Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 839 (GAU)

Union of India v. Bideswar Mishra

2019-07-18

A.K.GOSWAMI, MANISH CHOUDHURY

body2019
JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. 1. Heard Mr. H.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have called into question the legality and validity of the order dated 19.5.2016 in Original Application No. 040/00129/2014 as well as the order dated 1.9.2016 in Review Application No. 10/2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal')- 3. At the outset, it may be noted that the respondent had retired from service on 31.3.2018 as Motor Driver/Grade-L 4. The respondent was appointed as Motor Driver/Grade-III under the Deputy Signal & Telecommunication Engineer, Telecommunications (Construction), N.F. Railway, Maligaon on 15.7.97. By an order dated 2.12.99, the respondent was granted ad hoc promotion to the post of Motor Driver/Grade-II in the scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-. It was indicated in the said order that no claim can be raised in respect of seniority vis-à-vis others in the open line consequent upon such temporary promotion. The respondent continued to serve as Motor Driver/Grade-II and while serving as such he appeared in the trade test for regular promotion to the post of Motor Driver/Grade-II on 22.6.2006. The respondent, on having passed the trade test (practical and oral), was provisionally empanelled for the post of Motor Driver/Grade-II in the scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-. Subsequently, the respondent was promoted to officiate as Motor Driver/Grade-II in the scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- by an order dated 7.8.2006. 5. It is the case of the respondent that he was enjoying the basic pay of Rs. 4600/- when he was discharging his duties as Motor Driver/Grade-II on ad hoc basis immediately before his regular promotion. Moreover, arbitrarily, by an office order dated 8.1.2007, his pay was fixed on regular promotion at Rs. 4000/- w.e.f. 14.9.2006 i.e. the date of joining. 6. The learned Tribunal noted that the respondent has raised the issue of his pay fixation being not done in proper manner resulting in reduction of his pay. The Tribunal relied on Note-5 of the Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 issued vide Notification dated 4.9.2008 to conclude that the basic pay of the respondent ought to have been fixed at Rs. 4600/- instead of Rs. 4000/-. The Tribunal relied on Note-5 of the Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 issued vide Notification dated 4.9.2008 to conclude that the basic pay of the respondent ought to have been fixed at Rs. 4600/- instead of Rs. 4000/-. Though Note-5 is reproduced in the order of the learned Tribunal, we also think it appropriate to quote Note-5 as the very basis of the order of the learned Tribunal is the said Note. The Note reads as under: "Note-5 Where a Railway servant is holding a permanent post and is officiating in a higher post on a regular basis and the scales applicable to these two posts are merged into one scale, the pay shall be fixed under this sub-rule with reference to the officiating post only, and the pay so fixed shall be treated as substantive pay.". 7. Mr. Das has submitted that reliance placed by the learned Tribunal on Note-5, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is wholly inappropriate as it is not a case of merger of scales applicable to two posts into one scale and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. It is further submitted by him that even otherwise there cannot be any protection of pay on the premise that the respondent was drawing higher basic pay while serving in the higher post on ad hoc basis, in as much as, on the date when the respondent was regularly appointed, necessarily, he has to be placed at the bottom of the basic pay scale applicable to the post in question. To substantiate his argument, Mr. Das has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Bhanwar Lal Mundan, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 433 , with particular emphasis on Paragraph-22, which reads as under: "22. In the case at hand, as stated earlier, the respondent was getting higher scale of pay in the post while he was holding a particular post as a deputationist. After his repatriation to the parent cadre on selection to a higher post he was given higher scale of pay as it was fixed keeping in view the pay scale drawn by him while he was working in the ex-cadre post. Such fixation of pay, needless to say, was erroneous and, therefore, the authorities were within their domain to rectify the same. Such fixation of pay, needless to say, was erroneous and, therefore, the authorities were within their domain to rectify the same. Thus analysed, the irresistible conclusion is that the tribunal and the High Court have fallen into error by opining that the respondent would be entitled to get the pension on the basis of the pay drawn by him before his retirement.". 8. