GHOUSE KHAN BUDANKHAN TINWALE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this petition has sought to quash the order dated 09/04/2013 passed in O.A. 181/2011 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, (Annexure -A) and direct the respondents to restore the petitioner's pay to Rs. 20,270/ - as last drawn and arrange to refund the recovered amount and arrange all consequential benefits to the petitioner.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that, he is a retired Railway employee. While he was working as Crew Controller, he erroneously booked a driver who was under rest for working in a Passenger train while four other drivers who were there have completed their rest. This wrong booking of driver caused detention to train No. PKL -TLN passenger train for 1 hour 45 minutes and he was punished with next increment cut for 2 years (recurring). When the period of punishment was over, petitioner was restored. His basic was fixed at Rs. 20,270/ - at the time of his retirement. But later when his retirement benefits and pension were to be calculated, his basic pay was reduced to Rs. 19,070/ - without any notice. Later, they explained that it was because the punishment was with recurring effect and without taking this factor, his basic was drawn. It is the further case of the petitioner that, according to Railway Administration recurring nature will have effect on his future increments also which is a wrong interpretation of the Rule and against the clarification given by the Railway Board. Being aggrieved by the same, applicant has filed O.A. No. 181/2011 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore.

(3.) THE ground urged by the petitioner in this petition is, the Tribunal has failed to consider the grounds urged by him and erred in rejecting his application on the sole ground that, the reliance placed by him is not applicable to his case, on the ground that., he has lost 2 years increment cumulatively and he had not challenged the decision at that time and has become final and the said reasoning given by the Tribunal is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside and the prayer sought by him is liable to be granted.