Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

26.10.2022 Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

07.

2. Heard Mr. N.R. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Gochhayat, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 15.10.2014 passed in O.A. No.229 of 2011 under Annexure-1, by which the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack has dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner by holding that the petitioner is not entitled to 30% pay element in lieu of running allowance in the grade of Traffic Apprentices/Section Controller.

4. Mr. N.R. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Goods Guard. While working as such, he was selected for the post of Traffic Apprentice in the year 2005 through a General Departmental Competitive Examination Scheme and on completion of training, he was posted against the working post with effect from 16.09.2007 and accordingly his pay was fixed in the scale of pay of Rs.5500-9000/-. But the Railway Board issued RBE No.132 of 2006 for pay fixation of running staff on their appointment to posts under the General Departmental Competitive Examination Scheme. Thereafter, though the petitioner submitted his representation for fixation of his pay with benefit of 30% pay elements, the same was rejected. Therefore, the petitioner approached the tribunal by filing O.A. No. 229 of 2011 and in turn though the tribunal heard the matter on 17.03.2014, but delivered the judgment on 15.10.2014. Thus, it is contended that there is inordinate delay in disposal of the matter. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Nityananda Barik v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 16659 of 2014 disposed of on 05.05.2022), by which this Court taking note of the provisions contained in Sub-rule (a) of Rule-105 of Chapter-XVII of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993 came to a conclusion that the order impugned having been passed after long lapse of keeping the order reserved, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.