AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Elipe Dharmarao, J.—This Writ Petition has been filed by the Administration, challenging the order passed by the first respondent thereby
granting the relief of re-fixation of the pay of the first respondent, as prayed for.
The second respondent herein joined as the Assistant Station Master in the scale of Rs. 1200-2040 on 13.3.1989 through Railway Service
Commission, Chennai and on successful completion of the initial training, he was absorbed as Assistant Station Master with effect from 18.8.1989
and subsequently promoted as Station Master Grade-III in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300 with effect from 5.1.1992. The equivalent scale in the V
Pay Commission to the scale of Rs. 1400-2300 was Rs. 5000-8000 and while the second respondent herein was working as such, he was
promoted to the post of Traffic Apprentice in the scale of Rs. 5500-9000 against 10% limited departmental competitive examination quota of
Station Master Grade-II and was directed for training and after completion of the training for two years, the second respondent herein was
absorbed as Station Master Grade-II in the scale of Rs. 5500-9000 and the pay was fixed at Rs. 6375/= with effect from 14.9.2002 and posted
at Palur Station of Chennai Division. While so, the second respondent applied for the post of Section Controller in the scale of Rs. 5500-9000 and
he was promoted as Section Controller with effect from 23.11.2003 on the same pay of Rs. 6550/= in the same pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000,
which he was drawing s a Station Master Grade-II.
It is the contention of the first respondent/employee that since his elevation to the post of Section Controller is a ''promotion'' with high
responsibility as he was subjected to a positive act of selection, both written as well as viva-voce and also undergone class room training at Zonal
Training Centre, Trichirappalli and on the job training at Marshalling Yard, Tondiarpet and at Control Office, Chennai, his basic pay should have
been fixed at Rs. 6900/= with effect from 18.11.2002 as provided in Rule 13 (FR22) (1)(a)(I) R-II of the Indian Railways Establishment Code
and in terms of Railway Board''s order No. E(NG)/I/90/ICI/1, dated 4.2.1991 and therefore, he submitted a representation dated 5.8.2005 to the
Administration, claiming the said benefit. The said representation of the first respondent/employee was rejected by the Administration. Aggrieved
by the said rejection order, the first respondent/employee filed Original Application No. 717 of 2006 before the Tribunal and since the Tribunal
has allowed the said Original Application and directed the Administration to issue necessary orders re-fixing his pay with effect from the date he
assumed higher responsibilities i.e. 23.11.2003 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; the Administration
has come forward to file this writ petition.
The learned senior counsel appearing for the Administration would strenuously argue that admittedly the post of Station Master Grade-II and
the Section Controller carry the same pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 and the promotion from the post of Station Master Grade-II to the Section
Controller cannot be treated as a case of assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance and both these belong to two different
cadres having different grades in their own hierarchy and therefore, the benefit of fixation under Rule 13 FR 22(1)(a)(1) R-II (erstwhile FR 22 C)
Indian Railways Establishment Code cannot be granted to the first respondent. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Administration would
also argue that the pay of the first respondent has been correctly fixed on his promotion to the post of Section Controller by the Administration and
the same cannot be commented otherwise. On such arguments, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Administration would pray to set aside
the order of the Tribunal.
On the contrary, on the part of the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent/employee it is submitted that though both the posts of
Station Master Grade-II and the Section Controller carry the same scale of pay, the post of Section Controller is fastened with duties and
responsibilities of greater importance and the Tribunal considering all the facts and circumstances of the case in their proper perspective has arrived
at the conclusion of allowing the prayer of the applicant/employee and therefore no interference is called for into the order passed by the Tribunal.
On such arguments, the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent/employee would pray to dismiss this writ petition filed by the
Administration.
There is no dispute regarding the fact that the selection of the first respondent/employee from the post of Station Master Grade-II to that of
Section Controller has been treated by the Administration itself as a ''promotion''. The term ''promotion'' has been defined in Rule 211 in Chapter
II, Section B of the Indian Railways Establishment Code as ''promotion includes promotion from a lower grade to a higher grade, from one class to
another class, from one group to another group''. While according to the respondent/employee, the post of Section Controller involves duties and
responsibilities of greater importance and therefore, he is entitled to claim benefits under Rule 13 FR 22(1)(a)(1) R-II (erstwhile FR 22 C) of the
Indian Railways Establishment Code, the same has been stoutly denied by the Administration.
To decide the issue on hand, we shall extract hereunder Rule 13 FR 22(1)(a)(1) R-II (erstwhile FR 22 C) of the Indian Railways Establishment
Code, which reads as follows:
Where a Railway servant holding a post, other than a tenure post, in a substantive, temporary or officiating capacity as the case may be, subject to
the fulfilment of the eligibility conditions as prescribed in the relevant Recruitment Rules, to another post carrying duties and responsibilities of
greater importance than those attaching to the post held by him, his initial pay in the time scale of the higher post shall be fixed at the stage next
above the notional pay arrived at by increasing his pay in respect of the lower post held by him regularly by an increment at the stage at which such
pay has accrued or rupees twenty-five only, whichever is more.
