IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2008 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8348 of 2008(S) ------------------------- OA.121/2006 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI-600 003. 3. DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM-695 014. 4. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM-695 014. BY ADV. SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH,SC, RAILWAYS RESPONDENT: ------------- K.AYYAPPAN ACHARY, S/O.KUMARAVELU ASARI, CARPENTER GRADE-I, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, OFFICE OF THE SENIOR SECTION ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL POWER), SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,R/AT.THIRUCHANDUR MURUGA KADAKSHAM, KATTUVILA,PEYAD PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.8348 OF 2008-S -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J: The respondents in O.A.No.121/2006 on the file of the C.A.T, Ernakulam Bench are the writ petitioners. The respondent herein was the applicant. The applicant was working as Technician Train Lighting (Electrical Fitter HS-III). Later, he was promoted as HS-II by order dated 16.10.1996. He was also promoted as Technician-I (Train Lighting) as per order dated 2.12.2005. But, all along, the petitioner was working in the post of Carpenter. He has been working as Carpenter Gr-III with effect from 15.2.1983, as Carpenter Gr-II from 1.1.1984 and as Carpenter Gr-I from 1.1.1996. The post of Carpenter is an ex-cadre post. The scale of pay of Carpenter Gr-I is higher when compared to the post of Technician (Train Lighting) (HS-I). Now the applicant was repatriated to his lien post of Technician -I (Train Lighting), the scale of pay of which is lower when compared to that of Carpenter Gr-I. The petitioner was not granted pay protection. Finally, the matter was raised before the C.A.T by filing Ext.P2 original application. After hearing both sides, WPC.NO.8348/2008 . 2 the Tribunal, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Bhadei Rai v. Union of India (2005 (11) SCC 298), held as follows: “The above decision of the Apex Court goes to show that when an individual has been serving for a substantial period in a particular post, notwithstanding the fact that he has his lien elsewhere, in the event of his repatriation, his pay drawn in the other post has to be protected. Such a pay protection is available even if the individual is to go back from Group C to Group D post. If so, the applicant who is to be back only from Group C to Group C post only, he cannot be made worse than the other who goes back to one post lower. Thus, it is declared that the applicant is entitled to pay protection on his repatriation to Electrical Wing. Beyond this, however, the applicant is not entitled to any higher pay scale.” 2. Feeling aggrieved by the above direction of the C.A.T, this Writ petition is filed. 3. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. We notice that basic pay drawn on the date of repatriation alone is protected. The applicant is drawing salary in the lower scale thereafter. In view of the decision of the Apex Court, we find nothing wrong in the decision of the C.A.T. We agree with the reasons and conclusions of the Tribunal. Justice has been meted out to the WPC.NO.8348/2008 . 3 applicant. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl