M.Y. Eqbal, J. - (1.) BY this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 15.7.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi in O.A. No. 169 of 2008 whereby he has held that the respondent is entitled to protection of his pay on his absorption in Grade 'D' post and accordingly directed the petitioner to fix his pay accordingly.
(2.) THE facts which are not in dispute are as under: The respondent was initially engaged as Casual Labourer on daily wages basis. Thereafter, he was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 4000 - 6000/ -. He was thereafter regularized in Group 'D' post w.e.f. 31.8.2002 in the scale of Rs.2550 - 3200/ -. His pay was fixed at Rs. 3140/ -as against Rs.5100/~ which the respondent was drawing earlier. Since pay -protection was not given, the respondent submitted his representation for his protection in pay scale. When the representation was not considered, the respondent approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 71 of 2005 which was disposed of on 18.3.2005 with a direction to the petitioner -Railway to consider his representation. The Authority of the petitioner -Railway, however, rejected the claim of the respondent on the ground that casual labourers working in semi -skilled and skilled grade, if absorbed in Group 'D' unskilled grade, will have their pay fixed by granting increment in the unskilled grade. The said order was challenged by filing O.A. No. 19 of 2006 which was quashed by the Tribunal with a direction to the petitioner -Railway to pass fresh speaking order. The petitioner again rejected the claim of the respondent. The respondent thereafter finally moved the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, held that the respondent is entitled to protection of his pay on his absorption in Grad 'D' post and the pay of the applicant shall be fixed accordingly. Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, assailed the order of the Tribunal as being illegal and without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submitted that the initial appointment of the petitioner was as a casual labourer on daily wages. Subsequently, he was regularized in Group 'D' post. After he was absorbed in Group 'D' unskilled grade, he will be entitled to get a different pay scale. According to the learned Counsel, the Tribunal has failed to consider the circular issued by the Railway to the effect that casual labourer working in semi -skilled and skilled grade will have their pay fixed in the event they absorbed in Grade 'D' unskilled grade.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the respondent while engaged as casual labourer was subsequently placed in the pay scale of Rs. 4000 -6000/ - and during that period, he was working in skilled grade. However, subsequently the respondent was absorbed in Grade 'D' unskilled grade and sought to be placed in the lower pay scale of Rs.2550 -3200/ -. This act of the petitioner will not amount only reversion in the pay scale, but also reversion from skilled grade to unskilled grade. How a person after absorption in a particular grade will be paid lesser salary than what he was earlier getting i.e. a regular pay scale. In our view the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned order directing the protection of pay scale of the respondent.;