Ram Sagar v. Union of India and

Judgment

1. Heard Shri Lal Ji Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Dileep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondents and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated

18.12.2023 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (in short ‘the Tribunal’) has dismissed the Original Application No. 6 of 2011 filed by the petitioner alongwith two other persons, thereby denying various reliefs claimed by the petitioner.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially engaged as Khalasi on 15.07.1978 and was promoted as Helper Khalasi Grade-I w.e.f. 01.09.1989. He performed duties of Chlorinator Operator w.e.f. 01.01.1990. On 05.03.1993, the department, in order to fill-up eight posts of Chlorinator Operator, issued a communication to hold trade test for such posts. Applications were invited, but thereafter, holding of test was postponed and, later on, 1 of 5 Writ A No. 6348 of 2025 (Ram Sagar vs. Union of India and 6 others) cancelled. Taking the parity with some allegedly identically placed Chlorinator Operators and work done by them, a claim was raised for a particular pay scale/grade. It is pleaded that the petitioner voluntarily retired from the department on 03.01.2013 on medical ground.

4. Though, no copy of Original Application filed before the Tribunal has been annexed to the writ petition, on perusal of second paragraph of the order impugned, as passed by the Tribunal, it stands reflected that challenge was laid by the petitioner to orders/letters dated 15.03.2005, 15.03.2010 and

06.07.2010 with a further prayer to direct the department to give benefits of scale of pay to the petitioner admissible for the post of Chlorinator Operator. Further prayer was made to direct the respondents to allow fixation of pay with retrospective effect, i.e. from the date the petitioner was working as Chlorinator Operator.

5. The department contested the claim of the petitioner before the Tribunal stating that the benefits of A.C.P. scheme as per the dates when the same fell due, were granted to the petitioner. As

regards the post of Chlorinator Operator, it was argued on behalf of the department that no such post was ever sanctioned and, therefore, there was no point of conducting trade test. Similarity in between the case of the petitioner and others was specifically disputed with reference to the services rendered by the concerned persons. It was also argued that there was no machine installed in the department and, therefore, no question of working of the petitioner as Chlorinator Operator ever arose. 2 of 5 Writ A No. 6348 of 2025 (Ram Sagar vs. Union of India and 6 others)

6. The Tribunal, after considering the record of proceedings, dismissed Original Application by recording following findings in paragraph nos.18 and 19 of the order, which read as under:- “18. Thus, in view of the above deliberations and analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the instant case holds no merit and is liable to be dismissed accordingly. The Tribunal cannot overlook the fact that the applicants have never participated nor passed the trade test. Further, the resemblance made with the case of Indra Bahadur Singh cannot be accepted because in the said case, the candidate had qualified the trade test and he was operating at Kanpur Division of the respondents' office where the chlorinator machine was installed. For that purpose, the said employee was given a three months training. However, in the instant case of the applicants, they never passed any trade test and no such training was ever given nor was there any such machine installed. Furthermore, no cogent explanation has been provided on the part of the applicants to substantiate their argument for allowing their case adhering to the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.

19. Accordingly, OA No. 06 of 2011 is dismissed being devoid of merits.”

7. Challenging the order impugned, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Tribunal has recorded a perverse finding contrary to the record, particularly the rejoinder affidavit and its enclosures which demonstrate that there were four douser machines at Mirzapur and, hence, the finding that there was no such machines installed, being perverse, is liable to be set aside. Submission was also made that identically placed persons having been granted benefit of pay scale, the department discriminated the petitioner and, therefore, the order impugned should be set aside and the petitioner be granted reliefs as claimed. 3 of 5 Writ A No. 6348 of 2025 (Ram Sagar vs. Union of India and 6 others)

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that neither the post of Chlorinator Operator was ever sanctioned nor was trade test ever conducted and the case of the petitioner being distinguishable from others, mere alleged working as Chlorinator Operator would not confer a right upon him to claim desired reliefs.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we find nothing on record to indicate that post of Chlorinator Operator was ever sanctioned. When the department proceeded to go ahead with process of appointment on the post of Chlorinator Operator and felt necessity to conduct trade test, neither the test was conducted nor even the post was sanctioned whatever might have been the reasons. Resultantly, the entire process of appointment was dropped. Therefore, the very claim put up by the petitioner qua the post of Chlorinator Operator, has no legs to stand on.

10. As far as the stand taken by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit filed before the Tribunal or enclosures thereof, though assertions were made that four douser machines were there at Mirzapur, the document relied upon is a letter dated 26.11.1992, wherein the Construction Inspector had communicated to the Divisional Engineer that work of Pump Operator/Chlorinator Operator was being taken from certain persons, but they had been engaged as Khalasi. Another letter is dated 18.08.2010, which is in the nature of an information furnished upon one Vijay Shankar to the effect that four douser rooms were at North Central Railways, Mirzapur for clean water and four douser machines were also 4 of 5 Writ A No. 6348 of 2025 (Ram Sagar vs. Union of India and 6 others) there. Such an intimation does not at all reflect the nature of machines and even if it is assumed that there were some machines at Mirzapur Centre, meant for clean water, the same, in itself, cannot be a ground for conferring a status upon the petitioner as that of Chlorinator Operator or to grant all service benefits including the scale of pay qua the said post.

