Dinesh Chandra Tripathi & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors.

Shri Dharmendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Atul Kumar Shahi, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.

The instant original application has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief:

The brief facts of the case as narrated in the OA are that the applicant no 1 and applicant no 2 were posted as Passenger Coach Attendant in the respondents’ department and retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation. They have alleged that the respondents have made incorrect fixation of pension and thus prepared an incorrect Pension Payment Order by treating the applicants to have retired as Group D employee. However, the applicants claim to have retired as Passenger Attendant Grade – I as they had secured the said post in view of the judicial pronouncement made in their favour. Thus, by way of the instant OA, the applicants seek a direction to the respondents to reconsider the matter and take suitable decision for ensuring the payment of all retiral dues and fixation of pension on the last promoted post and pay of the applicants i.e., Passenger Attendant Grade – I, along with suitable interest in a time bound manner.

Counter has been filed by the respondents wherein it is stated that the applicants were initially appointed as Substitute Porter (Group D). They were promoted as Coach Attendant. However, due to surrender of post of Coach Attendant, the applicants were declared surplus and were given two chances for redeployment as Ticket Collector on the basis of suitability test but they were not found suitable both the time and hence could not be redeployed. As per availability of vacancy, they were redeployed finally as Helper Grade – I but both the applicants did not join. They got superannuated from service during the absent period as they did not join duty. Thus, their last pay and PPO was paid accordingly. PPO issued and pension being paid are in order and as per the extant rules and no discrepancy can be cited to such.

Rejoinder has been filed by the applicant reiterating the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated in the original application.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that they have approached before this Tribunal through Original Application No 851 of 2018 and Original Application No 141 of 2018 which were decided on 22.12.2021 with a direction to the respondents regarding sanction of pay, bonafide pension and other retiral dues as admissible to the applicants. It was next argued that when the respondents did not comply with the direction given in the OA, the applicants filed Contempt Petition No. 72 of 2022 and during pendency of the CP, the respondents prepared the Pension Payment Order (PPO) but they have shown the post of the applicants as Porter Commercial whereas the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Civil Petition (Civil) No 566 of 2000 decided on 07.02.2008 has clearly held that "respondents are directed to grant the claim of the petitioners for their placement in the pay scale of Rs 110-180 since the year 1960, when the petitioners were re-categorized as Passenger Attendant Grade 1st with the Indian Railways and scale revised from time to time by various Pay Commissions of the persons who were placed in the similar pay scale of Rs. 110-180/- in the Railways at the relevant time and have been granted revised scales as per the recommendations of the various Pay Commissions from time to time, with all consequential benefits not later than 15^th March, 2008.”

Learned counsel for the applicants further argued that applicants' case is also identical to the decision passed in the aforesaid writ petition and was applicable to all the similarly situated persons, thus, when to comply with the direction given in the OA No 851 of 2018 and OA No 140 of 2018, respondents have prepared the PPO and calculate the arrear, they should take into account the direction given in the writ petition (supra). Applicants’ pension shall be calculated taking into account the post of Passenger Attendant Grade 1st. SInce the aforesaid facts have not been taken into consideration and CP moved by the petitioners was closed on the basis of substantial compliance, thus the present OA has been filed. It is also argued that the applicants pension has to be prepared in light of the direction given in the writ petition (supra) and arrears shall also be calculated in the same way. Thus, argued to allow the OA.

Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the contentions of the applicant and referring to the counter affidavit, he argued that the contempt petition filed on behalf of the applicants was closed on the ground of substantial compliance of the order passed in the OA. Applicants were recategorised and later were redeployed on the post of Helper Grade – I but they did not join the duty and thus the PPO and arrears in this respect was prepared in accordance with rules and for the pay scale which they were holding at time of superannuation. Thus, there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the PPOs and calculation made by the respondents. Thus prayer was made to dismiss the OA.

I have considered the rival contentions and gone through the records and carefully perused the case laws relied upon.

Before discussing the submissions raised across the Bar, it will be useful to quote the operative portion of the judgment dated 07.02.2008 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No 566 of 2000 titled All India Shramik & Coach Attendants Association & Ors Vs Union of India and others which is as follows:

Although the applicants did not join the duty on the post of which they were redeployed but their case is that they did not join the duty under protest. In that circumstances, they filed OA No 851 of 2008 and OA No 141 of 2008 before this Bench of the Tribunal which was decided by way of a common judgment dated 22.12.2021 and the following direction was given to the respondents:

It further appears that the respondents did not comply with the direction given in the aforesaid OA and thus, CP No 72 of 2022 was filed and the proceedings of the said CP were closed vide order dated 31.05.2024 on the ground of substantial compliance. Now, the question is whether the applicants are entitled for the pay scale of Passenger Attendant Grade 1^st as decided in the writ petition (supra) by the Delhi High Court. Since the aforesaid writ petition was filed by the association of employees who were similarly situated to the applicants, after the dismissal of the OA by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal and the Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition in the manner quoted above, thus direction given in the writ petition was in respect of all the similarly situated employees. Question of abandonment of the services was also raised during course of hearing in the OA No 851 of 2018 but it was turned down and specific direction was given to the respondents to extend the bonafide pension. Respondents while calculating the arrear and preparing the PPO have taken into consideration the post held by the applicants before the redeployment whereas the applicants would be treated to have been entitled for the pay and post as directed in the writ petition by the Delhi High Court. Thus, only on the ground that proceedings of the contempt petition were closed on substantial compliance, the OA cannot be dismissed. PPO in respect of the applicants and calculation has to be made taking into account the post and pay of Passenger Attendant Grade 1^st as directed by the Delhi High Court in the write petition quoted above.

Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions and analysis, the instant original application is allowed. Respondents are hereby directed to refix the pay and pension of the applicants and issue revised PPO considering them to have retired from the post of Passenger Attendant Grade – 1. All consequential benefits be paid accordingly. This exercise must be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, without fail.

All associated MAs stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.