Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
P Shivaprakash And Others vs South Western Railway on 6 March, 2025
1
O.A.Nos.170/61/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00061/2024
Order Reserved on: 21.2.2025
Date of Order: 06.03.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.K SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
1. P.Shivaprakash
S/o Late Prabhuswamy
Aged about 55 years
Safety Counsellor
S.W.Railway, Mysuru.
2. B.S.Rajeeva
S/o Late B.S.Shivappa
Aged about 55 years
Traffic Inspector to ADRM(Genl)
S.W.Railway, Mysuru.
3. C.Ramalinga Gowda
S/o Chikkana Gowda
Aged about 57 years
Station Manager/MNGT
S.W.Railway, Mysuru.
4. T.P.Dimu
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINEBangalore
CAT
Y VIJU 2025.03.07
17:47:48+05'30'
2
O.A.Nos.170/61/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
D/o Late R.Balakrishnan
Aged about 48 years
Safety Counsellor
S.W.Railway, Mysuru.
5. B.Srinivas
S/o Late S.B.Nagappa
Aged about 47 years
Traffic Inspector, S.W.Railway,
Mysuru. ...Applicants
(By Advocate Shri.K.Shivakumar)
Vs.
1. Union of India
Rep. By General Manager
S.W.Railway
Rail Soudha, Gadag Road,
Hubballi-580020
2. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
S.W.Railway, Divisional Office
Mysuru-570001
3. Sri.N.Vasudevan
Retired Station Manager
#39, 9th Cross
Sapthagiri Extension West
Tumkur-572102 ......Respondents
(By Advocate Shri.S.Prakash Shetty for R 1 to 3)
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINEBangalore
CAT
Y VIJU 2025.03.07
17:47:48+05'30'
3
O.A.Nos.170/61/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
ORDER
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 claiming the following reliefs:
"(i) Quash the letter no.
Y/P.612/11/SS/SM/Vol.06 dated
22.09.2023 (Annexure-A5) issued by the second respondent as un- constitutional, illogical, and un-reasonable and against rules:
(ii) Direct the respondents to extend the benefit of stepping up of pay of the applicants at par with Respondent no.3 from 16.06.2008, the date on which they were promoted to Scale Rs.5500-9000 with all consequential benefits and
(iii) Grant any other relief or reliefs as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity."
2. These reliefs are claimed on the grounds as mentioned in paragraphs 5(1) to (3) of the Original Application. The brief facts as narrated by the applicants are that the applicants SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:47:48+05'30' 4 O.A.Nos.170/61/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE while working as Station Master Grade III in Scale Rs.5000- 8000 in Mysuru Division of South Western Railway, the respondents issued a notification for filling up of the posts of Traffic Apprentice in Scale Rs.5500-9000 under 10% LDCE quota. On being selected to the post of Traffic Apprentice, the applicants were placed in the selected panel dated 19.12.2005. But due to administrative reasons, they were sent for training on 13.11.2006 only instead of 16.06.2006.
3. On completion of training in 2008, their pay was not fixed in the promoted scale of Rs.5500-9000 and it was fixed only in 2018 after the direction was issued by the principal Chief Personnel Officer and they were placed in the promoted post of Station Master Grade II in scale Rs.5500- 9000 from 16.06.2008.
4. As the third respondent was promoted to the post of Station Master Grade II in scale of 5500-9000 only on 23.07.2008 and being a junior he was drawing more pay than SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:47:48+05'30' 5 O.A.Nos.170/61/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE these applicants, they approached the Respondent no.2 with a prayer to step up their pay at par with their junior. As the issue was pending and no action was taken by the respondent to settle the pending grievance, the applicants submitted individual representations in 2022 seeking stepping up of their pay with that of the third respondent from 16.06.2008 and the same was disposed of by the second respondent rejecting the claim. As the genuine prayer of the applicants has not been considered by the Respondents, the applicants have no other alternative remedy. Hence the applicants have approached this Tribunal seeking the aforementioned reliefs.
5. On notice, the respondents have filed their reply statement. No rejoinder has been filed.
6. The case came up for final hearing on 21.2.2025. Shri K.Shivakumar for the applicants and Shri.S.Prakash Shetty for the respondents were present and heard on O.A as well as M.A 54/2024.
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:47:48+05'30' 6 O.A.Nos.170/61/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
7. We have carefully gone through the entire records and considered the rival contentions.
8. M.A 54/2024 has been filed by the applicants for condoning the delay of 32 months in filing the O.A.
9. The contentions of the applicants in the M.A 54/2024 are that further to the completion of training and on absorption in the post of Traffic Apprentice, their pay fixation and seniority was done only after 10 years by the respondent by their order dated 29.5.2018. As their pay has been fixed lower than that of the junior respondent no.3 in 2018 and aggrieved by the decision of the respondent in non- considering their request for the stepping up of pay, the applicants should have approached this Tribunal within one year i.e. on or before 29.5.2019, but the applicants were waiting for the response from the respondents. They submit that by taking the exemption on limitation granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court from March 2020 to Feb 2022, the SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:47:48+05'30' 7 O.A.Nos.170/61/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE O.A suffers from the delay of about 32 months. Hence, the applicants pray for condonation of delay in filing the O.A as the delay was due to un-avoidable reasons and un-intentional.
10. In the objection filed by the respondents to M.A 54/2024, they have mentioned that the applicants have filed this O.A after taking 67 months and 23 days and misleading this Tribunal by stating that there is only a delay of 32 months in filing the O.A. Relying on Section 21 of Chapter IV of the Administrative Tribunals Act and on various Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments, respondents submit that inordinate delay itself is a ground to refuse the reliefs to the applicants. Hence they submit that the M.A needs to be dismissed.
11. In the matter of condonation of delay in filing appeals beyond the limitation period, as per various judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the courts are empowered to condone the delay, provided the litigant SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:47:48+05'30' 8 O.A.Nos.170/61/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE can demonstrate that there was sufficient cause in preferring appeal beyond the limitation period and that generally delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice, where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay. Also, in pay matters, there exists a recurring cause of action and the delay in approaching the Court/Tribunals may not arise in such cases. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, taking into consideration the reasons as stated in M.A 54/2024 and as it is a matter related to their pay, M.A is allowed and the delay in filing the Original Application is condoned.
12. The basic facts of the case are not disputed. Applicants in the Original Application have not given any comparative chart of the service details of the applicants when compared to the third respondent with whom they are comparing their case and want pay parity of stepping up their pay on par with their junior. But in the reply statement, the respondents, in SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:47:48+05'30' 9 O.A.Nos.170/61/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE Annexure R-2, have given a comparative statement of the service particulars and pay particulars of respondent no.3 Shri.N.Vasudevan versus his junior applicant no.1 Shri.P.Shivaprakash. As no rejoinder has been filed controverting the same, hence, the details of facts provided in the said Annexure R-2 is considered reliable, and is taken as a type example of one of the applicants among the five applicants before us. Annexure R-2 reads as follows:-
N.Vasudevan, Rtd SS/GBB P.Shiva Prakash, SFC/MYS Date of appointment:7.7.1986 Appointed on 15.02.1993 Desig. Pay Scale, PB w.e.f Remarks Desig. Pay Scale, PB w.e.f Remarks Level Level Trainee 330 330-560 7.7.86 Appointed Assistant Station Master Assistant 1200 1200-2040 09.01.87 Independen Station t charge Master 1230 1200-2040 01.01.88 1260 1200-2040 01.01.89 1290 1200-2040 01.01.90 1320 1200-2040 01.01.91 Station 1400 1400-2300 25.07.91 Promoted Master Gr-
