N. Sengupta, J. - (1.) Essentially the relief that the applicant has asked for in this application is for paying him salary in the scale prescribed for Chargemen. Gr. I for the period commencing from the time when his immediate junior was promoted to that grade.
(2.) The case of the applicant, put in brief, is that he was initially appointed in the South Eastern Railway, he made a representation in March 1984 for his transfer to Eastern Railway. At that time, he was a Chargeman, Gr. B. After his representation he was asked to signify his willingness to take the bottom seniority in the grade of Chargeman, Gr. B in the division in the Eastern Railway to which he was to be transferred and he conveyed his willingness to take the bottom seniority. He came on transfer on 17.6.84. After he came on transfer, two others, who were then under training, i.e. S. Roy and Shri Misra made representations and even though they joined the shop/unit later, they were wrongly shown to be senior to the applicant. Against this, he (the applicant) preferred an appeal. On 14.9.87 he was posted as Chargeman, Gr. A. This Chargeman, Gr. A posting was to take effect from 18.6.84 and Shri S. Roy was shown as junior to him. A copy of this order dated 14.9.87 is annexure -C to the application. After this order, S. Roy filed an application in this Tribunal which was numbered as O.A. 737/87 questioning that order dt. 14.9.87. But Mr. Roy's application was dismissed for default on 31.5.89. In that O.A. 737/87 an interim order concerning the pay was passed which was vacated on 17.9.87. In the meanwhile the applicant was promoted as Foreman, Gr. II with effect from 1.2.85 carrying the then pay scale of Rs. 700 -900/ -. In the due course he was confirmed as Foreman, Gr. II. His grievance is that even though the wrong done to him in matters of seniority was redressed, yet he was not paid arrears despite his junior Shri S. Roy was paid salary in respect of the promotional post with effect from 1.2.85, by an order dated 13.3.85 of tire CPO. For this non -payment, he made representation but his request has been turned down on the ground that under the rules, he is not entitled to any arrears.
(3.) The respondents in their reply have not disputed the facts averred by the applicant but their case is that as the applicant had not actually held the post, he cannot be entitled to the pay attached to that post. Therefore, no arrears is payable to him. Their case further is that the applicant's pay has been fixed notionally with effect from the date he ought to have been promoted and he has been paid salary of the promotional post since the date he was actually promoted.;