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent does not join issue with the submission of Mr. Das that Note-5 is not applicable and he fairly submits that according to him also, in the attending facts and circumstances of the case, the same may not be applicable. But he contends that as the respondent was functioning in a higher post for more than 7 years drawing Rs. 4600/- as basic pay at the time of regular promotion, the authorities ought to have fixed his pay at Rs. 4600/- instead of Rs. 4000/- on the principles of pay protection. In order to substantiate his argument, Mr. Dutta has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Badri Prasad & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2005) 11 SCC 304 . 9. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 10. Since Mr. Dutta has virtually conceded that Note-5 will not be applicable in the present facts and circumstances, it has to be understood that the reasoning assigned by the learned Tribunal for drawing the eventual conclusion on that premise may not be justified. But the learned Tribunal was alive to the core issue raised in the present case that pay fixation was not done in the proper manner. 11. In Badri Prasad (supra), the appellants before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, who were employees of the Railways, were allowed to work in a higher post in Group 'C' carrying a higher scale of pay for periods ranging from 9 to 16 years and thereafter, they were reverted from the Group 'C' post of Storeman to Group 'D' post of Khalasi in the open line. The appellants had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming regularisation and absorption in Group 'C' post on the ground that they had rendered service of around 10 years. The Tribunal directed consideration of their cases for regularisation after ascertaining the minimum eligibility criteria for the post and subjecting them to qualifying test. The appellants had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming regularisation and absorption in Group 'C' post on the ground that they had rendered service of around 10 years. The Tribunal directed consideration of their cases for regularisation after ascertaining the minimum eligibility criteria for the post and subjecting them to qualifying test. Aggrieved, the Union of India had challenged the aforesaid decision, which was allowed by the High Court by setting aside the order of the Tribunal. While doing so, the High Court had observed that the employees may be considered for regular employment along with other eligible candidates in terms of the relevant Rules after giving the benefit of relaxation of age keeping in view the fact that they had worked for a long time. In the appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the practice adopted by the Railways of taking work from employees in Group 'D' post on a higher Group 'C' post for unduly long period legitimately raises hopes and claims for higher posts by those working in such higher posts. It was further held that as the Railways is utilising the services of employees in Group 'D' post for higher post in Group 'C' carrying higher responsibilities, benefit of pay protection, age relaxation and counting of service on the higher post towards requisite minimum prescribed period of service, if any, for promotion to the higher post must be granted to them as their legitimate claim. While declining the relief of regularisation as claimed, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that the pay last drawn by the appellants in Group 'C' post shall be protected even after their repatriation to Group 'D' post in the parent department. 12. In the instant case, the respondent has not been repatriated to his original post of Motor Driver/Grade-in, rather he was regularly appointed in the post of Motor Driver/Grade- II after he had continued to serve in the said post for about 7 years, in the process earning increments as well in the pay scale applicable to Motor Driver/Grade-II. In our opinion, the principle enunciated in Badri Prasad (supra) will apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The decision in Bhanwar Lal Mundan (supra) was in respect of pay protection qua a deputationist. In our opinion, the principle enunciated in Badri Prasad (supra) will apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The decision in Bhanwar Lal Mundan (supra) was in respect of pay protection qua a deputationist. In that context it was held that even if a deputationist was getting higher scale of pay in the post held by him on deputation, once he comes back to his parent department, he would not be entitled to pay protection. The aforesaid decision was rendered on an altogether different context and the principle laid down therein will not come in aid of the petitioners. 13. In view of the above discussion, we direct the petitioners to re-fix the pay of the respondent by taking his basic pay (pre-revised) as Rs. 4600/- as on 1.1.2006, not in view of Note-5 contained in the Notification dated 4.9.2008 as held by the learned Tribunal, but for the reasons assigned by us hereinabove. 14. The petitioners will work out the entitlement of the respondent on the basis of the above determination and pay the amount due within a period of four months from today. 15. The writ petition stands disposed of. No cost.