Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO 4662/97 (@ Special Leave Petition (c) No. 14262/97 1601/96) W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO.4663/97 (@ Special Leave Petition (c) No.24606 of 1996) W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4664/97 (@ Special Leave Petition (c) NO. 12463/97 CC 23426/94) J U D G M E N T KIRPAL, J.

Civil Appeal No. 8852/96 with C.A.Nos........./97 (arising out of SLP (c) CC No. 1601/96 and SLP (c) No. 24606/96) Leave granted.

The issue which arises in these appeals from the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, relates to stepping up of the pay of the respondents who were promoted as Loco Running Supervisor prior to 1st January, 1986 vis-a- vis the pay of one Sh. P.N. Kareer who was promoted to that post after 1st January, 1986 but was drawing higher pay than the respondents.

The locomotive drivers are eligible for promotion, amongst other posts, to those of Loco Supervisors. The aforesaid Sh. Kareer and the respondents, at one time, were holding the running post of Driver Grade-C. Sh. Kareer had been promoted as Driver Grade-C on 29th August, 1961. In other words, Sh. Kareer was senior to the respondents as Driver Grade-C. The respondents then opted to be promoted to the 'stationary post' of Loco Supervisor directly from the post of Driver Grade-C which they were holding. Their promotion was made prior to 1st January, 1986 and they were placed in the grade of Rs. 550 - 750.

Sh. Kareer chose to remain in the running staff. On 1st January, 1981 he was promoted as Driver Grade-B in the scale of Rs. 425-640 and his pay was fixed at Rs. 580/-. Thereafter on 28th November, 1984 Sh. Kareer was promoted as Driver Grade-A in the scale of Rs. 550-700. With effect from 1st January, 1986 revised pay scales came into existence as a result of the fourth pay commission report. At that time the respondents were working on the stationary post of Loco Supervisors while Sh. Kareer was working on the running post of Driver Grade-A. The pay of running staff on promotion to Loco Supervisor's post is fixed under Rule 1316 of Indian Railway Establishment Code after fixation of an additional component of thirty per cent of basic pay last drawn in the running cadre, which represents the pay element in the running allowance. On introduction of the revised pay scales with effect from 1st January, 1986 this thirty per cent addition in the pay element of the running allowance increased which resulted in higher fixation of pay of running staff appointed as Loco Supervisors after 1st January, 1986 than those appointed as Loco Supervisors before 1st January, 1986. Therefore, when Sh. Kareer was appointed as a Loco Supervisor, his pay as Loco Supervisor was fixed after taking into account the aforesaid thirty per cent addition which resulted in his getting higher pay than the respondents. It appears that in the pay of respondent - O.P. Saxena was stepped up but when the department discovered that the benefit had been wrongly given to him his pay was re-fixed and recoveries were made of the excess amount paid to him. Sh. O.P. Saxena challenged the aforesaid decision by filing OA No. 462 of 1994 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur. O.A. Nos. 191/94 and 768/93 were filed by the other respondents seeking the benefit of stepping up.

It is not in dispute that as driver Grate C Sh. Kareer was senior to and was drawing more salary than the respondents. Thereafter while Sh. Kareer remained in the cadre of running staff the respondents by choice as Loco Supervisors. Thereafter Sh. Kareer on the one posted as Loco Supervisors. Thereafter Sh. Kareer on the one hand and the respondents on the other belonged to two different cadres having their own seniority list. The pay of Sh. Kareer was fixed according to the scales which were approved for the running staff including the running allowance. Sh. Kareer was drawing more salary as Driver Grade-A, just before his appointment as a Loco Supervisor, than the respondents. With the revision of pay scales with effect from 1st January, 1986 Sh. Kareer's pay was fixed at Rs. 2360/- as on 1st January, 1986 while the salary of respondent - O.P. Saxena on the stationary to the post which he was holding was Rs. 2300/-. The sources of the recruitment to the post of Loco Supervisor in the case of Sh. Kareer vis-a-vis the respondents being different the principle of stepping up of pay would not arise. Whereas the respondents were promoted as Loco Supervisors from Driver Grade-C, Sh. Kareer on the other hand was placed in the cadre of Loco Supervisor after being promoted from the post of Driver Grade-A. When the feeder posts of Sh. Kareer and that of the other respondents were different the applicability of the principle of stepping up cannot apply. The pay of Sh. Kareer had to be fixed with reference to what he was last drawing as Driver Grade-A, a post which was never held by any of the respondents. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in applying the principle of stepping up and in directing there fixation of the pay of the respondents.