- (1.) Heard Sri Prashant Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ali Hasan, Advocate for respondent-Shyam Sunder Sharma.
(2.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has come up against judgment and order dated 13.10.1998 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") in Original Application No. 1843 of 1998, whereby referring to judgment of Supreme Court in Ram Kumar and others Vs. Union of India and others, 1987 2 Scale 1189 Tribunal has directed petitioners to protect pay of respondent-Shyam Sunder Sharma in Group-C which he was getting before his absorption and regularization in Group-D.
(3.) Sri Prashant Mathur, learned counsel for petitioners, has objected to this part of judgment whereby it has directed petitioners to protect pay of respondent-Shyam Sunder Sharma in pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 which was applicable to Group-C though respondent-Shyam Sunder Sharma was screened and regularized in Group-D. It is submitted that judgment in Ram Kumar has no application to the facts this case and on the contrary in General Manager, Northern Railway and others Vs. Jageshwar and others (Civil Appeal No. 6413 of 2002), decided on 01.04.2009 Supreme Court has clearly said, when a casual employee is regularized in Group-D, mere fact that for some time he has worked on a post in Group-C, his pay cannot be protected in higher scale for the reason that in Railway, Group-C post are liable to be filled in only by promotion. Therein Tribunal has followed Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India Vs. Motilal, 1996 7 SCC 481 but Court in its judgment dated 01.04.2009 in General Manager, Northern Railway and others Vs. Jageshwar said that judgment in Union of India Vs. Motilal has no application. In paras 3, 4 and 5 Court held: "3. Motilal has no application. In that case, respondents were directly appointed as casual mates in Class III, though the post of made was an exclusive promotion post. They were regularized in a lower post. The Tribunal directed that they should be regularized as 'mates'.This Court held that respondents were not entitled to be regularized in Group III posts. But having regard to their long service of 22 to 25 years, this Court in exercise of powers under Article 142 left their regularization as mates undisturbed making it clear that the direction should not be treated as precedent. 4. This Court in Motilal case did not lay down any proposition that when an employee is absorbed in a different organization, his previous pay should be protected. Absorption in Railways was not in pursuance of any legal right. To avoid hardship to the employees of the construction organization on humanitarian grounds, the Railways chose to consider the surplus labour of that organization for absorption after screening them. When being so screened and absorbed, an employee cannot counted that he should be absorbed in a post equivalent to a post he was holding in the previous organization nor could the Tribunal or High Court direct that his pay should be protected. 5. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed, the orders of the High Court and Tribunal are set aside and as a consequence the original application is dismissed.";