III 1440 1400-2300 01.07.92 Trainee 1200 1200-2040 15.02.93 Appointed Assistan t Station Master 1480 1400-2300 01.09.93 Assistan 1200 1200-2040 25.06.93 Independe t Station nt charge Master 1520 1400-2300 01.07.94 1230 1200-2040 01.02.94 1560 1400-2300 01.07.95 1260 1200-2040 01.02.95 5150 5000-8000 01.01.96 Vth CPC 4500 4500-7000 01.01.96 Vth CPC 5300 5000-8000 01.02.96 4625 4500-7000 01.02.96 5450 5000-8000 01.02.97 Station 5000 5000-8000 28.02.97 Promoted Master Gr-III 5600 5000-8000 01.02.98 5150 5000-8000 01.02.98 5750 5000-8000 01.02.99 5300 5000-8000 01.02.99 5900 5000-8000 01.02.00 5450 5000-8000 01.02.00 6050 5000-8000 01.02.01 5600 5000-8000 01.02.01 6200 5000-8000 01.02.02 5750 5000-8000 01.02.02 Without 6200 5000-8000 01.02.03 With 5900 5000-8000 01.02.03 punishmen holding t 6350 annual increment for a period of 24 months N/R SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:47:48+05'30' 10 O.A.Nos.170/61/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE Without 6200 5000-8000 01.02.04 6050 5000-8000 01.02.04 punishmen t 6500 6650 5000-8000 01.02.05 Pay 6200 5000-8000 01.02.05 restored 6800 5000-8000 01.02.06 6350 5000-8000 01.02.06 16850 9300- 01.01.06 VIth CPC 16020 9300- 01.01.06 VIth CPC 34800+4200 34800+4200 17360 9300- 01.07.06 16500 9300- 01.07.06 34800+4200 34800+4200 17880 9300- 01.07.07 17000 9300- 01.07.07 34800+4200 34800+4200 18420 9300- 01.07.08 Station 17000 9300- 16.06.08 (Traffic 34800+4200 Master 34800+4200 Apprentic Gr-II e) Promoted as SM-II, Fixation benefit as per GM/PNM Staiton 18980 9300- 05.07.08 Promoted 18040 9300- 01.07.08 Deemed Master Gr- 34800+4200 as SM-II 34800+4200 option II 19950 9300- 01.09.08 18990 9300- 01.09.08 34800+4600 34800+4600 20550 9300- 01.07.09 19560 9300- 01.07.09 34800+4600 34800+4600 21170 9300- 01.07.10 20150 9300- 01.07.10 34800+4600 34800+4600 21810 9300- 01.07.11 20760 9300- 01.07.11 34800+4600 34800+4600 22470 9300- 01.07.12 21390 9300- 01.07.12 34800+4600 34800+4600 23150 9300- 01.07.13 21390 9300- 01.07.13 With 34800+4600 34800+4600 holding of annual increment for a period of 12 months 23850 9300- 01.07.14 22710 9300- 01.07.14 34800+4600 34800+4600 24570 9300- 01.07.15 23400 9300- 01.07.15 34800+4600 34800+4600 64100 Level-07 01.01.16 VIIth PC 60400 Level-07 01.01.16 VIIth PC 66000 Level-07 01.07.16 62200 Level-07 01.07.16 68000 Level-08 10.01.17 MACP - - -
70000 Level-08 01.07.17 64100 Level-07 01.07.17 71300 Level-09 16.02.18 66000 Level-08 16.02.18 MACP 75600 Level-09 01.07.18 Annual 68000 Level-08 01.07.18 increment 77900 Level-09 01.01.19 On option 70000 Level-08 01.01.19 as per RBE No.212/19 & 35/21 Retd. on 72100 Level-08 01.01.20 31.01.19 74300 Level-08 01.01.21 76500 Level-08 01.01.22 77900 Level-08 01.01.23 80200 Level-09 25.06.23 MACP 85100 Level-09 01.01.24 A/I 87700 Level-09 01.07.24 Option as per RBE 212/19 & 35/21
13. From the facts of the said Annexure R-2, it is very clear that the respondent no.3 Shri. N.Vasudevan was appointed as SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:47:48+05'30' 11 O.A.Nos.170/61/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE Trainee Assistant Station Master on 7.7.1986 whereas the first applicant Shri. P.Shivaprakash was appointed as Trainee Assistant Station Master only on 15.2.1993. Further, respondent no.3 was given independent charge as Assistant Station Master on 9.1.1987 and the first applicant was given the independent charge of Assistant Station Master on 25.6.1993 only. The third respondent was promoted on 25.7.1991 as Station Master Grade III and the first applicant was promoted as Station Master Grade III only on 28.2.1997. Further, the respondent no.3 suffered withholding of one annual increment for 24 months with effect from 1.2.2003 which was restored on 1.2.2005. Further the first applicant was promoted to the grade of Station Master Grade II on 16.6.2008 through a fast track LDCE whereas the respondent no.3 in due course was later promoted as Station Master Grade II only on 5.7.2008.
