UNION OF INDIA Vs. VARENDER KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these cases common question of law is involved for consideration and the factual background in which the said question arises is also similar. The respondents in these petitions were working as constables in Railway Protection Force (fort short the RPF) and they were medically decategorised. Thereafter, they were offered the job of daftry/luggage porter/goods marker which was accepted by them which is in the lesser payscale and lower in hierarchy than the post of constable. Their case was that they should have been given the post of clerk which is equivalent in nature with that of a constable and this was in fact done in some other cases and, therefore, they challenged the action of the petitioner herein in not giving the post of clerk as arbitrary and discriminatory. Separate applications had been filed by them under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act and had been allowed by the Tribunal. All these writ petitions have been filed by the UOI challenging those decisions of the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience we take note of facts in WP(C) No.2184/2004.

(2.) Respondent No.1 in this petition was appointed as constable in grade Rs.825-1200 in the RPF on 29.6.1987. He was declared unfit by the medical authorities and was decategorised on 10.11.1993. The RPF authorities could not absorb him in an alternate similar job and, therefore, made a request to Sr. DPO/Northern Railway for his absorption vide letter dated 23.11.1993. This request was accepted and after the screening committee screened the case of the respondent, he was offered the job of daftry which is in the payscale of Rs.775- 1025 as no other similar post was available with the Northern Railway at that time. This offer was made to the respondent on 5.8.1994 who conveyed his acceptance and thereafter was taken on duty as daftry in August, 1994. Sometime in September, 1997 one Shri Narinder Singh who was also working as constable with the RPF and was similarly decategorised was absorbed as a clerk by the Railways. On coming to know of the aforesaid move on the part of the Northern Railways, respondent No.1 submitted his representation dated 11.1.2002 whereby he made request for grant of equivalent grade post. Since his request was not acceded to he filed OA No.118/2003 before the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in October, 2002 which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide impugned judgment dated 20.11.2003. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Tribunal would show that the Tribunal has been influenced primarily by the following two reasons in granting relief to the respondent No.1 and directing his absorption as clerk, namely;

(3.) Assailing the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that when the post of daftry was offered to the respondent he accepted the same unequivocally and unconditionally and, therefore, he could not have made a hue and cry subsequently by demanding the post of clerk. This argument is stated to be rejected in view of clear mandate provided under Rule 1314 of IREM as discussed above. In fact, it is the petitioner's case that when respondent was offered the post of daftry, no other post was available.