UNION OF INDIA Vs. REGISTRAR CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents 1 to 4 in O.A. No. 914 of 2003 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, are the Petitioners herein. THE said Original Application was filed by the respondents 2 to 5 herein seeking the relief of fixing their pay on par with the sixth respondent herein, who was junior to them, as per the seniority list published by the second petitioner in his letter NOT/P.612/ III/TC/Vol.2 dated 30.09.2002.

(2.) THE respondents 2 to 5 have canvassed before the Tribunal that the second respondent was promoted as Chief Traveling Ticket Inspector, hereinafter referred to as CTTI on 15.02.1995 the third respondent was promoted to the said post on 30.12.1985 the fourth respondent was promoted on 25.05.1987 the fifth respondent was promoted on 25.05.1987 and the sixth respondent was promoted on 17.08.1989, all in the scale of pay of Rs.6500-10500 that the respondents 2 to 5 were getting lesser pay than the sixth respondent, though he was promoted only on 17.08.1989 and pointing out the same, they sent representations dated 18.11.2002 and 27.01.2003, which were not considered by the petitioners, hence, the said O.A. was filed before the Tribunal.

(3.) THE learned standing counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the sixth respondent was initially recruited in Group 'C' in scale of Rs.260-400 on 10.06.1977. Though the respondents 2 to 5 were recruited in the Railways prior to 1976, the sixth respondent was promoted to the scale of pay of Rs.425-640 which is a selection post on 05.09.1979 under the panel published on 07.08.1979 whereas, the respondents 2, 4 and 5 were promoted to the said selection grade on 24.11.1982 and the third respondent was promoted on 13.03.1980, thus, the respondents 2 to 5 were selected and promoted to the said grade much later to the sixth respondent and they consequently become junior to the sixth respondent that only while entering the pay scale in the grade of Rs.6500-10500, which is a selection grade post consisting of written examination and viva voce, the sixth respondent was placed below the respondents 2 to 5 in the seniority list, since he was selected to the said grade at a later point of time, which would not affect the increments in pay earned by him over a period of time and it resulted in the sixth respondent drawing more pay, hence, the pay of the respondents 2 to 5 not entitled to be stepped up that stepping up of pay is concerned, para 1316 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume II is applicable and pay can be stepped up only if the conditions, as contemplated thereunder, are satisfied that the Rule contemplates stepping of pay is applicable only if the railway servant promoted or appointed subsequently to another identical post that in the present case, the sixth respondent was senior to the respondents 2 to 5 herein in the lower post and not junior to them and prayed for setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal. In support of his contention, the learned standing counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (E.S.I. Corporation and another vs. P.K. Srinivasamurthy and another) (1997) II Supreme Court cases 533 wherein in Para-8, it was held thus:-