Save in cases of appointment on deputation to an ex-cadre post, or to a post on ad hoc basis, the Railway servant shall have the option, to be
exercised within one month from the date of promotion or appointment as the case may be, to have the pay fixed under this rule from the date of
such promotion or appointment or to have the pay fixed initially at the stage of the time scale of the new post above the pay in the lower grade or
post from which he is promoted on regular basis, which may be refixed in accordance with this rule on the date of accrual of next increment in the
scale of the pay of the lower grade or post. In cases where an ad hoc promotion is followed by regular appointment without break, the option is
admissible as from the date of initial appointment/promotion, to be exercised within one month from the date of such regular appointment:
Provided that where a Railway servant is, immediately before his promotion or appointment on regular basis to a higher post, drawing pay at the
maximum of the time scale of the lower post, his initial pay in the time scale of the higher post shall be fixed at the stage next above the pay
notionally arrived at by increasing his pay in respect of the lower post held by him on regular basis by an amount equal to the last increment in the
time scale of the lower post or rupees twenty-five, whichever is more.
Clinging on this provision of law, it has been argued on the part of the Administration that the benefits of this Rule would be applicable only in
case of promotion from one post to the other post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attached to the post held by
the employee at the time of his promotion. According to the administration, the two categories i.e. Station Master Grade II and the Section
Controller belong to different grades in their own hierarchy and therefore, the first respondent/employee is not entitled for the benefits of this Rule.
The General Rules, 1976 defined the terms ''Controller'' and ''Station Master'' as follows:
Controller"" means a railway servant on duty who may for the time being be responsible for regulating the working of traffic on a section of a
railway provided with the system of speech communication.
Station Master"" means the person on duty who is for the time being responsible for the working of the traffic within station limits, and includes any
person who is for the time being in independent charge of the working of any signals and responsible for the working of trains under the system of
working in force.
Thus, when the Station Master is fastened with the responsibility of the traffic within the station limits and independent charge of the working of
any signals and also responsible for the working of trains under the system of working in force, the Controller is fastened with the more
responsibility of regulating the working of traffic on a section of a railway. While the duties of the Station Master are within the station limits, the
duties of the Controller are on a section of a railway and therefore, there cannot be any doubt that the Controller is fastened with more duties and
responsibilities than the Station Master Grade II.
We fail to understand the argument advanced on the part of the Administration that since both the posts carry the same scale of pay and in
spite of it being a ''promotion'', more duties and responsibilities are not cast on the employee on his ''promotion'' to the post of Controller. If it is
not carrying higher duties and responsibilities and it is not a ''promotion'' for the monetary benefits also, then what is the use of an employee being
given the ''promotion''? Had it been a mere conversion from one post to another, the Administration should not have made use of the term
''promotion'' in the proceedings issued by the Administration. But, in the case on hand, the first respondent/employee was conferred with the
promotion, on being selected on merit, having been subjected to a process of selection involving written test and viva-voce.
From the materials placed on record, we are able to see that the Administration itself has sent a proposal to the Railway Board to extend the
benefit of Rule 13 FR 22(1)(a)(1) R-II (erstwhile FR 22 C) of the Indian Railways Establishment Code in the case of appointment from Station
Master Grade-II to Section Controller in the same pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000, but the Railway Board had not acceded to the said request made
on the part of the writ petitioners on the ground that the said benefit could not be extended as the two categories belonged to different grades in
their own hierarchy.
The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners/Administration would rely on a judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Union of
India and Ors. v. Ashoke Kumar Banerjee 1998 SCC (L&) 1277, wherein it has been held:
...for the applicability of FR 22(I)(a)(1), it is not merely sufficient that the officer gets a promotion from one post to another involving higher duties
and responsibilities but another condition must also be satisfied that he must be moving from a lower scale attached to the lower post to a higher
scale attached to a higher post and if benefit of higher scale has already been given to him, FR 22()I)(a)(1) cannot be applied again
In the above said case before the Honourable Apex Court, the employee, while working as Junior Engineer in pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900
was granted Assistant Engineer''s pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 on personal basis, on completion of 15 yeas'' service as Junior Engineer and his pay
was fixed under FR 22(I)(a)(1) and the employee there also availed the benefit of getting his pay fixed under the said Rule from the date of his next
increment. Thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant Engineer on functional basis in pay scale of Rs. 2000-35000. In those circumstances, since
the employee already availed the benefit of fitment under FR 22(I)(a)(1) by granting him the pay scale of the promotional post, the Honourable
Apex Court has held that on his promotion on functional basis, he cannot be granted the benefit of the Rule for a second time.
But, same is not the situation in the case on hand. Here, though the first respondent/employee was granted ''promotion'', after subjecting him to
a process of selection, to a post carrying higher duties and responsibilities, just for the reason that both the posts are carrying the same scale of
pay, he has been denied the monetary benefit attached to such a ''promotion''. The reasons assigned by the Administration that their proposal to
grant monetary benefits to the employee has not been approved or recommended by the Railway Board cannot be appreciated, since such a
rejection made on the part of the Railway Board does not seem to be on sound principles of service jurisprudence.
The Tribunal below has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case in their proper perspective and has arrived at an unerroneous
conclusion of granting the relief sought for on the part of the employee, wherein we find no reason to cause our interference.
In the result, this writ petition filed by the Administration fails and the same is dismissed. The petitioners are directed to implement the order of the
Tribunal within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, M.P. Nos. 1 of 2007 and 1of
2008 are closed.