RAJINDER SINGH RANA Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was appointed as Constable in RPF in 1974 declared as medically unfit after being subjected to a medical examination on 26.08.1991. At that time, the petitioner was getting salary in the pay scale of 950-1400 (4000-6000) but his pay was downgraded and he was granted pay scale of 850-1100 (2650-4000) after his medical examination, instead of permitting the petitioner to work as Naik, the petitioner was adjusted against the post of Parcel Maker without any protection of pay as per Rule 1309 of the Indian Railways Establishment Manual (IREM). Even though as per Rule 1314 of the IREM the respondents were required to offer post of equal grade to the petitioner. All this happened in 1991. The petitioner started making representation.

(2.) It is also the case of the petitioner that on 14.11.2007 the petitioner taking benefit of the judgments delivered in the case of similarly placed persons whose pay was protected in the original scale, served a notice upon the respondents calling upon them to give benefits of the judgment passed in cases of others. However, the respondents failed to take any cognizance and thus, on 15.04.2009 the petitioner filed original application No. 857/2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 15.04.2009 primarily on the ground that the application was time barred inasmuch as the cause of action arose in favour of the respondent sometime in the year 1991 but he approached the Tribunal in 2009.

(3.) It is in these circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by filing this writ petition. It is contended that in terms of Rule 1301 and 1304 Sub-clause 2 in the matter of absorption of medically incapacitated in alternative post the railway staff is required to take care to ensure that the interest of the staff is not adversarially affected as far as possible. The alternative post to be offered to a person who is declared medically unfit should be such in which the staff can adequately work and get the same remuneration. It has been submitted that violating the aforementioned rules, the respondent appointed the petitioner as Parcel Maker in a lower scale.