R.K. MALIK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the orders dated 03.02.2017 (Annexure-P/1) & 14.01.2016 (Annexure-P/2) passed by the respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Lecturer in Regional Engineering College, Kurukshetra in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 for a period of 5 years i.e. from 20.02.1984 to 05.03.1989. Thereafter, the petitioner had appeared in the Civil Services Examination conducted by the UPSC in the year, 1987 in which he was appointed as Assistant Security Commissioner in J.R. R.P.F. Academy Lucknow vide order dated 06.03.1989. After successfully completing the training, the petitioner was posted as ASC, Reni Gunta, Guntakal Division (Andhra Pradesh) of South Central Railway. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted from time to time and at present he is posted as Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, West Central Railway, Jabalpur. The petitioner has not given the benefit of his previous service in Regional Engineering Service, Kurukshetra for a period of five years as mentioned above while fixing his pay in Railway as per office memo dated 07.08.7989. The circular dated 07.08.1989 was adopted by the Railway Board to the employees of Railway mutatis mutandis by issuing a circular dated 08.01.1992 by the Railway Board. The some other employees who are similarly situated and have not extended the said benefit have filed a Writ Petition No. 921/1998 before the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court. The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 18.07.2013 and the order was maintained up to the Apex Court. The petitioner being similar situated employee has submitted a representation on 27.11.2015. The said representation was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 14.01.2016 stating that the benefit of orders can be given to those employees in respect of whom, separate orders are passed by the Railway Board. The petitioner thereafter again submitted a representation dated 20.01.2016 to the General Manager West Central Railway. The Railway Board vide order dated 03. 02.2017 has rejected the said representation. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court. He submits that the circular issued by the Central Government has been adopted by the Railway department mutatis mutandis, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to get the benefit of the said circular. He further submits that in case of other similarly situated employees, the benefit of such circular has been extended towards them. The representation submitted by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the benefit has been extended to the employees in whose favour an order has been passed by the Court.