AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per: Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member:
The applicant has approached this Tribunal under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 praying for the following relief(s):
“a)To direct the respondents to grant benefit of Railway Board's Order dated 22.05.1979 read with Rule 1307 of IREM Vol. I & grant Scale protection to the applicant in the equivalent scale of Rs.1600-2660/- or any higher scale w.e.f 10.12.1993 with all consequential benefits.
b)To direct the respondents to recast the Pension and other settlement dues of the applicant taking into account the scale protection in equivalent scale so granted in terms of prayer 8(a) above together with all consequential benefits.
c)Any other order or orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper.”
The facts of the case are summarized below:
The applicant was initially appointed as Assistant Driver in Eastern Railway on 13.12.1986. After being promoted as Engine Turner and Electric Shunter, he was promoted to the post of Electric Driver (Goods) in the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200/- w.e.f. 12.10.1990. The applicant had retired from service on 30.06.2020.
While working as Electric Driver, the applicant was medically decategorised and declared fit for indoor duties in medical category C1 and below on 06.08.1993.
The applicant was offered absorption as Senior Draftsman/ Draftsman in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300/-. He accepted the said offer and joined the alternative post on 10.12.1993. His pay was fixed at Rs. 1800/- + Rs. 33/- PP by adding 30% of his basic pay drawn in the running cadre.
Subsequently, the applicant earned regular promotions as Head Draftsman in the scale of Rs. 1600-2660/- w.e.f. 08.01.1997, and later as Section Engineer (Drawing) in the scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- w.e.f. 19.08.2002.
The applicant eventually superannuated from Railway service on 30.06.2020 as Senior Section Engineer (Drawing) in Level-7. After retirement, he had submitted representations in 2022 and thereafter filed the instant O.A. in 2022 seeking the relief(s) mentioned in Para 1 above.
Hearing
We have heard Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the material available on record.
The submissions of Ld. Counsel for the applicant are summarised below:
As per Railway Board Circular No. E(NG)II/79 RE 3/5 dated 22.05.1979 and Rule 1307 of IREM Vol. I, an element of 30% of pay in lieu of running allowance ought to have been added to both the minimum and maximum of the running pay scale (Rs. 1350-2200/-) to determine the equivalent alternative scale for absorption. By adding an element of 30% of pay, the replacement scale of the applicant at the material point of time ought to be Rs. 1600-2660/-. Hence, the absorption of the applicant in the lower scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2300/- on 10.12.1993 was contrary to the existing rules.
The submissions of Ld. Counsel for the respondents are summarised below:
The applicant’s basic pay was fully protected upon his absorption during the year 1993 by granting 30% running allowance element over his last drawn basic pay as per Para 1308 of IREM Vol. I and Master Circular No. 25.
Para 1304 of IREM Vol. I, provides that alternative absorption must ensure that existing staff in the absorbing cadre are not adversely affected and this should not cause reversion. The applicant had accepted the alternative post of Draftsman in the scale of Pay of Rs. 1400-2300/- in 1993 without protest. He had accepted all the subsequent promotions in the official hierarchy without protest during his service. The instant O.A. has been filed by the applicant in the year 2022 against a cause of action arising in the year 1993. He has raised his claim nearly 29 years, after his absorption in the post of Draftsman/ Senior Draftsman and also after retirement from service.
Discussion & Findings
It is undisputed that the applicant was medically decategorised and absorbed as Draftsman in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300/- in December 1993. His pay was protected in terms of the extant provisions by adding 30% running allowance element to his basic pay.
Rule 1307 of IREM Vol. I and the Railway Board Circular dated 22.05.1979 stipulates that for determining an equivalent scale for medically decategorised running staff, 30% is added to both the minimum and maximum of the parent scale. A mathematical computation on the applicant’s parent scale of Rs. 1350-2200/- yields a pay scale of Rs. 1755-2860/- corresponding to the equivalent scale of Rs. 1600-2660/-. While the applicant’s pay was protected under Para 1308 of IREM Vol. I/ Master Circular No. 25 (Rs. 1410 + 30% = Rs. 1833/- fixed at Rs. 1800 + Rs. 33 PP), he was placed in the alternative scale of Rs. 1400-2300/-. As per the extant rules, the applicant ought to have been placed in the scale of pay of Rs. 1600-2600/.
However, the applicant question that arises for consideration is whether the applicant can be permitted to challenge his absorption in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 made in 1993 after a period of nearly 29 years.
Even assuming that the applicant had submitted representations in 1994/1995, he did not pursue any legal remedies at that relevant time. Instead, he had accepted the post without protest, worked continuously and had accepted subsequent promotions to higher posts in the year 1997 and in the year 2002.
By making repeated representations after his retirement, the applicant cannot revive a stale cause of action that arose in 1993. Settled service conditions and cadre hierarchy established decades ago cannot be unsettled at this belated stage. The claim is barred by limitation on account of delay under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Conclusion
In view of the above findings, we do not find any merit in the Original Application. The O.A. is accordingly dismissed without any order as to cost.