Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Abul Kalam vs Eastern Railway on 10 November, 2022
Coram: OA 380/2022 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA Ps etal _ 0.A./350/00380/2022 (with M.A./350/00387/2022) Date of Order: 10.11.2022 | Hon'ble Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Judicial Member In the matter of : Abu! Kalam, Son of Late Abu Jafar, aged about 65 years, worked as Station Manager, Eastern Railway, Fairly Place, Kolkata Residing at Village- Manikpur, Post Office- Belmuri, Police Station- Dhanikhali, District- Hooghly, Pin- 712302. | ease Applicant Vs. 1) Union of India, through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, 17, N.S. Road, Fairly Place, Kolkata- 700001. 2) Chief Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, 17, N.S. Road, Fairly Place, Kolkata-700001. 3) Chief Vigilance Officer, Eastern Railway, 17, N.S. Road, Fairly Place, Kolkata-700001. gi mG ree | H \ 2 QA 380/2022 4) Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway, Howrah Division, Howrah-711101. 5) Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Howrah Division, Howrah-711101. veeteeee Respondents For The Applicant(s): Mr. T. K. Biswas, Counsel For The Respondent(s): Ms. E. Banerjee, Counsel ORDER (ORAL)
Per: Hon'ble Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Judicial Member The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:
"a) An order directing the respondents to give the benefits of increments in the scale Rs. 1600-2660/- (RP) w.e.f. 1.1.86 as CPO/CCC's Circulars No. 69/91, 3/92 and 95/92 which was extended to his juniors namely R. Rajsekhar and K. S. Srinivas and thereafter proper calculating the retirement benefits and pension and revised the same and further directing the respondents to release all arrears amounts with interest and cost may be imposed for unnecessary harassing purpose.
b) An order directing the respondents to produce all relevant records which was related in this application at the time of hearing.
c) Any other order or orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper."
2. Heard both Learned Counsel and perused the material.
3. An M.A. bearing no. 350/00387/2022 has been filed by the applicant praying for condonation of delay in filing the instant original application. On being satisfied, such liberty is granted under Rule 8(4) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987.
Git--
3 OA 3800/2022 M.A. 350/00387/2022 is accordingly disposed.of, a, Learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that, the applicant initially entered into the service in the year 1983 as Traffic Apprentice. Subsequently, he "was granted promotion in the year 1988, After rendering his service for decades _ he retired from service on 29.02.2016, It is the grievance of the applicant that - during his service tenure the applicant had preferred a representation for grant of ; benefits of increments In scale of Rs. 1600-2660/- (RP) w.e.f. 01.01.1986 as per CPO's Circular No. 69/91, 3/92, 59/92. However, the same was not considered | and the applicant was not granted such benefit till his superannuation. Thereafter, the applicant gathered some information under the RTI Act, and came to know that his juniors were granted the said benefits. According to the applicant, his claim for grant of benefits of increment is a cantinued cause of action, therefore along with MA No. 387/2022 for condonation of delay, he has filed the instant original. application before this Tribunal seeking relief for issuance of direction upon the respondents to aive the benefit of Increment as referred hereinabove, This Tribunal has asked the Learned Counsel for thé applicant whether, after retirement, the applicant. had submitted any representation or an application for redressal of his grievance. Learned Counsel would submit that the - representation was filed by the applicant before his superannuation f.e., in the _ year 1997, which has not yet been considered.
-B, Heard both the parties at length. On perusal of material on record, itis seen _ that after the applicant retired from service, no representation or application has 'been placed on record with regard to redressal of his grievance about non-grant A | OA 380/2022 ' of increment in the scale of Rs, 1600-2660/-. The applicant has only placed on _ record a copy of certain. information received by him through RTI. As such no
- decision of the respondents on his claim has been placed on record, the representation which was submitted in the year 1997 cannot be directed to be considered at this stage i.e., inthe year 2022. .
6. In the interest of justice, this Tribunal would deem it fit to dispose of this original application by granting liberty to the applicant to submit a comprehensive representation, if he so desires, before the competent respondent authority for redrassal of his grievance.
On receipt of it, it is open for the respondents to consider it In accordance with the extant rules and the eligibility of the applicant. ~F.. Inview of the above, the instant 0.A. stands disposed of, M.A. 350/00387/2022, arising out of this original application, stands as disposed of in terms of para 3 of this order.
No costs, | . a U (Jayesh V. Bhairavia} Judicial Member SSE NOCIONI ONC EROSIONS