14. Now the applicants are claiming pay parity with respondent no.3 on the ground that in the promoted (through SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:47:48+05'30' 12 O.A.Nos.170/61/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE LDCE) grade of Station Master Grade II, the applicants came on 16.6.2008 and became senior to the third respondent, as the respondent no.3 came to be promoted in due course only on 5.7.2008. If these facts are not denied or controverted with any other set of facts, then the assertion of applicants in his O.A that the respondent no.3 was their junior and as he was getting more pay in the grade of Station Master Grade II on 5.7.2008 they should get parity with that of Respondent no.3 and stepping up benefit should be provided to them may not appear to be appropriate on the instructions related to the pay parity and stepping up of pay. Further one should keep in mind the fast track 'promotion' through merit by the route of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) is strictly not a 'promotion' by very nature of it, but a new recruitment and appointment by merit and limited departmental competitive examination. Hence such candidates who have come faster in the higher grade superseding (in essence) many of the seniors in their lower SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:47:48+05'30' 13 O.A.Nos.170/61/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE grade, cannot claim pay parity when their seniors subsequently are coming to the higher level through the regular route of promotion.
15. As rightly mentioned by the respondents that the stepping up of the pay can be granted to senior employees on par with their juniors, only if the conditions mentioned in RBE No.103/2008 & 90/2016 are fulfilled. The said conditions are following:
a) Both the junior and the senior railway servants should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted should be identical in the same cadre
b) The pre-revised scale of pay and the revised grade pay of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical
c) The senior railway servants at the time of promotion should have been drawing equal or more pay than the junior.
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:47:48+05'30' 14 O.A.Nos.170/61/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
16. Clearly, the fact as mentioned in Annexure R-2 will apparently show the first two conditions that both the junior and the senior railway servants should belong to the same cadre is met (although it is an accepted fact that the applicants were actually junior to the respondents in the junior cadres and only on promotion to the grade of Station Master Gr.II by LDCE the applicants became senior to the respondents) and the posts in which they have been promoted should be identical in the same cadre and the pre-revised scale of pay and the revised grade pay of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical, but in reality these two conditions are also not met as the applicants were actually junior to the respondent no.3 in junior cadres. Furthermore, the third condition is also not met in this case as clearly it is false to say that the first applicant Shri.P.Shivaprakash was senior to respondent no.3 Shri.N.Vasudevan in the earlier scale from which they were promoted to the post of Station Master Grade II and that the SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:47:48+05'30' 15 O.A.Nos.170/61/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE first applicant was drawing equal or more pay than the respondent no.3 at the time of promotion.
17. As from the given table itself, it is very clear that on 1.7.2007, respondent no.3 Shri.N.Vasudevan was drawing a pay of Rs.17,880/- and his salary became Rs.18420/- on 1.7.2008 whereas the first applicant Shri.P.Shivaprakash was drawing a salary of only Rs.17000/- on 1.7.2007 and when he was promoted and put as Traffic Apprentice promoted as Station Master II on 16.6.2008, applicant no.1 remained at that level at Rs.17000/-. So he was clearly getting lesser salary and he was also junior as respondent no.3 got into service on 7.7.1986 and he got promotion to the grade of Station Master Grade III on 25.7.1991 whereas the applicant no.1 Shri.P.Shivaprakash got an appointment on 15.2.1993 and he was promoted as Station Master Grade III only on 28.2.1997. Hence, the facts of the case does not in any way support the case of the applicants and we are of the SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:47:48+05'30' 16 O.A.Nos.170/61/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE considered opinion that the applicants have failed to make out any case for themselves.
18. Hence, clearly as asserted by the respondents, the stepping up conditions as mentioned in RBE No.103/2008 and 90/2016 particularly the condition at (c) is not fulfilled in the present case. Hence, there is no clear ground to give any relief to the applicants.
19. Let us examine one by one the grounds made out as in the Original Application.
20. In paragraph 5(1), the applicants submit that the request of the applicants have been turned down on unreasonable grounds.
Again, there is no clarity on what ground they are talking about as un-reasonable. We have seen the impugned order at Annexure A-5 which is for pay parity with Shri.N.Vasudevan, which mentions the following:
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:47:48+05'30' 17 O.A.Nos.170/61/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE "Your representations dated 29.08.2022 for stepping up of pay on par with your Junior Shri. N.VASUDEVAN, Rtd SS/GBB has been examined in detail and following observations have been made.
