Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1305 (MAD)

Union of India v. Registrar

2012-03-12

ELIPE DHARMA RAO, M.VENUGOPAL

body2012
Judgment (ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.) 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.3.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 76 of 2009, the Southern Railway represented by the Divisional Railway Manager and two other officers has come with the present writ petition. 2. The facts in brief are as follows :- The second respondent was appointed as Assistant Station Master in South Central Railway against direct recruitment quota and then transferred to Southern Railway on transfer. When the second respondent was working as Station Master Grade II at Guduvancheri, one M. Villavan Kothai, Station Master Grade I was transferred to Chennai Beach and the second respondent took charge on 23.6.2003 as Station Master Grade I in that place. While serving so, the second respondent made a representation dated 11.6.2007 claiming officiating allowance for various periods, but the same was rejected by order dated 31.10.2007 on the ground that since the second respondent had not completed two years of service on SM-II, he was not eligible for officiating claim. The said order came to be challenged before the Tribunal. 3. The Railways took a stand before the Tribunal to the effect that the second respondent had not completed two years of service. 4. On hearing the contentions, the Tribunal allowed the Original Application holding that the second respondent had not claimed any promotion and he had only claimed officiating allowance for the period to which he has actually worked. 5. The aforesaid order of the Tribunal was sought to be attacked by the learned counsel for the Railways mainly on the ground that as per Rule 103(33) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, the second respondent is not entitled for officiating allowance and the claim is impermissible. 6. Since strong reliance has been placed on Rule 103(33) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, it is extracted hereunder :- "Officiating means a railway servant officiating in a post where he performs the duties of a post on which any other person holds a lien or if the competent authority appoints him to officiate him in a vacant post, on which no other railway servant holds a lien. In cases of officiating, it is mandatory for the competent authority to appoint the railway servant to officiate him in a vacant post." 7. In cases of officiating, it is mandatory for the competent authority to appoint the railway servant to officiate him in a vacant post." 7. According to Rule 103(33) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, for getting officiating allowance, one has to perform the duties of a post on which no one could claim lien or if the competent authority appoints him in a vacant post where no other could claim lien and in case of officiating, it is mandatory to appoint a person in a vacant post. 8. In the present case, the second respondent had taken over the charge of Station Master Grade-I from one Villavan Kothai, on his transfer and in a vacant place. The petitioners have thought it fit to appoint the second respondent as it was mandatory. It is further not in dispute that the second respondent had satisfactorily performed the duties of the Station Master Grade-I for the period between 2003 and 2005. Therefore, the second respondent has satisfied all the conditions laid down in Rule 103(33) of the Code. He has performed the duty in a vacant post. Further, he has taken charge in the post by handing over letter dated 23.6.2003 and the competent authority thought that it was a mandatory post to be filled up by appointing a person in officiating capacity. 9. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed strong reliance on Rule 103(33) and submitted that in this case, no such appointment was done. By relying on the same, he would vehemently contend that the second respondent does not fall under the zone of consideration for the post of Station Master Grade-I and he has not put in required qualifying service. 10. It is true that the second respondent has not come within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Station Master Grade I as he was not having required qualified service. But, that is a matter for considering his case for promotion to the post of Station Master Grade I and not for performing the duties of the said post in an officiating capacity. Seeking a post by promotion is different from performing the duties of the post by officiating. The second respondent has performed the duties of the post in an officiating capacity and not under the promotional capacity. Seeking a post by promotion is different from performing the duties of the post by officiating. The second respondent has performed the duties of the post in an officiating capacity and not under the promotional capacity. Therefore, the petitioners, by no stretch of imagination, could contend that the second respondent is not eligible for officiating allowance. Moreover, it is not in dispute that the second respondent is claiming officiating allowance for the period for which he has actually worked as Station Master Grade I and not the promotion. 11. All these aspects have been considered by the Tribunal in detail in its impugned order. We do not see any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference of this Court. 12. From the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered opinion that the present writ petition filed by the Railway Board is a frivolous litigation when it is clear that the second respondent had discharged the functions of Station Master Grade I only on the direction of the authorities. The petitioners, after extracting work from the second respondent, instead of granting the officiating allowance, have come forward with the writ petition. 13. For the reasons stated above, the Writ petition is dismissed. The appellants are directed to grant the officiating allowance to the petitioner for the period he has discharged functions as Station Master Grade I, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Instead of granting officiating allowance to the second respondent, the petitioners have passed an irrelevant order dated 31.10.2007 and driven him to approach the Tribunal, where he obtained a favourable order. Instead of implementing the said order, adding over burden to the High Court, they have filed the present writ petition harassing the applicant further. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are hereby directed to pay cost of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the Madras Society for the protection of Children, New No. 891, Old No. 288, T.H. Road, Old Washermenpet, Chennai-21, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.