ANUPAM CHAKRABORTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant, Shri Anupam Chakraborty filed a writ application in the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta which by operation of Sec. 29 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 came to this Tribunal by way of transfer for disposal.

(2.) The applicant was appointed as a Lecturer (Engg.) in the Kanchrapara Technical School within the Eastern Railway on 29.8.1969 in the scale of pay of Rs. 325 -1,030. The said school was owned and controlled, by the Eastern Railway and the members of the staff working there were considered as railway servants for all practical purposes. On 13.9.1971 while the applicant was working as a Lecturer in the said school he applied through proper channel for the post of Appraiser (Machinery Expert -Electrical) in response to an advertisement made by the Union Public Service Commission. His application was duly forwarded by the Principal of the said Technical School to the U.P.S.C. The applicant was elected by the Selection Board. On being released from the post of Lecturer on 11.12.1972 the applicant joined the post of Appraiser under the Collector of Customs, Calcutta on 12.12.1972. It was mentioned in his release order that his lien to the post of Lecturer would be retained for a period of two years from the date of release. After such appointment the applicant's pay was fixed in the scale of Rs. 350 -900. On 3.5.1973 the applicant after receiving his last pay certificate from the Technical School made an application to the Collector of Customs for fixation of his pay. On 11.9.1973 the once of the Accountant General, Central made query to the respondent No. 2 whether the past service of the applicant as a Lecturer in the said Technical School would be counted for all purposes and whether his assignment in the post of Appraiser was higher than that of the post of Lecturer. The matter was subsequently referred to the Ministry of Finance Government of India. On 27.2.1975 the applicant got a letter from the Chief Accounts Officer, Customs House, Calcutta by which he was informed that his appointment to the post of Appraiser was a fresh appointment under the Central Government and as such no higher initial pay could be allowed to him. His prayer for fixation of higher pay was turned down on the ground that the previous service rendered by him was not under the Central Government and was held in temporary capacity. The applicant felt aggrieved by that decision and sent a memorandum to the President of India. According to him his case would be governed by the provisions of FR -22 -C and under the provision of that rule he is entitled to get higher fixation of pay. In filing the application the applicant has prayed for issuing a direction upon the respondents so that they may fix his pay according to rules.

(3.) The application has been contested by the respondents. It is the case of the respondents that although the applicant did not hold any post under any Government the U.P.S.C. erroneously recommended for fixation of his higher initial pay. According to the respondents, Kanchrapara Technical School was not a Government Institution. It is a joint venture of the Government of West Bengal and the Railway in as much as the salaries of the members of the staff are as per the State Government scale and the expenditure on the same and some other heads are borne by the State Government in the shape of annual grants to the Railways. The respondents aver that although the concession of railway passes, provident fund, etc., as applicable to the railway servant are extended to the members of the staff of that institution, they are not treated as railway servants. The administration and overall control of the Institution are vested in a Managing Committee called the "Local Committee" which is appointed by the Railway Administration with the State Government. According to the respondents, the said Institution is of the nature of a Government aided Institution and as such the members of the staff working there cannot be treated as Government servants. The respondents contend further that when the applicant had prayed for higher initial pay the matter was referred to the Ministry of Finance, Government of India and on the basis of the decision taken by the said Ministry no higher initial pay could be made admissible to the applicant. According to the respondents, the applicant's case cannot at all be governed by the provisions of F.R.22 -C.