High Court Kerala High Court

Union Of India vs Ezra Stalin on 20 March, 2009

Kerala High Court
Union Of India vs Ezra Stalin on 20 March, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 17018 of 2006(S)


1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED
                      ...  Petitioner
2. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER,
3. THE DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER,

                        Vs



1. EZRA STALIN, KHALASI HELPER,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SMT.M.R.SREELETHA, SC, RAILWAYS

                For Respondent  :SRI.T.A.RAJAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

 Dated :20/03/2009

 O R D E R
  K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
               ----------------------------------------
                W.P.(C) No. 17018 OF 2006
               ----------------------------------------
           Dated this the 20th day of March, 2009

                       J U D G M E N T

~~~~~~~~~~~

Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The respondents in the O.A.No.335/2003 before the

Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, are the writ

petitioners. The applicant is the respondent.

2. The brief facts of the case are the following:

The applicant joined the Railway Protection Force as a

Constable on 2.1.1996. He was an apprentice under the

Apprentices Act 1963, who completed his training in an

establishment under the Railways. As per the scheme of the

Railways to absorb such persons in the establishments, where

they underwent training, about one hundred of such apprentices

were appointed as Substitute Khalasi in Group D cadre. The

applicant was one among them. The appointment as Substitute

Khalasi was made as per Ext.P1 dated 26.3.1999. He was

granted temporary status as per Ext.P3 proceedings dated

17.7.2000 with retrospective effect from 27.11.1999. Later, he

W.P.(C) No.17018/2006 2

was absorbed as temporary Khalasi in the scale of pay of

Rs.2550-3200 with effect from 26.7.2000. It was also ordered

that he will be on probation for a period of two years. On a

representation filed by the applicant, the Chief Personnel Officer

as per Ext.P7 clarified that the service rendered by the applicant

as Constable will be counted for all purposes except for

seniority. Relying on Ext.P7, the applicant’s salary was fixed as

per Ext.P8. On objection being taken against it by the competent

authority, the salary was refixed as per Ext.P12 order dated

6.3.2003 and his initial pay was fixed in the minimum of the time

scale of pay applicable to Khalasi. The scale of pay of the

Constable was Rs.3050-4590. The scale of Khalasi at the relevant

time was 2500-3200/-. When he was appointed as a Khalasi he

was drawing the basic pay of Rs.3125 in the scale of pay of

Rs.3050-4590/-. Aggrieved by Ext.P12, the Original Application

was filed challenging the same and also the proposed recovery

from him of the alleged excess salary paid to him.

3. The applicant contended that he was relieved from the

Security Branch of the Railways and allowed to join another

branch as Khalasi. There was no gap between the relieving and

W.P.(C) No.17018/2006 3

joining duty. So, as per the relevant rules, the pay drawn by him

should be protected. The stand of the writ petitioners that he

should start in the minimum of the scale of pay of Khalasi, as if,

he is a new recruit is unjustified. The respondents in the

Original Application, who are the writ petitioners herein, filed

Ext.P14 reply statement supporting their stand. The Tribunal,

after hearing both sides, held that the order revising his pay is

unsustainable and the applicant is entitled to get protection of

his pay of Rs.3125/-.

4. Aggrieved by the above direction, the respondents in

the Original Application preferred this writ petition. We heard

the learned counsel on both sides. Rule 1515 of the Indian

Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) reads as follows:

“1515- Rights and privileges admissible to the
Substitute – Substitutes should be afforded
all the rights and privileges as may be
admissible to temporary railway servants,
from time to time on completion of four
months continuous service. Substitute school
teachers may, however, be afforded
temporary status after they have put in
continuous service of three months and their

W.P.(C) No.17018/2006 4

services should be treated as continuous for
all purposes except seniority on their eventual
absorption against regular posts after
selection. ……………”

5. As per the above Rule, on appointment as a substitute,

the applicant is entitled to get all benefits admissible to

temporary railway servants on completion of 4 months service.

Once he becomes a temporary servant, the fixation of his

substantive pay shall be as provided under Fundamental Rule 22,

which is Rule 1313 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual.

The relevant portion of that Rule reads as follows:

“1313(FR 22)- Fixation of initial substantive
Pay- The initial substantive pay of a railway
servant who is appointed substantively to a
post on timescale pay is regulated as follows:

(a) if he holds lien on a permanent
post, other than a tenure post, or would hold a
lien on such a post had his lien not been
suspended:-

(i) when appointment to the
new post involves the assumption of duties or
responsibilities of greater importance (as
interpreted for the purpose of Rule 1325

W.P.(C) No.17018/2006 5

i.e. FR30) than those attaching to such
permanent post, he will draw as initial pay, a
stage of the time scale next above the
substantive pay in respect of the old post.”

6. Going by the above Rule, the applicant is entitled to

get his pay protected in the new post. But, the learned counsel

for the writ petitioners pointed out that the applicant can get the

benefit of Rule 22 only after completing four months service as

Substitute. We find force in the said submission. Going by the

order of the C.A.T., the applicant is entitled to get the pay of

Rs.3125/- from 30.7.1999. But, the applicant will get temporary

status only after rendering four months service. We, therefore,

order that he is entitled to get the pay of Rs.3125/- only from

27.11.1999. The judgment of the Tribunal, Ext.P15, is modified

to the above extent.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

(K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)

(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE)
ps