AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Shri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Atul Kumar Shahi, learned counsel for the respondents were present at the time of hearing.
Defect of the OA has been removed.
The instant Original Application has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief:-
… “(i) This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash and set aside the PPO No. 20137320250003 to the extent that the designation of applicant has shown as Porter in pay band of Rs. 5200-20200 plus GP of Rs. 1800/-.
(ii)This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to issue revised PPO showing his designation as Passenger Attendant Grade-I in pay scale of 260-400/3050-4590 and refixed his pension and pay arrear of pension along with interest after deduction of amount already paid to him towards pension in Group-D category.
(iii)Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicants.
(iv)Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant.”
The brief facts of the case as narrated in the OA are that the applicant was appointed as Porter under the Allahabad division and remained continued upto 1992. He was later posted as Coach Attendant in First Class Slipper and AC coaches. The General Manager (P), Northern Railway vide letter dated 13.10.1999 advised all the divisions of Northern Railway to absorb the surplus coach attendant as ticket collector in payscale of Rs. 3540-4590/-. The applicant was re-deployed as helper Khalasi in pay-scale of Rs. 2650-4000/-.One Original Application No. 77/2005 was filed by the applicant and other similarly situated employees. The issue was decided by the Railway Board itself vide order dated 07.02.2012 in compliance of the direction given by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition No. 566/2000 as well as CCP No. 311/2009(All India Shramik and Coach Attendant Association vs. S.S. Khurana). The applicant was not permitted to resume the duty and chargesheet was issued against him for unauthorised absence on 26.01.2005 but later the chargesheet was withdrawn. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has specifically directed that all the Coach Attendant may be allowed the payment of passenger attendant Grade-I and further be allowed all retiral benefits as admissible to Group-C employee. The applicant was retired from service on 31.10.2013 but Pension Paper issued in his respect was for Group-D Posts in which showing the Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/-. Thus, It is pleaded that PPO issued in respect of applicant was contrary to the direction given by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court the applicant as well as similarly situated employees were allowed to Group-D and Group-C category. Thus, referring to the aforesaid facts, it is pleaded that OA be allowed and respondents be directed to revise the PPO and to pay the arrear thereon.
Respondents have filed counter refuting all the facts disclosed in the OA and argued that since the applicant did not join the duty on redeployment, thus, PPO was issued considering the status of the applicant at the time of re-deployment. It is also pleaded that later PPO was revised and the applicant’s category was shown as Porter (Commercial) which is a Group C Category and Grade Pay was also shown as Rs. 1900/-. Thus, grievance raised in the OA have been resolved. Arrear thereof have also been paid. Thus, pleaded that OA be dismissed as having become infructuous.
Rejoinder has also been filed on behalf of the applicant stating almost the same fact as has been narrated in the OA.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that a number of similarly situated employees approached before Hon’ble Delhi High Court by filing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 566/2000 which was decided on 07.02.2008 vide which respondents were directed to treat all similarly situated employees categorising them as passenger attendant Group-I and direction was also issued to extend the revised scale issued by the respondents from time to time by various Pay Commissions. It is also argued that PPO Paper in respect of the applicant was of Group-D employee whereas Hon’ble Delhi High Court has specifically directed to treat the applicant as Group C employee. It is also argued that the applicant had approached before this Tribunal by filing OA No. 851/2018 which was decided on 22.12.2021 directing the respondents to extend all the retiral dues including pension on the basis of services rendered by them till the year 2005. Issue of absence was also considered and was not found sufficient because no punishment had been imposed upon the applicant. Thus, OA be allowed. Respondents be directed to revise the PPO.
Learned counsel for the respondents referred to the counter affidavit argued that although at initial stage PPO was issued showing the applicant category as Group D in the Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/- but later it was revised and posts shown in the revised PPO is Group C Post (Porter) Commercial. PPO issued on 17.07.2023 has been revised on 29.04.2024 extending the Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/- and all the benefit of Group C Category. Arrear thereof have also been paid. Thus, argued to dismiss the OA.
I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the entire records and carefully perused the case laws relied upon by the parties.
Before discussing the submissions raised across the Bar, it will be useful to quote the relevant portion of the judgment and order passed in OA No. 851/2018:-
14.Therefore, I am clear in my view that since the applicants had performed continuous service and duties with effect from 1983 to 2005, it would be unfair to snatch away the rights and benefits of this service in one stroke because they agitated their redeployment to a lower position and as a protest, did not join their duties on such a position. No doubt, the applicants too are guilty of misdemeanor and indiscipline in their refusal to accept the orders even though they may have been seriously aggrieved by the same. There were enough alternatives available before the respondents to proceed against the applicants for misconduct and punish them for such misconduct and indiscipline in accordance with the rules. Therefore, the interest of justice demands that the applicants be sanctioned all their retiral dues including pension on the basis of the services rendered by them till the year 2005, specifically till the date on which they were actually present on duties. To this extent, the present O.A. is allowed.
15.However, I am not inclined to give them the notional benefit for the purpose of computing the retiral dues for the period from the date they absented themselves from the duties till the date they attained the age of superannuation as they had themselves chosen not to join duties and hence got retired in absentia without holding any position in the organization.
16.The respondents are directed to sanction and pay the bona fide pension and other retiral dues as admissible to the applicants within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of this order.”
Similar issue came up for consideration in respect of similarly situated employees who had also filed OA No. 851/2018 with 141/2018 and this Tribunal in OA No. 665/2024 which was decided on 23.09.2026 allowed the prayer made by the applicant. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 23.09.2026 passed in OA No. 665/2024 are quoted hereinbelow:
9.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:
“34.The writ petition is hereby allowed. The 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 Central Administrative Tribunal (https://cgat.gov.in) Downloaded on: 07/10/2026, 12:15:40 pm Page 4 of 6 Central Administrative Tribunal 5 | P a g e all consequential benefits not later than 15th March, 2008. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.”
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:
“14.Therefore, I am clear in my view that since the applicants had performed continuous service and duties with effect from 1983 to 2005, it would be unfair to snatch away the rights and benefits of this service in one stroke because they agitated their redeployment to a lower position and as a protest, did not join their duties on such a position. No doubt, the applicants too are guilty of misdemeanor and indiscipline in their refusal to accept the orders even though they may have been seriously aggrieved by the same. There were enough alternatives available before the respondents to proceed against the applicants for misconduct and punish them for such misconduct and indiscipline in accordance with the rules. Therefore, the interest of justice demands that the applicants be sanctioned all their retiral dues including pension on the basis of the services rendered by them till the year 2005, specifically till the date on which they were actually present on duties. To this extent, the present O.A. is allowed.
15.However, I am not inclined to give them the notional benefit for the purpose of computing the retiral dues for the period from the date they absented themselves from the duties till the date they attained the age of superannuation as they had themselves chosen not to join duties and hence got retired in absentia without holding any position in the organization. 16. The respondents are directed to sanction and pay the bona fide pension and other retiral dues as admissible to the applicants within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of this order.”
10.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 Central Administrative Tribunal (https://cgat.gov.in) Downloaded on: 07/10/2026, 12:15:40 pm Page 5 of 6 Central Administrative Tribunal 6 | P a g e Passenger Attendant Grade 1st 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 1st 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.
Since during the pendency of the present OA, PPO issued on 17.07.2023 is said to have been revised on 29.04.2024 extending the benefit of Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/- and specific plea of the respondents is that post of Porter (Commercial) is a Group C Post and all the benefit in liu of PPO dated 29.04.2024 have been paid to the applicant, thus, considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition No. 566/2000 as well as direction issued by this Bench in earlier OAs No. 851/2018, 141/2018 and OA No. 665/2024, I am of the view that OA is liable to be partly allowed and is hereby partly allowed. Respondents are hereby directed to to pay the arrear thereof in liu of revised PPO issued on 29.04.2024 if the benefits have not been extended to the applicant. The aforesaid exercise to be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which interest at the GPF Rate will be attracted.
All associated MAs stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.