IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13820 of 2006(S)
1. K.RATHNAKARAN, AGD 51 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,
3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.VARGHESE P.THOMAS, SR.SC,RAILWAYS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :23/01/2009
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W.P(C) NO: 13820 OF 2006
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd January, 2009.
JUDGMENT
BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.
The applicant in O.A 503/2004 is the writ petitioner. The said
O.A was dismissed by Ext.P1 order of the Central Administrative
Tribunal dated 20.3.2006. The brief facts necessary for the
disposal of the case are the following:-
2. The petitioner joined the service of the Railways as a
casual employee. After a trade test he was appointed as casual
employee in the post of Blacksmith (skilled) on 5.5.1983. On
29.10.1983 he was granted temporary status in that post. The
designation of that post was changed as Skilled Casual Labour
(Blacksmith) which is a group ‘C’ post with a scale of pay of Rs.3050-
4590. Leaving the unnecessary details aside, the next relevant fact
is that he was regularised in the group D post of Gangman on
31.3.1997 in the scale of pay of Rs.2610-3540. It is common case
that till such time he was working in the post of skilled artisan
(Blacksmith) which is a group ‘C’ post as a temporary status
employee. On his regularisation in group D post of Gangman he
WPC 13820/2006 2
joined duty in that post. The petitioner claimed that he may be
granted the scale of pay of group ‘C’ post as also the basic pay
drawn by him should be protected on his regularisation in the post
of Gang Man.
3. After a few rounds of litigation finally his representation
claiming protection of the scale of pay as also the basic pay was
considered by the competent authority as per the direction of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench and rejected by
Annexure A4 order. Though not relevant, we notice the fact that
in the meantime the writ petitioner has been promoted to the post
of Senior Gangman/Senior Trackman. By the impugned order
Annexure A4, it was found that the petitioner is not entitled to get
protection of the scale of pay but he is entitled to get protection of
pay to the extent possible on his regularisation in 1997. As
Gangman his pay has been fixed in the scale of pay of Rs.2610-
3540 at its maximum. That means his pay was fixed as Rs.3540/-.
4. Being dissatisfied with Annexure A4 the original
application was filed. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions
and held that petitioner is not entitled to get protection of the scale
of pay. He may be entitled to get protection of pay but the same
has been granted to the extent possible by putting him in the
WPC 13820/2006 3
maximum of the scale of group D post of Gangman, it was held.
5. Attacking the above decision of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, this writ petition is filed. An employee regularised in
Group D post has no right to claim the scale of pay applicable to
Group ‘C’ post on the ground that he was working as a casual
employee in that post with temporary status. But on regularisation
in the lower post he is entitled to get pay protection. The same has
been granted to the extent permissible by placing him at the
maximum of pay of the lower post (Rs.2610-3540). Therefore, we
find nothing wrong with Annexure A4 and also with Ext.P4 order of
the Central Administrative Tribunal affirming Annexure A4. In the
result writ petition fails and it is dismissed.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
Judge
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
Judge
jj
K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ.
—————————————————-
M.F.A.NO:
—————————————————–
JUDGMENT
Dated: