HARBANSH DAYAL MATHUR Vs. UOI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal [hereinafter, "the Tribunal"] dated 04.09.2002 by which his application [O.A. 250/2002] has been dismissed, as also by the Tribunal's order dated 15.11.2002 by which his application for review [R.A. 273/2002] has been rejected.

(2.) The petitioner joined the services of the railways as a Clerk on 27.07.1963 in the Mechanical Cadre. He was promoted as an Assistant Superintendent with effect from 01.01.1984 by an order dated 08.02.1985. He claims to have been "transferred" to a field organization of the Railways, namely the Central Organization for Modernization of Workshops ["COFMOW"] as Assistant Superintendent with effect from 21.08.1985 and to have been promoted as a Superintendent in COFMOW on an ad-hoc basis on 18.10.1985. Although he was promoted substantively to the post of Superintendent in his parent cadre with effect from 17.02.1992, he continued in COFMOW until 27.12.2002 and thereafter joined the office of the Divisional Regional Manager ["DRM"], Northern Railway. He returned to his parent cadre on 25.01.2002 and was thereafter promoted as Chief Office Superintendent. His grievance is that, by an order dated 17.07.2002, his pay in the promoted post was reduced from Rs.9700 to Rs. 9025, treating his service in COFMOW and the office of the DRM as excadre deputation.

(3.) Ms. Meenu Mainee, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's service in COFMOW was wrongly disregarded by the railways and he was entitled to the benefit of protection of the pay which he had drawn. Although he has since retired from service on 30.06.2003, she contends that his pension has also been fixed on the basis of the reduced pay. Mr. Ashok Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner's entire service from 1985 to 2002 was in ex-cadre posts and he is not entitled to protection of pay in such circumstances.