Pilla Venkateshwara Rao v. The Senior Divisional Operating Manager, South Eastern Railways, Waltair

Order

(Per Justice R. Subhash Reddy) This Writ Petition is filed by the applicant in O.A.No.1332 of 2000 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, aggrieved of the order dated

30.07.2002, dismissing the said O.A. Petitioner is a Station Master in East Coast Railways. He was initially appointed as Porter. He got periodical promotions. During the year 1991, he was working as Assistant Station Master in Simhachalam North. In the cadre of Assistant Station

Masters, one Sri G. Sanyasi Rao is junior to the petitioner. The petitioner and the said Sanyasi Rao were promoted as Station Masters vide proceedings dated 10.01.1991 in the payscale of Rs.1,400 – 2,300/-. The petitioner and Sanyasi Rao figured at S.Nos.7 and 14 respectively in the said proceedings. The petitioner was promoted and transferred to Chimidipalli while Sanyasi Rao, who was also promoted, was retained at the place of his working, i.e., Kakaluru. In spite of his promotion and transfer, petitioner did not join in the promotion post and had been making representations for his retention, mainly alleging that his junior Sanyasi Rao is retained at Simhachalam. A representation dated 15.10.1991 was addressed by the South Eastern Railway Mens’ Congress (workers union) to the Senior Divisional Operating Superintendent, Waltair, requesting for retention of the petitioner in Waltair area. The same was considered and rejected by the respondents. After about six years thereafter, representation dated

07.02.2000 was made by the petitioner for stepping up of his pay on par with Sanyasi Rao, alleging that though the said person is junior, he is drawing higher pay than him in the category of Station Masters. The same was replied vide proceedings dated 12.05.2000 by the Divisional Railway Manager (P) Waltair, stating that as the failed to carry out promotion orders immediately, as such, his claim for stepping up of his pay cannot be considered. It is the said proceedings which the petitioner had questioned before the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1332 of 2000 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Mainly, it was the case of the petitioner before the Tribunal that as himself and Sanyasi Rao were promoted on the same day and inasmuch as he is senior to Sanyasi Rao, he is entitled for stepping up of his pay on par with the said Sanyasi Rao. It was also his claim that as he was not relieved immediately on promotion, he had to work at the previous station. On behalf of the respondents, reply-statement was filed before the Tribunal by the Divisional Personnel Officer. While denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, the allegation of the petitioner that he was forced to continue as Assistant Station Master is categorically denied. It is averred in the reply-statement that after his promotion and transfer, petitioner had been making representations comparing himself to his junior, for his retention at the same place; as such, he has not carried out the transfer orders and tried for retention at Simhachalam by submitting representations himself and through recognized union. It is further averred that as the petitioner did not shoulder higher responsibility by joining in the promotion post, he cannot compare his pay with that of his junior, who immediately honoured the promotion and transfer order and joined in the vacancy. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, dismissed the claim of the petitioner, recording a finding that there was delay on the part of the petitioner in joining in the promotion post. Heard Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gouri Shanker Sanghi, learned standing counsel for the respondents. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was not relieved from the previous station, so as to enable him to join in the new station in the promotion post. It is submitted that the delay so caused was not on account of the petitioner; as such, he is entitled for stepping up of his pay on par with his junior, Sanyasi Rao. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned standing counsel for the respondents that immediately after transfer, petitioner was comparing himself with his junior in support of his claim for retention at Simhachalam. As junior to the petitioner, i.e. Sanyasi Rao, joined in the promotion post immediately, he started drawing higher pay and only on account of the delay on the part of the petitioner in joining the promotion post, he could not draw higher pay immediately and that is the reason why his junior is drawing higher pay. Inasmuch as delay is on account of the petitioner, he cannot compare his pay with that of his junior, so as to seek stepping up of his pay. It is not in dispute that petitioner and Sanyasi Rao were working as Assistant Station Masters and they were promoted as Station Masters and transferred by common proceedings. Petitioner was transferred and posted at Chimidipalli, whereas Sanyasi Rao was retained at the same station. Immediately after promotion and transfer, it appears, without joining the promotion post, petitioner went on making representations alleging that his junior is retained at the same station after promotion, whereas he was transferred to other place. Series of representations made by the petitioner and also representation of the South Eastern Railway Mens’ Congress (workers union) seeking relief to the petitioner would make it clear that petitioner did not join in the promotion post pursuant to promotion and transfer proceedings dated 10.01.1991. Though it is the case of the petitioner that he was forced to work at the previous station, the same is categorically denied in the reply- statement filed by the respondents before the Tribunal as well as before this Court. Petitioner himself is responsible for disparity in the pay which he is drawing, to that of his junior. After petitioner and Sanyasi Rao were promoted and transferred through very same proceedings, petitioner did not join in the promotion post. Therefore, he was not extended the pay in the scale attached to the promotion post, whereas Sanyasi Rao, who immediately joined by honouring the promotion and transfer proceedings, started drawing pay in the scale attached to the promotion post. That resulted in drawing lesser pay by the petitioner to that of Sanyasi Rao. It is also to be noticed that after promotion and transfer proceedings were issued in the year 1991, the claim of the petitioner was rejected immediately. However, nearly after six years thereafter, he made representation for stepping up of his pay. Such delay and laches are not properly explained by the petitioner. By merely making representations, petitioner cannot plead fresh cause of action either to approach the Tribunal or this Court. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the reasons recorded by the Tribunal, we do not find any valid ground to interfere with the impugned order. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. In the light of dismissal of the Writ Petition, miscellaneous petitions if any pending shall stand closed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J ________________ A.V. SESHA SAI, J 22 August 2013 MRR