- (1.) Aggrieved by the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench dated 10th July 2007, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.) On 29th June 1992, the petitioner was employed as a Trainee Assistant Driver (Electrical). The training period was for 18 months. According to the petitioner, his training period was curtailed to six months by an order issued on 18th February 1993. He was then put in independent charge to run a locomotive as an Assistant Driver from 7th March 1993. The petitioner met with an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. As a result of this accident the petitioner was medically de-categorised w.e.f. 4th November 1993. On the basis of the policy of the Railways to employ drivers who have been medically de-categorised for other work, the petitioner was employed as a clerk from 7th February 1994. According to the petitioner he is entitled to running allowance as he was paid this allowance while he was working as an Assistant Driver for the months of March 1993 and April 1993. The petitioner contends that this running allowance was not paid thereafter to him, neither was it paid to him when he was employed as a clerk although the rules of the Railways require that a medically de-categorised driver s pay is to be protected. The petitioner, therefore, approached the Tribunal seeking payment of the running allowance. The application of the petitioner has been denied on the ground that the running allowance of Rs 446 and Rs 471 for the months of March and April 1993 was paid to him due to an error.
(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Tribunal on several grounds. He submitted that although the petitioner had been paid the running allowance for the months of March and April 1993 it was not continued thereafter. He was invited our attention to the certain documents issued by the Railways which according to him make it amply clear that the petitioner was employed as an Assistant Driver with independent charge after his training was curtailed to six months due to exigencies of work. He has submitted before us that the petitioner was paid Rs 950/- plus running allowance in the months of March and April 1993 and, therefore, it was evident that the allowance should be continued to be paid to him in view of the circular of the Railway Board and the policy of the Railways to protect the pay of a medically de-categorised driver.;