R P ARORA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 9th July, 2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A No.2088/2006 titled R.P.Arora v. Union of India through General Manager, North Western Railway, Jaipur and Ors dismissing his petition seeking quashing of order dated 29th May, 2006 and declining the prayer of the petitioner for refixing his pay and pensionary benefits with effect from 11th January, 1988 by way of step up at par with his juniors with all consequential benefits as per Railway Boards circular dated 16th October, 1964.

(2.) The petitioner claims step up of his pay at par with his juniors on the ground that Western Railway communication dated 14th July, 1954 had contemplated that instructors deputed to Ajmer and Udaipur Training Schools retain a lien in their parent categories and as such he could not be promoted on account of being on deputation whereas his juniors were given ad-hoc promotion.

(3.) The respondents had opposed the plea of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner's name was on the panel dated 18th January, 1988 along with other employees including his juniors and he was promoted to pay scale of Rs.700-800/- vide order dated 25th January, 1988. The application was resisted on the ground that it is barred by limitation as his representation had already been replied in the year 1999 to claim setup of his pay at par with his juniors. While replying to petitioner's representations it was categorically stated that his juniors were not promoted to the revised pay scale of Rs.2000-3200/- but were promoted along with the petitioner by order dated 25th January, 1988 on regular basis. It was also asserted that the juniors to the petitioner were promoted on adhoc basis in 1985 to the pay scale of Rs.1600- 2660/-, however, on account of adhoc promotion given to the juniors earlier, the same could not be given to the petitioner. The Tribunal after considering the pleas and contentions have noted that in terms of circular dated 16th October, 1964, if there is an administrative error on account of which any promotion is lost, then an employee would not suffer on account of seniority as well as pay, however, the petitioner cannot contend that not granting adhoc promotion is on account of any administrative error as the petitioner was on deputation to another organization and could not be granted ad-hoc promotion required for administrative exigencies. The Tribunal has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. R.Swaminathan and Ors, (1997) 7 SCC 690 where considering FR 22(1) and also the O.M dated 4th November, 1993 detailing the instances where the stepping up of pay cannot be done. The Supreme Court had held as under:-