Jayanti Chandrasekhar Union of India and others … v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 6916 of 2024 Jayanti Chandrasekhar Union of India and others ….. Vs. ….. Petitioner Mr. R.C. Swain, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr. D. Gochhayat, CGC Order No. 01. CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 27.03.2024 This matter is taken up by hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. R.C. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India along with Mr. D. Gochhayat, learned Central Government Counsel. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 01.02.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.37 of 2017 and to allow the petitioner Rs.4600/- as grade pay with Sr. Translator and declare the petitioner to be entitled to Rs.4200/- grade pay from the year 2012, i.e. 29.02.2012. 4. On perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that the petitioner had approached the Tribunal seeking to quash the provisional seniority list No. ECoR/Pers/01/Seniority/Rajbhasa/336 dated 02.06.2016; the corrigendum dated 26.08.2016; and the provisional seniority list dated 12.09.2016. He had also prayed to declare him as a junior translator in the grade pay of Rs.4200/- with effective seniority in this grade pay from the date he joined as Rajbhasa Asst. Gr. II. 5. The petitioner has contended before the Tribunal that while Page 1 of 4 working as Technician Grade III, the petitioner had passed the written examination for Rajbhasa Assistant Grade II in the year 2011 and panel for promotion was published on 02.02.2012. The applicant was promoted to the post of Rajbhasa Assistant Gr. II with grade pay of Rs. 2800/- vide order dated 29.02.2012. The post of Rajbhasa Assistant was re-designated as Jr. Translator vide RBE No. 101/2012 dated 13.09.2012, wherein it was stated that pay would be upgraded from Rs. 2800/- to that of Rs. 4200/-. As per the office memorandum dated 13.09.2008, Ministry of Finance had clarified that where pre-revised scales have merged with higher scale, the suitability of the incumbent need not be assessed for granting them the higher replacement scale/grade pay and the incumbent will be automatically be granted the replacement pay scale recommended by the Commission. The educational qualifications in the RBE No. 101/2012 is meant for direct recruits as clarified in the office memorandum dated 19.09.2013 issued by DoPT. Instead of complying with the said orders and granting the applicant grade pay of Rs. 4200/-, the applicant was shown as junior translator with a grade pay of Rs.2800/- vide provisional seniority list dated 02.06.2016. Thereby, he had approached the Tribunal. 6. Pursuant to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the opposite parties entered and filed counter affidavit stating inter alia that the petitioner applied for the post of Rajbhasa Assistant and after passing the examination was empanelled for the post of Rajbhasa Assistant and promoted vide order dated 29.02.2012. Railway Board vide RBE No. 101/2012 merged the post of Rajbhasha Sahayak Grade II with Rajbhasa Sahayak Grade I with grade pay of Rs. 4200/- and redesignated as Jr. Translator and had also prescribed minimum qualification or length of service for the merger. The petitioner after completing six years of regular service was upgraded to the post of Jr. Translator in PB 2 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- w.e.f. 15.03.2018. The Page 2 of 4 office memorandum dated 13.09.2008 issued by Ministry of Finance was adopted by the Ministry of Railways vide RBE No. 132/2008 dated 25.09.2008 but the same was applicable in situation where 6th CPC had recommended merger of scales/upgradation and given a common replacement pay scale/grade pay. But in the case of the petitioner, in RBE No. 101/2012 dated 13.09.2012 upgradation/merger has been approved with the conditions of commensurate upgradation in the standards of recruitment and promotion. Till the said conditions are fulfilled, the incumbent of the lower post has to continue in the existing post/grade. As per DoPT office memorandum dated 19.09.2013, the educational qualifications are meant for direct recruitment only and it is just model recruitment rules and not applicable on Railway Services in view of Rule 123 and 124 of Railway Establishment Code Vol. I which gives full powers to Railway Board to make rules of general application to Group-C & employees. Consequentially prayed for dismissal of the Original Application. 7. The Tribunal on consideration of the same rejected the claim made by the petitioner. On perusal of records, it appears that RBE No. 101/2012 prescribes for educational qualifications and length of service for being given the benefits of upgraded pay, is in contrary to office memorandum dated 13.09.2008 of Ministry of Finance and office memorandum dated 19.09.2013 of DoPT and, therefore, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. On the other hand office memorandum dated 13.09.2008 of Ministry of Finance has been adopted by Railway Board vide RBE No. 132/2008 dated 25.09.2008. Office Memorandum dated 19.09.2013 is model recruitment rule for various posts and only for direct recruitment and is not applicable on railways. Apart from the same Rule 123 and 124 of Indian Railway Establishment Code specifically provides full power to Railway Board to make rules of general application to Group C & Group D railway Page 3 of 4 servants. Similar matters were considered by the apex Court in the case of Prabhat Ranjan Singh and another v. R.K. Kushwaha and others, (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 786, where a three Judge Bench of the apex Court made it clear at paragraph-21 of the judgment. Therefore, applying the same to the present case, the upgradation of the post or grant of higher pay scale has been effected by the Railway Board vide RBE No. 101 /2012 wherein the post of Rajbhasa Sahayak Gr. II after merger with Rajbhasa Sahayak Gr. I was decided to be phased out after the existing incumbents are placed in the higher post either after acquiring the educational qualification or 6 years of service. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Prabhat Ranjan Singh (supra) and Rule 123 & 124 of Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol. I, the Tribunal came to a finding that the Railway Board has the power to stipulate conditions for its employees. As such, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be extended. 8. This Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order of the Tribunal so as to cause interference. Accordingly, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same stands dismissed. JUDGE (DR. B.R. SARANGI) (G. SATAPATHY) JUDGE Subhasmita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 28-Mar-2024 17:10:01 Page 4 of 4