UNION OF INDIA Vs. SANT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent has litigated four times with the Indian Railways before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The litigation commenced for the first time when respondent filed OA No.1679/1994 challenging the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority removing him from service on account of gross negligence and not completing the assigned work to him. Finding a technical flaw, pertaining to the procedure, the penalty order was set aside. Respondent was reinstated in service as per order dated July 21, 1999 passed by the Tribunal allowing OA No.1679/1994; simultaneously granting liberty to the department to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings. The resumed disciplinary proceedings culminated in a penalty of withholding two increments being imposed upon the respondent and in appeal the Appellate Authority reduced the penalty to withholding the increments for only three months. The respondent challenged the penalty vide OA No.1917/2001 which was allowed by the Tribunal on February 01, 2002. The penalty was quashed and a direction was issued that the intervening period during which petitioner either remained under suspension or without job as a consequence of he being initially dismissed from service be treated as per Rule 1343 and 1344 of the Indian Railways Establishment Manual (Vol.II). Complying with the direction issued by the Tribunal the Railway Authorities passed an order treating the period from June 13, 1993 till December 19, 1999 i.e. the period interregnum respondent being dismissed from service and reinstated, as spent on duty but under suspension. The result was the respondent being entitled to only subsistence allowance for said period.

(2.) STILL aggrieved, respondent filed OA No.26/2003 challenging the order passed by the department and succeeded in the challenge when OA No.26/2003 was allowed by the Tribunal on September 03, 2003. The direction issued was that the entire period would be treated as spent on duty with all consequential benefits. The result was that the department had to pay wages with increment to the respondent for the period in question.

(3.) THE respondent went marching before the Tribunal and filed OA No.2145/2005 seeking salary and allowances payable to a Technician Grade III with effect from January 01, 1999 as also to be promoted to the grade of Technician Grade II. OA No.2145/2005 was disposed of by the Tribunal on August 14, 2006 directing that a fresh order be passed on the subject of respondents entitlement to receive wages as Technician Grade III with effect from January 01, 1999 and further promotion as a Technician Grade II.