11. The Court, in absence of sufficient material on record, cannot assume existence of a sanctioned post of Chlorinator Operator and, therefore, merely based upon a bald assertion made by the petitioner that for certain period of time, work of Chlorinator Operator had been taken from him, the same would not suffice grant of any relief claimed by him, either from the department or from the Tribunal or from this Court.

12. Consequently, we do not find any error in the view taken by the Tribunal.

13. The petition has no merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 23.5.2025 Sazia (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) 5 of 5 SAZIA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

regards the post of Chlorinator Operator, it was argued on behalf of the department that no such post was ever sanctioned and, therefore, there was no point of conducting trade test. Similarity in between the case of the petitioner and others was specifically disputed with reference to the services rendered by the concerned persons. It was also argued that there was no machine installed in the department and, therefore, no question of working of the petitioner as Chlorinator Operator ever arose. 2 of 5 Writ A No. 6348 of 2025 (Ram Sagar vs. Union of India and 6 others)

6. The Tribunal, after considering the record of proceedings, dismissed Original Application by recording following findings in paragraph nos.18 and 19 of the order, which read as under:- “18. Thus, in view of the above deliberations and analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the instant case holds no merit and is liable to be dismissed accordingly. The Tribunal cannot overlook the fact that the applicants have never participated nor passed the trade test. Further, the resemblance made with the case of Indra Bahadur Singh cannot be accepted because in the said case, the candidate had qualified the trade test and he was operating at Kanpur Division of the respondents' office where the chlorinator machine was installed. For that purpose, the said employee was given a three months training. However, in the instant case of the applicants, they never passed any trade test and no such training was ever given nor was there any such machine installed. Furthermore, no cogent explanation has been provided on the part of the applicants to substantiate their argument for allowing their case adhering to the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.

19. Accordingly, OA No. 06 of 2011 is dismissed being devoid of merits.”

7. Challenging the order impugned, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Tribunal has recorded a perverse finding contrary to the record, particularly the rejoinder affidavit and its enclosures which demonstrate that there were four douser machines at Mirzapur and, hence, the finding that there was no such machines installed, being perverse, is liable to be set aside. Submission was also made that identically placed persons having been granted benefit of pay scale, the department discriminated the petitioner and, therefore, the order impugned should be set aside and the petitioner be granted reliefs as claimed. 3 of 5 Writ A No. 6348 of 2025 (Ram Sagar vs. Union of India and 6 others)

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that neither the post of Chlorinator Operator was ever sanctioned nor was trade test ever conducted and the case of the petitioner being distinguishable from others, mere alleged working as Chlorinator Operator would not confer a right upon him to claim desired reliefs.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we find nothing on record to indicate that post of Chlorinator Operator was ever sanctioned. When the department proceeded to go ahead with process of appointment on the post of Chlorinator Operator and felt necessity to conduct trade test, neither the test was conducted nor even the post was sanctioned whatever might have been the reasons. Resultantly, the entire process of appointment was dropped. Therefore, the very claim put up by the petitioner qua the post of Chlorinator Operator, has no legs to stand on.

10. As far as the stand taken by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit filed before the Tribunal or enclosures thereof, though assertions were made that four douser machines were there at Mirzapur, the document relied upon is a letter dated 26.11.1992, wherein the Construction Inspector had communicated to the Divisional Engineer that work of Pump Operator/Chlorinator Operator was being taken from certain persons, but they had been engaged as Khalasi. Another letter is dated 18.08.2010, which is in the nature of an information furnished upon one Vijay Shankar to the effect that four douser rooms were at North Central Railways, Mirzapur for clean water and four douser machines were also 4 of 5 Writ A No. 6348 of 2025 (Ram Sagar vs. Union of India and 6 others) there. Such an intimation does not at all reflect the nature of machines and even if it is assumed that there were some machines at Mirzapur Centre, meant for clean water, the same, in itself, cannot be a ground for conferring a status upon the petitioner as that of Chlorinator Operator or to grant all service benefits including the scale of pay qua the said post.

11. The Court, in absence of sufficient material on record, cannot assume existence of a sanctioned post of Chlorinator Operator and, therefore, merely based upon a bald assertion made by the petitioner that for certain period of time, work of Chlorinator Operator had been taken from him, the same would not suffice grant of any relief claimed by him, either from the department or from the Tribunal or from this Court.

12. Consequently, we do not find any error in the view taken by the Tribunal.

13. The petition has no merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 23.5.2025 Sazia (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) 5 of 5 SAZIA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad