D.J.MANUEL vs SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY

INDIAN Railways is the biggest employer in India. It is expected to act as a model for other employers. But it has acted arbitrarily in the case on hand by denying a reasonable benefit to a retired employee of its own that too who is a senior citizen and who has rendered service of 33 years in the INDIAN Railways.

THE parties in the course of this order are referred according to their position before the District Forum for the sake of convenience. This appeal is by the complainant challenging the Order of the District Forum dismissing his complaint.

The facts in this case are as follows: The complainant is a retired non-Gazetted Group-C employee of the South Western Railway. He had put in more than 33 years of service in the Railways. Consequent on his retirement he was entitled to certain benefits and one such benefit is to have two sets if "Post-Retirement Complimentary Passess" in a year. According to him, this benefit was provided as per the Railway Servants (Pass) Rules, 1986 (for short "the Rules"). Under the Rules Passes to retired employees are issued subject to the same conditions as are applicable to Railway Servants in service. The further case of the complainant is that he was enjoying the said benefit till his request for travelling double journey enroute over the portion Tiruchirapalli - Thanjavur - Tiruchirapalli was rejected. As per Clause (vii) and Sub-rule (b) of General Rule 3 under Schedule II of the Rules, Privilege Pass shall be issued for journey from the starting station to the destination station as desired by the Railway Servant, via shortest route, provided that a longer route may be permitted on the Privilege Pass even if a double journey over a small portion is involved. In the instant case, the request of the complainant for the double journey from Tiruchirapalli - Thanjavur - Thiruchirapalli was rejected by the opposite party (for short "O.P."). Aggrieved by the rejection, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum.

FROM the averments made in the complaint, it is seen that during the year 2002, the complainant applied for a pass for a journey from the starting station Dehradun to the destination station Trivandrum Central involving double journey over a portion Tiruchirapalli - Thanjavur - Tiruchirapalli. The details of the tour are mentioned by the complainant in para 3 of the Appeal Memo. On that application, while issuing the Pass bearing No. 613383 dated 22.1.2002 the O.P. omitted to mention the double journey portion via Tiruchirapalli - Thanjavur - Tiruchirapalli in the via column of the Pass. The further case of the complainant is that the column showing the permission to break journey did not contain the station code "Thanjavur", where the complainant had requested for permission to break journey. According to the O.P. in its version, the complainant is not entitled for the benefit of double journey over a portion, in the event if the ''terminal benefits'' are not available at the station where he intends to break his journey in between the two stations. In support of this contention, the O.P. has relied upon the example given in Sub-clause (b) of Clause (vii) of the Rules.

THE District Forum accepting the defence put forth by the O.P. dismissed the complaint holding that there is no "deficiency in service". In order to appreciate the rival contentions raised by the parties, it is useful to refer to the Rules providing for the benefit of double journey. "Clause (vii) : Privilege Pass shall be issued for journey from the starting station to the destination station as desired by the Railway servant, via shortest route, provided that a longer route may be permitted on the Privilege Pass in the following circumstances- Sub-clause (b) : If the distance to destination via a longer route preferred by the Railway servant does not exceed by fifteen percent of the distance via the direct route such passes may be issued if a double journey over a small portion is involved (for example Ex-Chittaranjan to Kancharapara via Horwah or Ex-Lucknow to a station on the Southern/South Central Railway via Bombay V.T. provided the distance does not exceed the distance via the shortest route by more than 15% to take advantage of the terminal benefits as in Bombay VT-Kalyan or Madras - Arakkonam sections."

So far as the issue of Pass to the complainant from Dehradun to Trivandrum Central is concerned, according to the O.P., the complainant is entitled for the pass. The only dispute is in respect of the double journey over a portion Tiruchirapalli - Tanjavur - Tiruchirapalli. Under Sub-clause (b) referred to above, if the distance to destination via longer route preferred by the Railway servant does not exceed 15% of the distance via the direct route, pass may be issued even if a double journey over a small portion is involved. In the instant case, the distance from Dehradun to Trivandrum Central via the direct route (Delhi, Madras, Tiruchirapalli) is 3,289 kms. 15% of the said distance comes to 493 kms. The distance from Dehradun to Trivandrum Central via the longer route Delhi, Bangalore, Tiruchirapalli, Thanjavar, Thiruchirapalli is 3,699 kms. From this it is seen that the distance of double journey between Tiruchirapalli-Thanjavur - Thiruchirapalli is less than 15% of the longer route. Therefore, there is no reason to deny the benefit of double journey to the complainant. Hence, we hold that the complainant is entitled for the said benefit having served the Railways for more than 33 years.

THE learned Counsel appearing for the O.P. relying upon the example given in the above quoted Rule submits that if the terminal benefits are available at a station where the Railway servant breaks his journey for short period, he is not entitled for the benefit of double journey over a small portion and it is only where the terminal benefits are not available he is entitled for the benefit. THE example given in the above quoted Rule is only to understand the meaning of the said Rule. THE said example does not say that the benefit is not available to a Pass holder Railway servant if the terminal benefits are available at a station where the Pass holder intends to break his journey. THErefore, in our view, the denial of the benefit of double journey over a small portion to the complainant amounts to "deficiency in service". Hence, we hold that the District Forum is not right in dismissing the complaint.

HENCE, we pass the following Order: (1) The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. (2) The complaint filed by the complainant before the District Forum is allowed with a direction to the O.P. to allow the benefit of double journey to the complainant as sought for by him in future. (3) The O.P. is also directed to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation to the complainant for its "deficiency in service". (4) The O.P. is also directed to pay Rs. 1,000 to the complainant towards the costs of these proce]edings.

Appeal allowed.