JITENDRA SHRIVASTAVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs :-

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner while working on the post of Motorman i.e. running category in Western Railway in the pay scale of Rs.5,500.009,000/-, has applied for appointment to the post of Sec. Engineer through RRB, Mumbai and after getting NOC, he appeared in the selection process conducted by RRB, Mumbai and selected and appointed on the post of Sec. Engineer and accordingly, he was relieved from the Western Railway from the post of Motorman (running category) to the post of Sec. Engineer (Stationery category) and joined on the said post on 9/3/2000, which carries the pay scale of Rs.6,500.0010,500. The respondent department has fixed his basic pay in the month of April, 2000 by adding 30% pay element of running allowance, However, subsequently, the respondent authorities in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner, has withdrawn the said benefit w.e.f. September, 2006 and an amount of Rs.2,581.00 was directed to be recovered monthly from the pay of the applicant in 72 instalments. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner had preferred O.A.No.519/2020 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal without appreciating the merits of the case had dismissed the original application on the ground of limitation. Being aggrieved therewith the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner sought clarification and lastly it was replied that as per Railway Board's instructions, running category employees who are medically decategorised and joined in stationary post, are entitled to get 30% running allowance. However, as per Railway Board's Letter dtd. 15/9/2006, it prescribes that employees who are competing through GDCE and are appointed on a stationary post, they are not entitled for the benefit of 30% pay element added to his basic pay. It is further submitted that as Para 3 of the RB Circular dtd. 15/9/2006, specifically prescribes that the past cases should not be reopened and it does not have any retrospective effect. Thus, the petitioner who joined the stationary post in the year 2000 from running category after completing all procedure in accordance with law has rightly received the benefit of 30% adding pay element in the basic pay in the month of April, 2000 and there would be no application of that circular. Thus, the action of the respondents in withdrawing the same by harping upon the Railway Board Circular dtd. 15/9/2006 is bad in law.