As per instructions contained in RBE No. 103/2008 & 90/2016, stepping up is admissible only in the following circumstances.
a) Both the junior and the senior railway servants /should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted should be identical in the same cadre.
b) The pre-revised scale of pay and the revised grade pay of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical.
c) The Senior Railway servants at the time of promotion should have been drawing equal or more pay than the junior.
As could be seen from the service register of N.VASUDEVAN, Rtd SS/GBB and yourself, it is clear that at any point, your pay is not identical to that of your junior viz Shri. N. VASUDEVAN either at the time of Promotion as ASM in Scale 1200-2040 or at the time of Promotion as SM-III in SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:47:48+05'30' 18 O.A.Nos.170/61/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE the scale of Rs.5000-8000. Also you and Shri. VASUDEVAN were not promoted on same dates. His appointment was earlier to your appointment.
In the light of the above stated circumstances, stepping of pay is not admissible.
This has the approval of Competent Authority."
Clearly, this impugned order shows that the respondent no.3's appointment was earlier to the appointment of the applicants and his pay was never equal to them. So stepping up is not admissible based on the instructions contained in RBE No.103/2008 and 90/2016.
Merely, because through LDCE they had fast track promotion and they became senior to respondent no.3 in the promoted grade of Station Master II, there is no ground for stepping up of the pay as per the rule placed before us. Hence, the contention in paragraph 5 (i) does not make any clear case for the applicants.
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:47:48+05'30' 19 O.A.Nos.170/61/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
21. In paragraph 5(2). the applicants submit that they are fulfilling the conditions stipulated in para 2 of their communication dated 22.09.2023. It is an admitted fact that the third respondent was appointed earlier to the applicants and he was senior to the applicants till 2008 and he became junior to the applicants in scale of Pay Rs. 5500-9000 based on the date of promotion.
So in this paragraph, clearly the facts as earlier examined by us is admitted by the applicants. But these facts do not make out the case as the applicants were not senior to the respondent no.3 in the grade from which they got fast track promotion through LDCE, nor were the applicants drawing equal or more emoluments at that lower stage. Also, after the respondent no.3 got promotion on 5.7.2008 later than the applicants promotion dated 16.6.2008, that the applicants cannot claim parity and stepping up as they do not fulfill the three conditions, and more particularly the third condition (c) as examined earlier. Hence, the grounds SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:47:48+05'30' 20 O.A.Nos.170/61/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE mentioned in paragraph 5(2) do not make any sound argument in favour of the applicants.
22. In paragraph 5(3), the applicants submit that it has been admitted by the respondent that the third respondent is junior to the applicants. When so, the claim of the applicants for steeping up their pay at par with their juniors from the date of their promotion to scale Rs.5500-9000 is in order and needs to be considered positively.
This assertion is erroneous as it is only half the truth. The stepping up is not based on merely that if a junior is having more pay at a certain level than the senior, but other conditions which are laid down particularly the condition (c) of RBE 103/2008 and 90/2016 that "the Senior Railway servants at the time of promotion should have been drawing equal or more pay than the junior" which claim as per Annexure R-2 are proved to be absolutely false as the applicants just before their promotion were drawing Rs.17000/- whereas respondent no.3 as on 1.7.2007 was SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:47:48+05'30' 21 O.A.Nos.170/61/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE already drawing Rs.17,880/- as he was senior to the applicants and he had higher pay. If those three conditions as discussed earlier were not met, there is no case for the applicants. Hence, the grounds made out in this paragraph in no way substantiate the case of the applicants.
23. Considering these, we are of the considered opinion that the applicants have not made out any convincing case for themselves for stepping up of their pay vis-a-vis their junior respondent no.3 Shri.N.Vasudevan in the grade of Station Master Grade II where the applicants became first time senior to the said respondent no.3 as they reached there faster through the LDCE, and before that grade, all the applicants were admittedly junior to the respondent no.3 and were drawing much lower salary than the respondent no.3. Hence, we pass the following orders:
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINEBangalore CAT Y VIJU 2025.03.07 17:47:48+05'30' 22 O.A.Nos.170/61/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE The Original Application is dismissed. Accordingly, pending M.As, if any, are also disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- sd/-
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE B.K.SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/SV/
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINEBangalore
CAT
Y VIJU 2025.03.07
17:47:48+05'30'