Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Ram Lakhan (Sc) vs Union Of India Through General Manager on 28 January, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Lucknow Bench, Lucknow.
Original Application No.260 of 2007
Reserved on 15.1.2014
Pronounced on 28th January, 2014.
Honble Mr. Navneet Kumar, Member-J
Honble Ms. Jayati Chandra, Member-A
Ram Lakhan (SC), aged about 64 years, S/o late Heera Ex-Mate under Senior Section Engineer (P.Way) (I), Northern Railway, Lucknow and resident of Village Gaulat Khera, P.O. Kankaha, District Lucknow.
Applicant
By Advocate: Sri A.C. Mishra.
Versus.
1. Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway, H.Q Office Baroda House, New Delhi.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway Lucknow.
3. The Senior Section Engineer (P.Way) (I), Northern Railway, Lucknow.
Respondents
By Advocate: Sri Ashish Mishra for Sri M.K. Singh.
O R D E R
Per Ms. Jayati Chandra, Member-A. The applicant has filed this O.A. under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief(s):-
8.1. That the Honble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to fix his pay equal to the pay of his junior in the post of Black Smith w.e.f. his juniors date of promotion with consequential benefits.
8.2 The Honble Tribunal may also be pleased to direct the respondents to revise his pension and other pensionary benefits after fixing his pay in the category of Black Smith w.e.f. the date of promotion of his junior to the said post of Black Smith in the same grate by way of status promotion and allow the minimum benefit of Rs. 100/- as provided in RBE No. 244/99 attached as Annexure no.2 and pay the arrears with 18% interest.
8.3 Any other relief as deem fit in the eyes of the Honble Tribunal may also kindly be allowed to the applicant with costs.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as Gangman and retired from service on 30.6.2002 as Mate. He was promoted to the post of Hammer man after passing the trade test on 25.7.1985. However, without giving him any show cause notice or carrying out any disciplinary proceedings against him, he was reverted to the post of Key-man in August, 1985. It is averred that because of the said reversion, he could not be promoted to the post of Black Smith alongwith his juniors including one Sri Ram Sengar, who had been promoted to the post of Black Smith from the post of Hammer man in the year 1989. He preferred representation against financial loss faced by him by way of less salary and less pension then his juniors on 12.10.2006 and also sent legal notice dated 30.4.2007, but his grievance was not redressed. Hence, this O.A
3. The respondents have raised preliminary objection of delay in filing the O.A. stating therein that the case is highly barred by time as earlier supersession took place in the year 1989 when the applicant was very much in service. He gave his first representation in the year 2006 without explaining the delay in not filing the Original Application from 1989. More-over the applicant had been reverted to the post of Key-man on his own request vide application dated 30.5.1989. The respondents have further averred in the Counter Reply that the work and conduct of the applicant as Mate was highly unsatisfactory and as such he had been issued with Standard Form 11 dated 24.5.1995 (Annexure CA-2). Lastly, the respondents have averred in the Counter Reply that the claim of the applicant has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.
4. The applicant has filed Rejoinder Reply refuting the averments made in the Counter Reply and reiterating the stand taken in the Original Application. More-over, the applicant has averred in the Rejoinder Reply that the alleged application seeking reversion to the post of Key-man, was obtained from him fraudulently as he had been simply called for to the office of CPWI and asked to sign on plain paper.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings on record.
6. The applicants reversion from the post of Hammer Man to the post of Key man was effected in 1985 when he was very much in service. The first action taken by him in 2006, when he sent a representation. There is no history having taken any action taken by him during the intervening period before his retirement in 2002 against alleged the reversion. This matter appears to be highly time barred.
7. Coming to the merits of the case, in the instant case, we noticed that the applicant has not produced a copy of his appointment order, promotion order, reversion order as also copy of promotion order of persons allegedly junior to him. No copy of seniority list has also been furnished.
8. In view of the above, the applicant has failed to establish his case in any way. The O.A. is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(Ms. Jayati Chandra) (Navneet Kumar)
Member (A) Member (J)
Girish/-
3