Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 903 (RAJ)

Union of India v. Jagdish Kumar Bulchandani

2019-03-26

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2019
JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by Union of India through its General Manager, North Western Zone, North Western Railway, Jaipur challenging the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur dated 13.11.2018. The Tribunal by the aforesaid judgment has allowed the Original Application filed by the respondent no. 1 and 2 and has directed the petitioners to grant them benefit of stepping up of their pay so as to make the same at par with the pay of their junior Shri R.C. Verma with effect from 23.05.2011 with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowance. 2. Shri Shailesh Prakash Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the respondents and Shri R.C. Verma were working on the same cadre post at the time they were promoted to the post of Chief Loco Inspector. While the respondents were initially promoted on the post of Loco Inspector from April, 1997 and figured in the seniority list of that cadre dated 11.5.2005 and thereafter were promoted to the post of Chief Loco Inspector on 27.11.2006. Shri R.C. Verma, at the relevant time, was working on the post of Senior Driver and it was from that post that he was promoted to the post of Chief Loco Inspector on 20.5.2011. Even if, therefore, the respondents were so senior to Shri R.C. Verma in the cadre of Chief Loco Inspector in the provisional seniority list of that cadre issued on 27.6.2011, the respondent would not be entitled to get their pay stepped up at par with that of Shri R.C. Verma because their promotion to the post of Chief Loco Inspector was made from different feeder cadres. Citing the letter of the Railway Board dated 28.11.2011 (Annexure-R/6) with regard to stepping up of pay, he argued that condition no. 3(a) mentioned therein is not satisfied in the case of the respondents, therefore, they would not be granted benefit of stepping up. The said condition provided that both the junior and the senior railway servants should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted and even identified in the same cadre and other conditions enumerated in Note 10 below Rule 7 of RS (RP) Rules, 2008 should be fulfilled. 3. The said condition provided that both the junior and the senior railway servants should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted and even identified in the same cadre and other conditions enumerated in Note 10 below Rule 7 of RS (RP) Rules, 2008 should be fulfilled. 3. Shri Chandra Bhan Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and argued that the Tribunal has rightly allowed the Original Application as the dispute in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of Calcutta High Court dated 7.12.2011 passed in WPCT No. 224 of 2010 which while reversing the judgment of the Tribunal in identical circumstances directed for stepping up of pay of the senior at par with his juniors. The aforesaid judgment of the Calcutta High Court was assailed before the Supreme Court and the SLP filed there against was dismissed and thereafter the writ petition was also dismissed. Learned counsel has also relied on the judgment of Delhi High Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Surinder Kumar Dhingra, W.P. (C) 2052/2012 & C.M. No. 4471/2012 dated 5.9.2017 in similar circumstances and argued that SLP No. 14746/2018 filed against that judgment has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 17.7.2018. 4. Perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal indicates that it noted that the Calcutta Bench of Tribunal in OA No. 847/2005 in somewhat identical circumstances held that "the stepping up of pay could not be claimed where the relevant seniors and juniors were not in the identical feeder grade prior to promotion." The aforesaid judgment was assailed before the Calcutta High Court, which while reversing the judgment of the Tribunal has held as under: "Once the incumbent joined the promotional post, the concept of stepping up is available, where the persons working in the same post get lesser pay than their junior in the same post. The eventuality and/or reason for such disparity might be different; however, such eventuality and/or reason, is not relevant. The concept is that the senior must not get lower pay than the junior, while working in the same post." 5. The aforesaid judgment of the Calcutta High Court was upheld by the Supreme Court in SLP No. 5901/2013 by order dated 11.2.2014. The concept is that the senior must not get lower pay than the junior, while working in the same post." 5. The aforesaid judgment of the Calcutta High Court was upheld by the Supreme Court in SLP No. 5901/2013 by order dated 11.2.2014. Thereafter when the review petition was filed in the matter, the same was also dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 3.12.2014. The Tribunal therefore rightly held that since the aforesaid judgment of the Calcutta High Court has attained finality "therefore the principle which holds in the case is that the stream/cadre/post from which promotion is made to a particular cadre or post is not relevant to the concept of stepping up of pay, which basically is that the senior must not get lower pay than the junior, while working on the same post." The Tribunal also noted that the fact that the respondents herein who were applicants before the Tribunal in the O.A. were senior to Shri R.C. Verma, has not been denied. Thus, the ratio of the judgment of the Calcutta High Court shall apply to their case as well. 6. The Delhi High Court in the aforesaid judgment of Surinder Kumar Dhingra, supra, was dealing with the same question of stepping up of pay of senior railway employee vis-à-vis his junior, albeit in the facts of this case held that since the respondent was senior to the one Shri Ravindra Sharma, denial of stepping up of pay to him was clearly discriminatory. The Delhi High Court relied on the judgments of Kerala High Court, Madras High Court as well as Calcutta High Court and noted that the view taken by these High Courts has been affirmed by the Supreme Court with the dismissal of the Special Leave to Petition against those decisions. 7. In view of above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed.