UNION OF INDIA Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dtd. 12/11/2013 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 2708/2012.

(2.) Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has allowed the original application preferred by the respondent by setting aside the order dtd. 21/1/2011 passed by the petitioner - Divisional Railway Manager ("DRM'), whereunder, the respondent's request for grant of benefits envisaged under the cadre restructuring held in the year 1993 and in the year 2003 to the post of Grinder-II was rejected. The said order rejecting the respondent's request was passed on the premise that he was holding the said post of Grinder-II w.e.f 14/5/1991 only by way of a temporary local arrangement (TLA). The learned Tribunal has, consequently, held that the respondent will be considered as Grinder-II w.e.f. 14/5/1991 for all purposes and, has directed the petitioner to grant him all benefits of the two cadre restructuring exercises w.e.f., 1/1/1983 and 1/1/2003 respectively alongwith all consequential benefits including promotion. The monetary benefits have, however, been restricted w.e.f. 19/3/2008, i.e., the date on which the respondent had made his first representation to the petitioners.

(3.) In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned tribunal has failed to appreciate that the respondent who has joined service as Khalasi on 15/4/1981 was, thereafter, based on trade test held on 19/5/1986 promoted as a Grinder - III. He submits that the respondent continued to be a Grinder ' III and was posted as a Grinder-II by way of a temporary local arrangement and was, therefore, not entitled to receive the benefits applicable to the post of Grinder-II. Without prejudice to his aforesaid plea that the respondent was not entitled to be granted any benefits of Grinder-II, he submits that in any event, the learned Tribunal could not have directly extended all the benefits of cadre restructuring of the post of Grinder-II to the respondent without appreciating the fact that the respondent was required to meet the other laid down parameters.