Jhandu Ram vs Union Of India & Ors.

This O.A. has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with the following reliefs:-

Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as Chaukidar on 22.06.1984 at Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad, in the Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/-. Pursuant to Railway Board Circular RBE No. 91/2012, the post of Chaukidar was merged with the post of Track Maintainer-IV. Accordingly, the applicant was posted as Track Maintainer-IV in the Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/- and thereafter promoted as Track Maintainer-III in the Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/-. His seniority in the cadre of Track Maintainer was also fixed by the respondents. The applicant was further promoted as Track Maintainer-II in the Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/- vide Office Order No. 27/2021 dated 29.06.2021. The Railway Board, vide circular dated 13.03.2018, provided for payment of Risk and Hardship Allowance of Rs. 2,700/- per month to Track Maintainers. Being a Track Maintainer-II, the applicant was also entitled to the said allowance. The applicant submitted representations dated 31.08.2021, 21.10.2021 and 13.12.2021 before the concerned authorities requesting payment of the Risk and Hardship Allowance. However, no action was taken by the respondents. The applicant retired from service on 30.11.2022 as Track Maintainer-II from N.E. Railway, Lalkuan. Despite his entitlement under the Railway Board's circular dated 13.03.2018, the Risk and Hardship Allowance of Rs. 2,700/- per month was not paid to him during his service. The grievance of the applicant is that the respondents have not extended the benefit of the Risk and Hardship Allowance to him despite his having worked as Track Maintainer-II and despite his repeated representations. He therefore seeks payment of the admissible allowance for the eligible period along with consequential benefits.

Per contra, the respondents have denied the contentions of applicant by filing counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the applicant, Shri Jhandu Ram, was appointed as Chowkidar in the Railway establishment on 22.01.1984 and was deployed under the Senior Section Engineer (P.Way), Lalkuan. He retired from Railway service on 30.11.2022. The applicant has filed the present Original Application seeking Risk and Hardship Allowance of Rs. 2,700/- per month, claiming that the post of Chowkidar was merged with that of Track Maintainer. The respondents submit that the Risk and Hardship Allowance of Rs. 2,700/- is admissible to Track Maintainers who actually work on the railway track, as clarified by the Railway Board's letter dated 10.08.2017 and the letter dated 01.08.2023 issued by the General Manager (Vigilance), Gorakhpur. The applicant was working as Track Maintainer (Chowkidar) but he never performed duties on the railway track during his service. Mere deployment under the Senior Section Engineer (P.Way) does not make him entitled to the said allowance. Therefore, as the applicant did not perform track-related duties involving the prescribed risk and hardship, he is not entitled to the Risk and Hardship Allowance of Rs. 2,700/-, and his claim is liable to be rejected.

The applicant has filed Rejoinder Affidavit to the Counter Affidavit as filed by the respondents refuting the contentions made by the respondents in their Counter Affidavit while reiterating the averments made in the O.A. Nothing new has been added.

I have heard Shri A.D. Singh learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was working as a Track Maintainer-II and, therefore, he is entitled to Risk and Hardship Allowance of Rs. 2,700/- per month in terms of the Railway Board’s circular dated 13.03.2018. It is submitted that the Railway Board had directed the General Managers of the Zonal Railways to grant the said allowance to eligible Track Maintainers, but the same has not been paid to the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant had approached the respondents several times and submitted representations for payment of the said allowance, but no decision has been taken by the respondents. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that the respondents have failed to discharge their duty and have illegally withheld the benefit to which the applicant is entitled. He submitted that the action of the respondents in not granting the Risk and Hardship Allowance is arbitrary and contrary to the Railway Board’s instructions. Thus, learned counsel for the applicant prays that the respondents may be directed to grant the applicant the Risk and Hardship Allowance of Rs. 2,700/- per month, along with consequential benefits.

In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant is not entitled to the Risk and Hardship Allowance merely because he was designated as Track Maintainer-II. The said allowance is admissible only to those Track Maintainers who are actually performing duties on the railway track and are bared to the prescribed risk and hardship. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the applicant was originally appointed as Chowkidar and, after merger of the post, was placed in the cadre of Track Maintainer. However, the applicant did not actually perform duties on the railway track during his service. Therefore, mere merger of the post and subsequent promotion in the cadre of Track Maintainer would not by itself make him entitled to the said allowance. It is further submitted that the Railway Board's instructions dated 10.08.2017 and the clarification dated 01.08.2023 issued by the General Manager (Vigilance), North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur make it clear that the Risk and Hardship Allowance is payable to employees who actually perform duties on the railway track. Since the applicant did not perform such duties, the essential condition for grant of the Risk and Hardship allowance is not fulfilled in his case. Learned counsel for the respondents next submitted that there is no illegality in not granting the Risk and Hardship Allowance to the applicant and the Original Application is liable to be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

From the perusal of record, it is clear that the applicant was initially appointed as Chowkidar. Pursuant to Railway Board Circular RBE No. 91/2012, the post of Chowkidar was merged with the post of Track Maintainer-IV. Thereafter, the applicant was promoted as Track Maintainer-III and subsequently as Track Maintainer-II vide Office Order dated 29.06.2021. His seniority in the cadre of Track Maintainer was also fixed by the respondents.

The Railway Board, vide its letter dated 13.03.2018, clarified that the Risk and Hardship Allowance is admissible to the category of Track Maintainers, consisting of Track Maintainer-I, II, III and IV. The said letter further provides that the amount of the allowance is Rs. 2,700/- per month for employees in Level-8 and below. The letter does not exclude Track Maintainers merely on the ground that they were initially appointed to another post which was subsequently merged with the Track Maintainer cadre.

In the present case, the applicant was working as Track Maintainer-II at the relevant time. The respondents have not disputed his promotion to the said post or the merger of the post of Chowkidar with the Track Maintainer cadre. The respondents have denied the claim mainly on the ground that the applicant did not actually perform duties on the railway track. However, no specific order or other material has been placed on record to establish that the applicant was excluded from the category of Track Maintainers covered by the Railway Board's letter dated 13.03.2018.

In view of the aforesaid facts, the applicant, being a Track Maintainer-II, falls within the category of employees mentioned in the Railway Board's letter dated 13.03.2018. Therefore, the respondents cannot deny the benefit of the Risk and Hardship Allowance merely on the ground that the applicant was initially appointed as Chowkidar.

Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. The respondents are directed to verify the applicant's service records and determine the period for which he was eligible for Risk and Hardship Allowance under the Railway Board's letter dated 13.03.2018. If the applicant is found eligible, the respondents shall calculate and pay the Risk and Hardship Allowance at the rate of Rs. 2,700/- per month, along with the admissible arrears, for the eligible period. The said exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The respondents shall also release the consequential benefits, if any, arising from the aforesaid payment in accordance with the applicable rules. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending MA(s) stand disposed of.