Karnataka High Court
N. Rupla Naik S/O Sroni Naik vs The Union Of India on 28 August, 2012
Author: N.K. Patil
Bench: N.K. Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012
: PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.V.PINTO
Writ Petition No.64299/2011 (S-CAT)
Between:
N. Rupla Naik S/O Sroni Naik,
Age: 58 Years, Occ: Masters Craftsman,
South Western Railway Hubli,
R/O H.No 485/A, Cement Chawl,
Gadag Road, Hubli.
... Petitioner
(By Shri. Sadashiv S Patil, Adv.)
And
1. The Union of India,
Rep. by the General Manager,
South Western Railway, Club Road,
Keshwarpur, Hubli-580020,
Dharwad District.
2. Chief Personnel Officer,
South Western Railway,
Gadag Road-580020.
3. Divisional Railway Manager,
South Western Railway,
DRM Office, Club Road,
2
Keshwapur, Hubli-580020.
4. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
South Western Railway,
DRM Office, Club Road,
Keshwarpur, Hubli-580020.
5. Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer,
South Western Railway,
EMD Shed Gadag Road, Hubli-580020.
... Respondents
(By Shri. Ajay U Patil, Adv.)
******
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to call for records and
quash the order dated 18.04.2011 passed in
O.A.No.125/2010 by the Hon'ble Central Administrative
Tribunal, Bangalore (Annexure-E) and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Hearing, this day,
N.K. PATIL. J., made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner in this petition has sought for quashing the order dated 18th April 2011, passed in O.A.No.125/2010, by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore vide Annexure-E.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is working as Master Crafts man in South Western Railway, Hubli and that he belongs to Schedule Tribe. Earlier, he was appointed in Indian Railways on 23rd 3 December 1975 as Loco Khalasi at Miraj (State of Maharashtra) and later transferred to Hubli Loco Shed (State of Karnataka) and promoted as Basic fitter, Fitter Grade-II and Grade-I Fitter MCM and Fitter Chargeman from time to time. It is his further case that during the year 1994, gauge conversion took place and R & M posts were surrendered and some of the surplus staff were transferred to other Departments like workshop, open line, IOW, PWI, S& T and TFC. At this juncture, he opted for Engineering in IOW but his case was not considered by the respondents. Further, in pursuance of the recommendations of the 5th CPC, his grade was merged in `4,500/- to `7,000/- and an additional pay of `100/- was also paid, but subsequently, he was posted as Chargeman-B and the additional pay of `100/- was discontinued vide order dated 31st October 1999 at Annexure A4. In view of said discontinuation of additional pay of `100/- vide order dated 31st October 1999, he submitted a detailed representation, requesting the respondents to promote him to the 4 higher post and for restoration of payment of additional pay of `100/- and it is his submission that if the respondents had promoted him from time to time, by this time, he would have become Section Engineer. The respondents have filed their reply denying the allegations of the petitioner, stating that the grievance of the petitioner is outdated dating back to the year 1999 and 2000 and similar representations of the petitioner dated 16th August 2002 vide Annexure A6 and 18th May 2009 vide Anenxure A/12 have been examined and replied by letter dated 27th August 2010 vide Annexure R1. The respondents further stated that the petitioner was appointed as Substitute Temporary Khalasi on 23rd December 1975 and promoted as Khalasi Helper in the year 1979 and further promoted to various higher grades. While the petitioner was working as Mastery Fitter in the scale of `4,500/- to `7,000/-, he was rendered surplus in the steam Loco Shed and he was de-deployed to the post of Diesel Electric Fitter in the Trouble Shooting Point, Hubli, in the very same scale of 5 pay by protecting his pay scale vide Annexure A/4 and as per the said order, his pay scale was wrongly mentioned as `5,000/- to `8,000/- instead of `4,500/- to `7,000/-. The same was rectified by issuing a corrigendum dated 11th November 1999 vide Annexure A/5 and as per the orders of the Railway Board dated 24th November 1998 vide Annexure R/2, the petitioner was granted additional remuneration of `100/-per month from 1st January 1996 and the said `100/- granted to the Mastries would have no additive value and would not count for any purpose such as determining the rates of various allowances, pay fixation on promotion etc, Therefore, it is the stand of the respondent that the contention of the petitioner that he should have been allotted the pay scale of `5,000/-to `8,000/- and not `4,500/- to `7,000/- is incorrect and the fixation is in order and requires no revision.
3. The Tribunal, after careful consideration of the grounds urged by the petitioner in original application, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and 6 taking into consideration the stand taken by the respondents in their objections, has held that the respondents in their communication dated 27th August 2010 have stated that the higher grade posts have been down graded to accommodate the petitioner on his re- deployment and that as he was rendered steam surplus, he cannot claim for any higher post on his re- deployment. They further stated that he will be eligible for higher post in the normal course as per his turn. With regard to his additional pay of `100/- in the scale of `4,500/- to `7,000/-, it is stated that the said claim is under examination and orders will be issued separately. Further, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal opined that the petitioner's claim for granting additional pay of `100/- in the scale of `4,500/- to `7,000/- from the due date shall be considered and an appropriate order be passed as expeditiously as possible and not later than 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. 7
4. After careful perusal of the grounds urged by the petitioner in the writ petition, it is manifest on the face of the same that there is no error or material irregularity as such committed by the respondents in disposing of the application filed by the petitioner. It can be seen that inadvertently, on a mistaken notion, some benefit has been extended, by promoting him in the pay scale of `5,000/- to `8,000/-. But, immediately after realizing the mistake, a corrigendum has been issued as early as from 11th November 1999 and a rectification order dated 24th November 1998 vide Annexure R/2 has been passed by the Railway Board, granting an additional remuneration of a sum of `100/- from 1st January 1996 and observed that the said `100/- granted to the Masteries would have no additive value and would not count for any purpose such as determining rates of various allowances, pay fixation on promotion etc. Therefore, the said reasoning given by the respondents is just and proper and we do not find any error or illegality as such committed by Tribunal 8 nor the petitioner has made out any good grounds for interference.
5. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the writ petition filed by petitioner stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE BMV*