006 applying Note 7 of Rule 7 and again with effect from 1.7.2008 with another junior applying Note 10 of Rule 7 of the RS (RP) Rules, 2008.
3. In the reply statement filed by the respondents it is contended that the applicants and the persons compared by them as juniors to them are not from the same category when they were drafted to the cadre of Loco Running Supervisors and hence, the applicants cannot maintain a comparison of senior-junior relationship as herein for claiming stepping up of pay. In paragraph 5 of the reply it is averred that at the time of the applicants' selection as Loco Running Supervisors, they were working as Goods Drivers, whereas the persons compared Shri N.B. Sasikumar was working as a Mail Driver, in Trivandrum Division of Southern Railway. Thus, they came into the cadre of Loco Running Supervisors from different cadres and seniority units and hence, the applicants cannot cite the other person as their junior for the purpose of stepping up of their pay merely on the reason that all of them are now in the same seniority unit of Loco running Supervisors, Trivandrum Division. Further it is submitted that the applicants were selected on the basis of centralized selection i.e. at the time the entire posts of Loco Running Supervisors were controlled by the Zonal Headquarters at Madras, whereas the other person was selected after the control of the cadre was decentralized i.e. each Division in the Southern Railway started controlling the cadre at the divisional level. They also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India & Os. Vs. O.P. Saxena
- 1997 (6) SCC 360 and in Surendra Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors., in CA 1022 of 2001 dated 13.1.2005 to contend that the provisions of stepping up of pay is not applicable in similar situations. It is also their contention that the comparison on par with Shri N. Issakki is not maintainable for the reasons stated above. Many changes have took place during the period from 17.7.1990 to 18.1.2008 in the seniority list and hence they cannot maintain a comparison with the other persons subsequent to their posting as Loco Running Supervisors in 1992. It is their prayer that the application be dismissed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The issue as to whether in similar situation applicants are entitled for stepping up of their pay came up for consideration before a Coordinate bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 1001 of 2010 and by judgment dated 4th October, 2011 it was held that the pay of the applicants be stepped up at par with that of the junior Shri Isakki from 18.1.2008 and arrears of pay and allowances arising out of such stepping up be made available to the applicants. This benefit is in accordance with the provisions contained in Note 10 under Rule 7 of the Pay Rules and it is declared that no benefit accrues to the applicants under Note 7 of Rule 7 of the Rules. The respondents were directed to pass suitable orders stepping up the pay of the applicants and work out the arrears of pay and allowances due to the applicants and pay the same. In that case time was also prescribed for complying with the order.
6. In that case the specific stand of the respondents was that the posts held by the applicants in the feeder grades and those of the so called juniors were not identical. From Goods Driver, they were promoted as Loco Inspectors, while the juniors were promoted first as Mail Drivers and then only to the post of Loco Inspectors. The respondents therein referring to the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of ESI Corporation & Anr. Vs. P.K. Srinivasamurthy & Ors. - JT 1997 (7) SC 111, Union of India vs. O.P. Saxena (CA No. 8852 of 1996) and Surendra Kumar Vs. UOI (CA No. 1023 of 2001) submitted that the claim of the applicants cannot be acceded to. The Tribunal after considering all the aspects held that in the decision of the Apex Court in Gurucharan Singh Grewal Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, (2009) 3 SCC 94 it was held that a senior cannot be paid a lesser salary than his junior. The Tribunal also held that the reference to O.P. Saxena's case in this case and also other decisions quoted are not material for the purpose of adjudication of the issues involved in the OA. The counsel for the applicant placed reliance in the case of Gurcharan Singh Grewal Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board - 2009 (3) SCC 94, Union of India Vs. P. Jagdish - 1997 (3) SCC 176 and Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ram Sarup Ganda & Ors. 2006 (12) Scale 440.
7. In the light of the judgment of this Tribunal in identical circumstances, with which were are in full agreement, this OA is liable to be allowed and accordingly, we allow this OA. The respondents shall pass appropriate orders stepping up of pay of the applicants and work out the arrears of pay and allowances due to them and pay the same as early as possible at any rate within a period of four months. No order as to costs.
(K. GEORGE JOSEPH) (JUSTICE P.R. RAMAN) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER "SA"