IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 OP.No. 21075 of 2001(S) ----------------------- OA.1284/1998 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP BY THE GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY HEADQUARTERS OFFICE PART TOWN PO, MADRAS-3 2. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE PART TOWN PO, MADRAS 3 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CN) SOUTHERN RAILWAY ERNAKULAM BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SADANANDA PRABHU,SR.SC.RAILWAYS SRI.MURALEEDHARA KAIMAL, ADDL.CGSC RESPONDENT: ---------------------- N .P. BHARATHI HEAD DRAFTSMAN SOUTHERN RAILWAY OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CN) SOUTHERN RAILWAY, ERNAKULAM BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY FOR R1 SRI.K.M.ANTHRU FOR R1 SRI.MANNATIL KUMAR FOR R1 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2008, ALONG WITH OP NO. 29868 OF 2001, THE COURT ON 28/05/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP 21075/01 CMP NO.34275 OF 2001 IN OP NO.21075 OF 2001 DISMISSED SD/-K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE 28.05.2008 SD/-M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 1.3.1999 OF 2ND PETITIONER A/W COMBINED SENIORITY LIST OF SECTION ENGINEER (DRAWING) & SECTION ENGINEER (DESIGN) IN THE ENGINEERING BRANCH OF SOUTHERN RAILWAY EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.7.8.1986 OF THE RAILWAY BOARD EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.31.12.1985 OF THE RAILWAY BOARD EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.17.8.1998 OF THE RAILWAY BOARD EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF PAY DRAWN BY RESPONDENT TILL 1.12.1997 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.21.8.1998 ISSUED BY THE THIRD PETITIONER EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PAY SLIP OF RESPONDENT IN AUGUST 1998 EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF SERVICE REGISTER OF NAVEEN PRABHU EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF SERVICE REGISTER OF G.NITHYANANDAN EXT.P10TRUE COPY OF OA NO.1284/98(WITHOUT ANNEXURES) FILED BY THE RESPONDENT EXT.P11TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT IN OA NO.1284/98 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS EXT.P12TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER RBE NO.65/98 DT.27.3.1998 OF RAILWAY BOARD EXT.P13TRUE COPY OF ORDER RBE NO.141/97 DT.21.10.1997 OF RAILWAY BOARD EXT.P14TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.28.3.2001 OF CAT EKM IN OA NO.1284/98 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : EXT.R1 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT A/W ENCLOSURES TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OP Nos.21075 & 29868 of 2001-S -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment Balakrishnan Nair, J. OP No.21075/01 The writ petitioners were the respondents in OA No.1284/98. The respondent herein was the applicant. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following : The respondent joined the service of the Railways as Tracer. Later, she was promoted to various posts and finally, she was working in the post of Head Draftsman. Though the applicant was appointed in the open line, she was all along working in the Construction wing of the Railways till her retirement. The Railways treat the posts in the Construction wing as ex-cadre posts. But it admits that those posted to that wing are entitled to get promotion to the vacancies in the higher posts in that wing. It is common case that the persons appointed in the Construction wing got accelerated promotions. The petitioner, while working in the Construction wing, was considered for promotion in the open line, according to her turn. On her promotion in the open line, her salary was fixed. OP NOS.21075 & 29868 OF 2001 2 The same was considerably low, when compared to the salary fixed and granted to her in the Construction wing. Based on the fixation of her salary in the cadre post in the open line, her salary was reduced as per Ext.P6. Challenging Ext.P6, OA No.1284/98 was filed. In the OA, the said order was produced as Annexure A3. The writ petitioners resisted the application by filing Ext.P11 reply statement. After hearing both sides, the OA was allowed by Ext.P14 order. As per Annexure A3, (Ext.P6), the applicant's salary was reduced to Rs.6,025/- as on 11.06.1997. Actually, as on that date, she was drawing the basic pay of Rs.6,350/-. The tribunal found that the said reduction of salary was unilateral and therefore, made in violation of the principles of natural justice. On merits also, it was found that the reduction was unjustified. Thirdly, the tribunal relied on its own earlier order in OA No.1282/98 in an identical matter. The said order of the CAT has become final. So, the order in that OA was followed in this case also. The CAT quashed Annexure A3 (P6) and restored the pay of the applicant as prayed for. The aggrieved respondents in the OA have filed this Writ Petition, challenging the order of the CAT on various grounds, supporting Annexure A3 order. OP NOS.21075 & 29868 OF 2001 3 2. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. While the Writ Petition was heard, the learned counsel for the respondent applicant handed over to us a clarification issued by the Southern Railways dated 27.03.2000 concerning the fixation of pay of all employees in the revised scale as recommended by the 5th Pay Commission. The said clarification states that the fixation of pay in the cadre post will not have any bearing in the pay fixed and granted to an incumbent in ex-cadre post working in the Construction wing. The fixation of pay in the cadre post is only to be implemented when the incumbent goes back to the parent cadre. As long as he continues in the ex-cadre post, the fixation of pay granted to him on the basis of the promotions earned, can be drawn by him. That is the tenor of the clarification issued. The said clarification will practically cover the dispute raised in this O.P. Further, we agree with the reasons and conclusions of the CAT in Ext.P14 order. The applicant, who earned accelerated promotion in the Construction wing is entitled to enjoy the fruits of that promotion. Even if in the mean time, she is promoted in the parent cadre and notionally, her salary is fixed in that cadre, based on that fixation, the existing salary drawn by her cannot be reduced. In the result, the Original Petition is dismissed. OP NOS.21075 & 29868 OF 2001 4 OP No.29868/01 . 3. The point raised in this OP is covered by the judgment in OP No.21075/01. Accordingly, this OP is also dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE 28.05.2008 M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE sta OP NOS.21075 & 29868 OF 2001 5