INDRAJIT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Railways and perused the 2nd Supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Railways.

(2.) The issue raised in this petition is of benefits of restructuring of the grade pay admissible to the petitioner at par with Pradip Kumar Paswan, who has been extended the said benefit with effect from 1st of November, 2003. The contention raised by Shri Dixit is that once the claim of the petitioner for promotion as Office Superintendent Grade II has been accepted in terms of the judgement in O.A. No.51 of 2002 decided on 19th February, 2010, then the mere pendency of the said litigation or attaining the age of superannuation on 31st July, 2012 cannot denude the petitioner from receiving such benefits to which he is entitled at par with Pradip Kumar Paswan who was admittedly junior to the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue with regard to promotion in O.S. Grade II was raised before the Tribunal arraying Pradip Kumar Paswan as respondent no.6 in the proceedings before the Tribunal in O.A. No.51 of 2002. The Tribunal ultimately found that the respondents had committed an error in calculating the vacancies by denying the benefit of promotion in O.S. Grade II to the petitioner. It was finally held by the Tribunal that there are two unreserved vacancies and one Scheduled Caste vacancy and thus there being three vacancies, the claim of the petitioner was bound to be considered. In the light of the said findings, the petitioner's application was allowed holding that the petitioner would be entitled to get promoted to the O.S. Grade II from the date his junior, namely Pradip Kumar Paswan, has joined on the post of O.S. Grade II.