R. KRISHNA RAO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to declare the action of the second respondent in issuing Corrigendum-I to the Directive 29, vide proceedings dtd. 12/1/2015 reducing the Grade Pay of Tailor Grade - III as 1900 instead of 2000 and consequential orders of the third respondent vide proceedings dtd. 12/7/2019, which is followed by the adjutant who is the Sub-Ordinate Authority of the fourth respondent vide proceedings dtd. 16/7/2019 is illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner with Grade Pay of 2000 with effect from 27/8/2006 to 27/4/2016.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the notification dtd. 4/1/2006 for recruitment of Ancillary Staff (Male only) in Railway Protection Force (RPF) / Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF) for 16 vacancies like Kahar / Water Carrier (Constable Cook), Safai Wala, Washer Man (Dobhi), Barber, Tailor, the petitioner applied to the post of Tailor and he was selected for the said post and after completion of all the recruitment process he was given call letter for initial training for Ancillary Staff in RPSF with effect from 1/7/2006 at 5th Battalion/RPSF/Trichy for a period of two months vide proceedings dtd. 12/6/2006. After completion of successful training for a period of eight weeks from 1/7/2006 to 26/8/2006, the petitioner was appointed as Tailor in the pay scale of Rs.3050.0075-3950-4590, vide Battalion Order No.167/2006 dtd. 19/9/2006. The petitioner further submits that as per the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, the Ancillary Staff was included under Schedule I (V) as members of the force with various designations and that the salaries of Constable Tailors (Ancillary Staff) are given on par with the Constables (Executive). Petitioner further submits that the pay scales of all the railway employees were revised with effect from 1/1/2006.

(3.) Petitioner further submits that though the RPF Rules, 1987 specifically state that the Ancillary Staff will get same salary as that of the Enrolled Members of the force in Executive Wing, the respondents have not implemented the same to the Ancillary Staff as there is no clear proceeding in the Pay Revision Orders; therefore, the salary of the petitioner has been fixed less than the Executive Wing constables except for the Grade Pay of Rs.1900.00 duly fixing pay scale of Rs.6070.00 with effect from 01.07. 2007 with increment of three percentage on 1/7/2008 pay scale of Rs.6310,.00 further adding three percentage, his pay was fixed as on 1/7/2009 pay scale of Rs.6560.00 and further he was given pay scale of Rs.6820.00 as on 1/7/2010 duly fixing his initial pay band/ scale of Rs.5830.00 with effect from 1/7/2006 with Grade Pay of Rs.1900.00 which is shown in his service register. It is further submitted that the Railway Board has issued Proceedings dtd. 3/7/2013 accepting the Pay Scales and Grade Pay of the Sixth Pay Commission. However, the fourth respondent in pursuance of the direction of the first respondent has issued proceedings to the effect that existing Grade Pay (Rs.1900.00) of Driver, Tailor and Cobbler may remain in force till finalization from pay commission Directorate. Subsequently, on his application, the category of the petitioner was changed from Ancillary to Constable (Executive) in RPSF, vide proceedings dtd. 18/7/2016. Petitioner further submits that he made a representation on 26/11/2018 to the third respondent for grant of Grade Pay of Rs.2000.00 from 27/8/2006 on which date he has completed his training for the post of Tailor and also to grant MACP with Grade Pay of Rs.2400.00 which is payable to the Head Constables since he has not got promotion. However, the third respondent instead of granting the benefit of 2000 Grade Pay from 27/8/2006, has rejected the claim stating that his pay cannot be fixed in the post of Tailor Grade III with Grade Pay of Rs.2000.00 instead of fixing Rs.1900.00 Grade Pay, vide proceedings dtd. 12/7/2019 based on the Corrigendum - I to the Directive 29, vide proceedings dtd. 12/1/2015 of the second respondent. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.