RAJ KUMAR & ORS Vs. UOI & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the order dated 7th March, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribnunal, Principal Bench in OA 1785/2005 titled as Sh. Om Prakash Vs. Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway and Anr., dismissing the petition of Late Sh. Om Prakash, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal"s Act, 1985 seeking direction to the respondents to revise the pay in grade of Rs.4500-7000 w.e.f. 1st January, 1996 and to grant difference of pay and also to pay interest @ 18% at the amount due w.e.f. 1st October, 1996. Late Sh. Om Prakash was initially appointed as Lamp Man in 1960 and had been promoted to the rank of Shunting Jamadar and thereafter to Shunting Master in the grade of 380-560/1320-2040. The father of the petitioners alleged that because of domestic circumstances, i.e., on account of sickness of his wife, he remained absent for about 4-5 years and thereafter, on account of her daughter"s heart ailment, he had to go to Madras Railway Hospital and he remained absent before he joined the duties in 1995. When he joined after remaining absent for a number of years, he was issued major penalty charge sheets. In respect the major penalty charge sheet no. 84TM/11/A/35/94TM dated 20th July, 1994, he was exonerated by order dated 1st August, 1996 and in respect of another charge sheet (SF-5) No. 84TM/11/A/23/96 dated 12th March, 1996, the penalty of censure was imposed by order dated 14th October, 1996. The petitioners did not disclose about any other charge sheet against their father.

(2.) Late Sh. Om Prakash"s pay was however, reduced by three stages in April, 1996 and he continued to get reduced pay which was challenged by him after his retirement in May, 1996 in a petition filed in 2005 and contended that he was paid revised pension by PPO dated 1st December, 1998, where his basic pay was taken as Rs. 3100/- and it was not known to him as to on what basis his basic pay was taken as such. According to him, he was issued another revised PPO in the scale of Rs. 4000-6000 taking basic pay as Rs. 4100/-. According to him, the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 was normal replacement, however, subsequently, shunting master has been allotted the pay scale of 4500-7000 w.e.f. 1st January, 1996. The pleas and contentions of the petitioner were refuted by the respondents contending, inter alia, that the matter suffers from delay as he retired from 31st May, 1996 and major penalty charge sheets were issued to him about ten years back and his pay was also reduced by three stages in from 1.4.1996 and he continue to accept the reduced pay since April, 1996 and even after retirement in May, 1996 he continued to get the retiral benefits on the basis of reduced pay. Besides the two charge sheets, It was also pleaded by the petitioners that late Sh. Om Prakash was also awarded a punishment of reduction to three stages in time scale for one year which was affected from 1st April, 1996 and his pay was reduced from 1380/- to Rs. 1290/- w.e.f. 1st April, 1996 in the grade of 1200-2040 which was revised by 5th Pay Commission and the pay became equivalent to Rs. 4000-6000 w.e.f. 1st January, 1996 and the pay was not revised to Rs. 4500/- to 7000/-.

(3.) The respondents had asserted that Late Sh. Om Prakash"s pensionery benefits had been arranged amounted at Rs. 1290/- in the grade of 1200-2040 and revised in new scale at Rs. 4100/- in the grade of 4000-6000, which is correct. It was also pleaded by the respondents that late Sh. Om Prakash was working in erratic manner and he was given punishment for his behavior which was upheld by the higher authorities. The respondents also disclosed that late Sh. Om Prakash had entered into a conspiracy with undesirable staff members of the department as the record in respect of late Sh. Om Prakash had gone missing and it was done with malafide intentions. The pleas raised by the respondents that major penalty was imposed upon late Sh. Om Prakash of reduction to three stages in the time scale for one year, was not refuted before the Tribunal by filing any rejoinder. The Tribunal has thus, accepted the pleas and contentions of the respondents in noting that late Sh. Om Prakash remained on long absence and was ultimately awarded the punishment of reduction of pay and, therefore, he is not entitled for increment during that period. It was also noticed by the Tribunal that there is no such grade of Rs. 4000-6000 as well as Rs. 5000-8000 and as when late Sh. Om Prakash superannuated, the revised scale was Rs. 4000-6000, therefore, his pay was rightly fixed and that pension paid to him cannot be modified and consequently, dismissed the petition.