UNION OF INDIA Vs. B. BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The precise question that arises for determination in the present appeal is whether the respondent, a medically decategorised Driver of the Indian Railways, working as a Crew Controller with stationary duties, is entitled to allowance in lieu of kilometerage (ALK). The Central Administrative Tribunal by its order dated 10.02.2011 answered the question against the respondent which led to a round of litigation before the Calcutta High Court. The High Court held that the respondent was entitled to the allowance in question. Aggrieved, the Union has filed this appeal.

(2.) The basic facts that would require notice are not in dispute. The respondent while serving as a Diesel Driver (Goods) Grade-II was found unfit to work as a Driver in a special medical examination that was held on 5.1.2005. He was, however, allowed to work as a Crew Controller. The said post, though involved performance of stationary duties was included in the cadre of Driver in terms of Railway Board Circular No.9/98 dated 09.01.1998. Regular Drivers, in addition to medically decategorised Drivers like the Respondent, were also drafted to perform the duties of Crew Controller. Both categories of employees i.e. regular Drivers and medically decategorised Drivers in the post of Crew Controller were being paid ALK. A subsequent Circular No.12/2004 dated 14.01.2004 was issued to make it clear that medically decategorised Drivers allowed to perform duties of Crew Controller were ineligible to the grant of any benefit specifically admissible to the running staff on the premise that such decategorised Drivers ceased to be running staff. Accordingly, it was clarified that the benefit of allowance in lieu of kilometerage (ALK) is not admissible to medically decategorised Drivers working as Crew Controllers. Following the aforesaid clarificatory Circular No.12/2004 dated 14.01.2004, the respondent who was drawing ALK was denied further benefit of the same which led to the institution of the proceeding before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, as it appears from its order dated 10.02.2011, took the view that following his medical decategorisation the respondent ceased to be a running staff and as he had been performing stationary duties he is not entitled to any Running Allowance. The High Court, on being approached by the respondent, however, took the view that even after his medical decategorisation the respondent continued to remain in the cadre of Driver (the said cadre included the post of Crew Controller). Hence, he was entitled to ALK. Accordingly, the impugned directions have been issued which have led to the institution of the present appeal by the Union.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.