r, m»; z Mn v‘ ..; — Diwisiun Bench 1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU‘R WRIT PETITIE’N 12:; 66) §15 54/ OF%2W f r , : 1. Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. Ei 2i Chief Engineer (Construction), . ‘0, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur (C.G.) PETITIONERS $90 3. Deputy Chief Personnel Manager (Construction), South East Central i Railway, Bilaspur (CAGJ E VERSUS RESPONDENTS : l. P.K. Chakraboroty, S/o Late P.C. Chakraborty, R/o Qr. No. 116/ l, Railway Colony, Distt. Durg (C.G.). 2. Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur (M.P.) *4, 221 "‘ . WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE eeeOF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA " 77 fj>7\51x A AW Coram: - Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri & Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Petitioners Union of India and others Versus Respondents P. K. Chakraboroty and another (Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of india) Present: - Shri P. S. Koshy, counsei for the petitioners. 7 Shri Sumesh Bajaj, counsel for respondent No.1. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 19m day of February, 2010) By this petition, the petitioner/Raiitvays seeks to chaiienge the legality and validity of the order dated 30-04-2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalplir, (For short “the Tribunal“) whereby and whereunder the original application No.771 of 2006 tiled by the respondent No.1 herein has been disposed of. (2) The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioners are that the respondent No.1 was appointed as painter by the petitionerlRaiways on daily wages in construction'department of SECR and was posted under CE. Constructions, SECR, Bilaspur. Since the respondent No.1 had completed 240 days of continuous service in construction department, he was granted pay scale of Rs.240-400/- from April, 1981 as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1§47. The respondent No.1 was confirmed as Painter on 1.1.1983. Painter ’ \ belongs to Group C category. On 1.9.1986 the respondent No.1 passed the trade test conducted by the petitioner/Railways. The respondent No.1 was promoted as a Supervisor Mistry Grade II Temporary Status from 1 3.1986 in the pay scale of Rs.320-560/-. Right from the initial appointment, the respondent No.1 continued to work in construction department which was undertaking the activities of construction such as building tracks and bridges etc. Vide letter dated 15.6.2001 option for absorption in open lines division were invited from employees belonging to Group-C and Group-D staff under CAO (Const, BBS) to go to any department under any of the divisions of SER as per their choice. Though the respondent No.1 was appointed as a casual painter in construction department on 16.9.1980, he was paid the salary of Rs.260-300/- revised to 950- 2500/- and 3050-4590/- from 1.1 .1983. Vide order dated 9.3.1 998 the respondent No.1 was allowed to continue as Supervisor Mistry on adhoc basis against the PCI cadre till the selection was conducted. The respondent No.1 gave his option in June, 2001 for his absorption in the present grade of Supervisor Mistry Grade ll by accepting the bottom seniority in the open line at Durg Station. The respondent No.1 vide order dated 7.9.2001 was transferred to DRM (P) SEC, Railway, Bilaspur as Khalasi. He represented against it, but when it failed, the respondent No.1 filed Original Application No.343 of 2002 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal directed the Petitioner/Railwaysto decide the representation of ' the respondent No.1. The Petitioner/Railways rejected the representation of respondent No.1 and thereafter the respondent No.1 preferred Writ Petition No.5596 of 2005 before this Court and this Court had directed the respondent No.1 to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance. Being aggrieved, the respondent No.1 again preferred Original Application No.771 of 2006 before the Tribunal and Vide order dated 30-04-2008. the Tribunal has ..-,.\_\.. ... J. disposed of the original application with certain directions. Against the said order, the Petitioner/Railways have preferred this petition. Badri Prasad and others (supra), it is found that the case is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Badri Prasad and others (supra). Accordingly, the writ petition is meritless. (5) Resultantly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No orders asto costs. > ~ e f ’ - ~ r x ‘ " sci/— r ‘ 3d]- ‘ ’ ‘ Sh ' t l Satish K_ Agniho'tri 1i iManmdra Mohan rrvas ava Judge i, # 2 i dudgei ‘rr . r W ”i W ‘ l “ *‘sw l l a Tumane l V (3) At the very outset, Shri Koshy, learned standing counsel appearing for the petitioner/Raiiways submits that the issue invoived in the facts of the case, on hand, is squareiy covered by the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in 3 Badri Prasad and others vs. Union of India and others, (2005) 11 Supreme 1 t Court Cases 304. The Supreme Court in Badri Prasad and others (supra) observed as under:- “Without disturbing, therefore, orders of the Tribunal and the High Court the appellants are held entitled to the following additional reliefs. The pay last drawn by them in Group ‘C‘ post shall be protected even after their repatriation to Group 'D’ post in their parent department. They shall be considered in their turn for promotion to Group 'C’ post. The period of service spent by them on ad hoc basis ‘ in Group ‘C’ post shall be given due weightage and counted towards length of requisite service, if any, prescribed for higher post in Group ‘C’. If there is any bar of age that shall be relaxed in the case of the appellants.“ , (4) Having considered the issue involved in the case on hand and that of in