Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 404 (RAJ)

Union of India v. Vishwamitra

2005-02-09

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2005
Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.-In all these cases, a very short question arises that in each case, the respondent incumbent was employed on various projects of the petitioner railways and drawing certain pay for the duties he discharged. The workman claimed regularisation on the post under category "C" However, ultimately under the scheme approved by the Supreme Court, the casual labourers working on different projects were regularised after screening in Group D category of posts. An undertaking was give before the Supreme Court on behalf of the present petitioner-Railway that the pay of such incumbents who have been regularised in Group D posts, which they were drawing at the time of regularisation shall be granted until they are promoted in C category posts. 2. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, when the respondent/applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal in each case were regularised in D category of post, when their pay was not protected, that O.A.s were filed to claim pay protection. These writ petitions arise out of these proceedings and only question raised is about protection of pay of each incumbent which he was drawing at the time of regularisation in Group D post. 3. We may notice that in O.A. No. 354/99, 382/99 and 383/99, which was decided by a common order dated 9.2.2001 and are subject matter of writ petitions No. 458/2003, 463/2003 and 1577/2003, the present petitioners have taken a specific stand that cases of the applicants were squarely covered by a Full Bench decision of the Tribunal in O.A. No 57/1996 Aslam Khan vs. Union of India & Ors., decided on 30th October, 2000. The Tribunal after quoting from the said case the following passage held that so far as prayer for absorption in Group C is concerned, the petition is dismissed. The Tribunal after quoting from the said case the following passage held that so far as prayer for absorption in Group C is concerned, the petition is dismissed. However, the respondent shall protect the pay of all these applications which they were drawing while holding Group C posts, after their posting against Group D: "Whether the person directly engaged on Group C post (promotional post) as casual basis and subsequently, acquired temporary status, would be entitled to be regularised on Group C post directly or whether such person requires to be regularized in the feeding cadre in Group D post by providing pay protection of Group C posts." It was held as under : "A person directly engaged on Group "C" post (promotional post) on casual basis and has been subsequently granted temporary status would not be entitled to be regularised on Group C post directly but would be liable to be regularized in the feeder cadre in Group D post only. His pay which he drew in the Group C post, will however be liable to be protected." 4. This appears to be in consonance with undertaking given by the Railway before the Supreme Court in Ram Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1988 SC 390 and Aslam Khans case which has not been challenged. In this aspect of the matter, namely protecting pay of the workman regularised on Group D posts while they were drawing the pay higher than the minimum of pay scale in Group C posts. Obviously, the prayer was granted in terms of the undertaking given before the Supreme Court in terms of the scheme framed for regularisation of casual workers working on different projects for longer period and were not subject matter of litigation. 5. In all these cases, the Tribunal has granted the small relief while rejecting their claims of regularisation in Group C, the pay has been protected. 6. Our attention has been invited to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Union of India & Anr. vs. Tola Ram & Anr., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3195/2001 wherein this Court after taking into consideration that the Tribunal has decided the case of the incumbent following its earlier decision in Aslam Khan vs. UOI , which has been accepted by the petitioner and the petition of the Union of India was dismissed. 7. vs. Tola Ram & Anr., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3195/2001 wherein this Court after taking into consideration that the Tribunal has decided the case of the incumbent following its earlier decision in Aslam Khan vs. UOI , which has been accepted by the petitioner and the petition of the Union of India was dismissed. 7. The facts of the present case are not different. Accordingly, in view of the undertaking given by the petitioners before the Supreme Court as a part of the package offered for regularisation of various employees working for long durations on different projects on Group D posts and protecting their pays at the relevant time until they are promoted to Group C posts and the fact that the directions to this effect accorded by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Aslam Khans case has also been accepted by the Union of India, following the same, this Court has earlier declined to interfere in such orders, these petitions must also meet the same fate. 8. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed. Before parting we may clarify that there may not be any confusion between protecting of pay and protection of pay scale. The two expressions convey different meanings and in the present case, only pay has been protected but there is no protection of pay scale.