DINESH MAHESHWARI,J. - (1.) A short question arising for determination in this case is as to whether a casual employee, who has secured temporary status, is entitled, upon acquiring additional qualification, to the benefit of an incentive scheme whereby the railways employees are given advance increments upon acquiring such qualification.
(2.) THE contextual factual aspects, so far relevant for the present purpose, could be noticed in brief as follows: The respondent No. 1 Satish Kumar Sharma was initially appointed on the post of Sub - Overseer Mistri on casual basis on 31.12.1985; and while serving as such, he cleared Section "A" of AMIE examination in the year 1992 with prior permission of the competent authority. With reference to the qualification so acquired, the applicant -respondent No.1 claimed two advance increments as per the incentive scheme in vogue. Having failed to obtain the requisite relief from the present petitioners, the applicant -respondent No.1 filed the OA (No.412/1996) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ('CAT'). The applicant -respondent No.1 submitted in the OA that despite his having made the representation, the respondents had failed to grant him due increments. The applicant referred to the case of a similarly circumstanced person Shri Manohar Balani, who had been granted two advance increments after having passed Section "A" of AMIE. The respondents of OA, the present petitioners, contended before the CAT that the claim made by the applicant - respondent No.1 was barred by limitation. It was also contended that the referred incentive scheme was not applicable to the applicant, who was a casual employee.
(3.) THE applicant filed a rejoinder with the submissions that after completion of 360 days of continuous service, he was entitled to temporary status; and that temporary status casual employees were entitled to all the benefits as per para 2511 of the Indian Railway Establishment Mannual; and hence, he was entitled to the relief claimed. The applicant also contended that he made a representation in the year 1995 and for the authorities having refused to extend the benefit of advance increments, has rightly approached the CAT; and that the claim made by him was not barred by limitation.;