GOBARDHAN VISHWAKARMA @ G. VISHWKLARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRONOUNCED by Hon'ble Justice Mr. Radhe Shyam Sharma: The petitioner has moved the instant writ petition challenging order dated 21-10-2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in Original Application No.307/2009, whereby the petitioner's original application was dismissed.

(2.) FACTS of the case, as projected, in brief, are that when the Bilaspur Division was in the erstwhile South Eastern Railway, the petitioner was originally promoted from the post of Chief Law Assistant to the post of Assistant Law Officer by the South Eastern Railway on 22-1-2003. New South East Central Railway Zone (in short 'the SECR') was formed with its headquarters at Bilaspur with effect from 1-4-2003. On 9-3-2006, the Railway Board sanctioned one post of Senior Law Officer (Senior Scale) for the SECR. In pursuance thereof, respondent No.2 created a post of Senior Law Officer (Senior Scale), Bilaspur on 24-1-2007 (Annexure P-5). On 25-4-2008, the petitioner was found fit for promotion to the post of Senior Law Officer (Senior Scale) (on ad hoc basis) (Annexure P-6). Before the promotion, the basic pay of the petitioner was Rs. 10750.00 in the Pay-Scale of Rs.7500-12000 in Junior Grade. After the promotion, pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.11300.00 in the Pay-Scale of Rs. 10000-15200 (Annexure P-8). When recommendations of Vlth Pay Commission were implemented, respondent No.2, all of sudden, re-fixed the pay of the petitioner in the Pay-Scale of Rs.9300-34800 plus Grade Pay of Rs.4800 (Junior Grade) (Vlth Pay Commission), which is equivalent to the pay scale of Junior Scale Officer in the Pay-Scale of Rs.7500-12000 (Vth Pay Commission). The salary of the petitioner was fixed in the Junior Scale of Rs.9300-34800 fixing his pay at Rs.20,790.00 from the month of September, 2008 (Annexure P-9) without giving him any notice or opportunity of hearing. Being aggrieved with the said arbitrary decision of respondent No.2, the petitioner represented on 1-10-2008 (Annexure P-10) requesting therein to rectify the mistake and correct the fixation of his pay and to pay him the arrears. Respondent No.2 neither corrected the wrong fixation nor sent any reply to Annexure P-10, but, issued a letter No.P(HQ)/Gaz/GA/Bills/2584 dated 27-11-2008 (Annexure P-11) to the petitioner quoting reference to their letter No.ER No. 135/2008 dated 5-8-2008. Respondent No.2 neither provided copy/details of the said Board's letter to the petitioner nor respondent No.2, despite repeated requests, provided him a copy 01 their letter No.ER No. 135/2008 dated 5-8-2008, which was quotec under reference to their said letter dated 27-11-2008. The petitionei obtained a copy of the Railway Board's letter dated 29-2-200S (Annexure P-12) and having gone through the rules contained undei para 8.2 thereof by way of instructions with its note below came tc know about arbitrariness of the said rules. The rules imposing condition of 8 years is only for miscellaneous departments, which includes Law Department also. So far as Law Department is concerned, it is purely a different unit other than the miscellaneous departments in respect of venue of promotion of Chief Law Assistant in Personnel Department and Commercial Department. One Chief Law Assistant can opt for selection of Assistant Personnel Officer and Assistant Commercial Officer. Whereas in Personnel and Commercial Departments no such rules and condition of 8 years are applicable for withdrawal of Senior.Scale Pay on promotion in Senior Scale on ad hoc basis. Imposition of such conditions on the officer of Law Department in Senior Scale on ad hoc basis is clear discrimination with this cadre. The rules/instructions under para 8.2 is not applicable to the entire Group 'B' Junior Officers of Indian Railways. There are two classes of officers, i.e., (i) Group 'A' Officer Senior Administrative Grade and Junior Administrative Grade, (ii) Group 'B' Junior Scale and Senior Scale under Indian Railways. Service conditions of all Group 'B' Junior Officers are governed under uniform basic rules in respect of promotion in Senior Scale on ad hoc basis after completion of 3 years regular service, but rule (Annexure P-12) imposes condition of 8 years only for the Junior officers especially of miscellaneous departments mciuamg Law Department, which is clear discriminatory. A Group 'B' Officer of all other departments, on completion of three years' service, is entitled to get promotion on ad hoc basis in Senior Scale with Senior Scale Pay. This rule differentiates the Group 'B' Officer from other two classes, i.e., (i) Group 'B' Officer of Major Department, and (ii) Group 'B' Officer of miscellaneous department, which is discriminatory. The petitioner, being ad hoc Senior Law Officer and having not completed 8 years' regular service in Junior Grade in Law Department, is suffering irreparable loss due to the impugned rules/instructions, which were under challenge in Original Application No.307/2009 filed by him before the learned Tribunal. The petitioner again sent a representation to respondent No.2 on 4-12-2008 (Annexure A-9 of the original application) and also annexed therewith a copy of the Railway Board's letter dated 29-2-2008. Respondent No.2 showed his inability to take any action in light of the Railway Board's letter dated 29-2-2008. Thereafter, the petitioner sent another representation dated 22/23-12-2008 (Annexure P-13) through respondent No.2 to the Secretary, Railway Board, New Delhi (respondent No.1) challenging the vires of para 8.2 of the Railway Board's letter dated 29-2-2008 (Annexure P-12) with a note below elaborately justifying his claim of Senior Scale Pay. The above representation dated 22/23-12-2008 of the petitioner was sent by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 on 12-2-2009 (Annexure P-14). Since respondents No.1 and 2 did not respond the above mentioned representations made by the petitioner, he moved the original application, oeing O.A. No.307/2009. Against dismissal of the original application by the Tribunal, he has preferred the instant petition.

(3.) SHRI P. Sam Koshy, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 argued that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is a well reasoned and speaking order considering all the submissions and contentions of the petitioner. The scope of judicial interference and judicial scrutiny gets minimized inasmuch as the High Court does not sit as an appellate Court against the decision of the Tribunal and it only ensures that the provisions of law have been duly considered by the Tribunal and that the findings arrived at by the Tribunal are not perverse. The High Court can also ensure that the Tribunal has not exceeded its jurisdiction while deciding the case of the petitioner and in the absence of all these, the High Court, in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of supervisory powers over the decision of the Tribunal, may not interfere with the findings arrived at by the Tribunal as a matter of routine. Admittedly, the petitioner was promoted as Senior Law Officer in Group 'B' (Senior Scale) (on ad hoc basis) on 25-4-2008, as is evident from Annexure P-6. Since the promotion of the petitioner was on ad hoc basis, the circular Annexure P-12 (Clause 8.2) would be applicable to the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner had not completed 8 years' service on Group 'B' post on the date when he was granted ad hoc promotion in the Senior Scale of Pay, i.e., on 25-4-2008 and, therefore, all that the petitioner would be entitled for is the charge allowance in addition to the substantive post in junior scale. The relevant circulars were issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways from time to time. In the light of the above said circulars passed by the Ministry of Railways, it is established that the order under challenge, i.e., the order of the Tribunal dated 21-10-2010 (Annexure P-1) is justified, legal and proper and does not warrant any interference and the instant writ petition deserves to be rejected.