Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Sankaranarayanan K.N vs Union Of India on 20 August, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No. 180/00042/2015
Thursday, this the 20th day of August, 2015
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. U. Sarathchandran, Judicial Member
Sankaranarayanan K.N., aged 55 years,
S/o. K.K. Nanu, Cabin Man-1, Trichur Railway Station,
Trivandrum Division, Southern Railway, Residing at
Kottilikkal House, P.O. Pottore, Trichur. .... Applicant
(By Advocate : M/s. Varkey & Martin)
Versus
1. Union of India, represented by the General Manager,
Southern Railway, Chennai - 600 003.
2. Divisional Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway, Trivandrum - 695 014. . . . . Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil)
This application having been heard on 20.08.2015, the Tribunal on the
same day delivered the following:
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. U. Sarathchandran, Judicial Member -
Applicant has approached this Tribunal on rejection of his request for voluntary retirement under LARSGES Scheme. The refusal has been manifested by the respondents in Annexure A-4 wherein the reasons stated are: 'SF-5 is pending and the post of Cabin Man is not in the safety category.' The applicant seeks relief as under:-
'I) Call for the records leading to the issuance of Annexure A4 and quash the same to the extent it relates to the applicant.
II) Declare that the applicant is eligible to be considered for retirement under the LARGESS scheme and direct the respondents accodingly. III) Award costs of and incidental to this application.
VI) Grant such other relief, which this Honourable Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.'
2. In the reply statement the respondents contend that the applicant has withheld the fact that he is in the grade pay of Rs.2400/-, a crucial matter which is to be considered for the scheme of LARSGESS. It is also stated by the respondents that applicant has not revealed the promotion he got as Cabin Man Grade I in the Pay Band of Rs.5200-20200 + Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/- from 12.01.2009. It is also stated in the reply that the applicant is undergoing the penalty of reduction by one stage in Pay Band of Rs.5200- 20200 + Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/- for 24 months with recurring effect from 01.01.2015. The respondents pay for rejecting the Original Application.
3. A rejoinder was filed by the applicant stating that the contention of the respondents that the applicant is working in the Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/- is highly misleading because his pay fixed at the Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- is by virtue of the financial up-gradations under the MACP. According to him when he got the second and third financial up-gradations, his Grade Pay reached Rs.2400/-. Applicant further states that the financial up-gradations so obtained is not a bar for being considered under the LARSGES Scheme.
4. Heard Mr. Martin G Thottan, learned counsel for applicant and learned counsel for the respondents also.
5. One of the main contentions of the respondents is that the applicant is ineligible for being considered for the LARSGES scheme because the post of Cabin Man which the applicant is holding does not come under the safety category.
6. LARSGESS is a scheme for early retirement of the Railway employees who belong to safety category, who are obliged to do heavy work requiring physical endurance which would further lead to physical inefficiency as the employee progresses in age. It is with the objective of facilitating them to avail of voluntary retirement and as a compensatory measure to grant employment to one of the wards of such employees, the LARSGES scheme has been framed by the Railways.
7. Learned counsel for respondents pointed out that the vailidity of LARSGES scheme is under challenge in a matter before the Principal Bench of this Tribunal and that the matter has been referred to a full Bench of this Tribunal.
8. Shri.Martin pointed out that the applicant entered the services of the Railway as a Traffic Porter in the year 1978 and has rendered more than 33 years of qualifying service by now. He further submitted that though the applicant is designated as Cabin man, he actually belongs to the safety category consisting of Gang Man and Points Man. He pointed out that with the introduction of new technology in the signalling system of Railways, 'Cabin' system of signalling has been abolished. This Tribunal feels that it is a matter which can be taken judicial note of that in the Railways the Cabin Man shifting levers for signalling is no longer in existence.
9. Applicant has produced Annexure A-1 document issued by the Station Manager, Southern Railway, Thrissur who endorses that the applicant is working under that Station as Cabin Man Grade I, Thrissur and that he has been working in that post right from 2002. In Annexure A-1 the details of the duties performed by him have been indicated as (i) Gang Man in G.No.33/800/900 km from 22.6.2002 to 23.1.2009 and (ii) at Thrissur station from 24.1.2009 till date (i.e; 4.10.2014) as Points Man.
10. This Tribunal feels that in the light of Annexure A-1 and as Cabin System is no longer in vogue in the Railways for signalling, Applicant can be considered to have been posted as Points Man. The category of Points Man is eligible to be considered for voluntary retirement under the LARSGES scheme.
11. The next contention of the respondents is that the applicant is facing SF-5 disciplinary proceedings. Shri.Martin handed over a copy of the punishment order No. V/T GL/SF-5/TCR/2/2013, dated 23.10.2014 issued by the disciplinary authority awarding the penalty of reduction of pay by one stage from Rs. 13,160+G.P. 2400 to Rs.12,700+ G.P 2400 in scale of Rs.5200-20200/- for a period of 24 months from 01.01.2015 without cumulative effect. That being the nature of the penalty imposed on the applicant in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, Shri.Martin submitted that the punishment awarded is a minor penalty which will have no adverse consequences on the career prospects of the employee and that it will not affect his right to be considered for LARSGES scheme. This Tribunal finds some force in that contention.
12. The next allegation against the applicant was that he has crossed the salary limit fixed for being considered under the LARSGES scheme. According to respondents, applicant is drawing a Grade Pay of Rs.2400/-. The respondents contend that since he has exceeded the limit Grade Pay of Rs.1800 fixed for LARSGES, he is not eligible under that Scheme. Shri.Martin referred to Annexure A-2 - a copy of the communication dated 5.6.2014 relating to the LARSGESS in Trivandrum Division. In Annexure A-2 it is specifically mentioned at paragraph 9 that the employees who have been granted with higher pay under the MACP (with regular Grade Pay of Rs.1800) are also eligible to avail of the facility of LARSGESS. Thus it is clear that though the applicant is in the present Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- by virtue of the financial up-gradations he has obtained under the MACP scheme since 01.09.2008, he entitled to be considered for LARGES.
13. On careful consideration of the rival contentions of the parties in this case this Tribunal is of the view that applicant is perfectly eligible for being considered for LARSGES as he is actually working as a Points Man and which falls under the safety category, as per the scheme. His present Grade Pay also will be of no consequence in view of the exemption in Annexure A-2 for employees who have obtained higher Grade Pay by way of financial up-gradations under the MACP scheme. The penalty imposed on the applicant also is of no consequence because it falls within the minor penalty which will not ordinarily affect the career progression of the applicant. It is stated in the O.A that the applicant has preferred appeal against the aforementioned penalty and the appeal is still pending with the appellate authority.
14. Considering the totality of the circumstances involved in this Original Application it is hereby declared that the applicant is eligible to be considered for retirement under LARSGES scheme. Annexure A-4 to the extent it is applicable to the applicant is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to consider him for the LARSGES Scheme.
15. The Original Application is allowed to the extent as above.
16. No order as to cost.
(U. SARATHCHANDRAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER Sv