P I CHANDRASEKHARAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant is a pensioner who retired from service on 31.10.1995 as Deputy Station Superintendent from the Sambulpur Division. He was having 33 years of service under the Railways in various Divisions. While the applicant was working as Station Master at THErubali under Waltair Division, the said station was transferred under Sambulpur Division on 1.1.1994. During that period all candidates were called for suitability test for promotion to the post of Deputy Station Superintendent in the grade of Rs. 1600-2660 vide order dated 29.7.1994. THE applicant attended the said selection process and passed in the selection. But when the provisional select list was published on 12.8.1994 to the post of Deputy Station Superintendent, the applicant's name was not included in the list, presumably due to the fact that the applicant had been transferred to Sambulpur Division. THE applicant was directed to seek promotion through Sambulpur Division only. At the same time, all his juniors who were working in the Waltair Division have been granted promotion on regular basis w.e.f. 22.12.94 vide A-1 order dated 22.12.1994. If promotion was made in consideration of the seniority of the applicant, he would have been placed against Sl. No. 9 of Annexure A-l. THE omission was occurred since he was shifted to the newly formed Sambulpur Division. THE applicant was granted promotion only with effect from 6.2.1995 by A-2 order dated 28.8.1995. Though Annexure A-2 order of promotion was to be effected w.e.f. 6.2.95, the applicant was not granted the same. All his six juniors, who were in the Waltair Division, have been granted promotion w.e.f. 22.12.1994. THE applicant filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent. THE pensionary benefit was not granted on the basis of the promotion effected as that of his juniors. THE representation made by the applicant had no response from the authorities. Under the circumstances, the applicant filed O.A. 1195/99 before this Tribunal and the same was dismissed on the question of limitation.

(2.) The applicant thereafter took up the matter before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in O.P. 28448/99 and the Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 17.11.1999 had directed the respondents to consider the applicant's representation A-3 dated 9.12.1999. As per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, he was intimated that he was promoted to the post of Deputy Station Superintendent in the scale of Rs. 1600-2660 w.e.f. 22.12.1994 on proforma basis, i.e. the date on which his immediate juniors were promoted in WAT Division. But the actual benefits were sanctioned only from 6.2.1995 which was communicated by A-4 order dated 22.12.1994. Thereafter also the applicant approached the 2nd respondent claiming his promotion and benefits from 22.12.1994; on par with his juniors. The applicant filed O.A. 937/2000 before this Tribunal. This Tribunal disposed of the O.A. directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the applicant in accordance with the rules on the subject and to give him appropriate reply within a period of two months. Vide order dated 23.10.2000 (A-5) the 2nd respondent intimated the applicant that he has been promoted to the post of Deputy Station Superintendent w.e.f. 22.12.1994. The earlier order of the 2nd respondent dated 17.8.2000 issued to the applicant reiterating that the pay was fixed on proforma basis w.e.f. 22.12.1994 but actual monitory benefits were granted from 6.2.1995. Therefore, as per A-4 and A-6, the applicant was granted promotion w.e.f. 22.12.1994 on proforma basis and the actual benefit was sanctioned from 6.2.1995. But vide order dated 13.9.2000 (A-7) issued by the 2nd respondent, the actual benefit was altered without mentioning any date of granting the benefit. This is against the spirit of the Court orders and a Lawyer's notice was issued vide A-8 dated 18.12.2000 and the respondents changed their contention by altering the date of actual promotion to October 1995 from February 1995. This is a clear victimization taken against the applicant for approaching this Tribunal. The reply issued by the 2nd respondent is A-9 dated 9.1.2001. It is reiterated in the said reply that the applicant has been promoted to the post of Deputy Station Superintendent w.e.f. 22.12.1994 on proforma basis and enhanced pay was allowed to him w.e.f. 24.10.1995, as from this date only he had shouldered the duties and responsibilities of the higher post. The genuine case of the applicant is that he is entitled to get promotion w.e.f. 22.12.1994. Aggrieved by the said orders the applicant filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs :

(3.) WE have heard Ms. Jeena Joseph, the learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, ACGSC appearing for the respondents. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has got a vested right to get his pension commuted in accordance with the proper pay fixation. For the mistake committed by the authorities themselves to fix the pay of the applicant correctly and properly and consequential benefits of pension, the applicant cannot be made to suffer. The applicant was denied promotion w.e.f. 22.12.1994 when all his juniors in the Waltair Division were enjoying the same in view of A-l. He was denied promotion only for the reason that he has been posted to newly formed Sambulpur Division. Since the applicant was working in Waltair Division and transferred to Sambulpur Division not on his request, he is entitled to get promotion and consequential benefits just like any other staff in the Waltair Division. As per A-4 and A-6, the respondents granted promotion to the applicant w.e.f. 6.2.1995 and in A-2 it is made clear that the applicant was found suitable for promotion from 6.2.1995 and there is no justification to alter the date of promotion to 24.10.1995 as per A-9. From A-5 and A-7, it is not clear as on what date he was granted promotion.