IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:25.2.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMARAO AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Petition No.30151 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 Union of India, rep.by Senior Divisional Personnel Officer Chennai Division, Southern Railway,Chennai. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. 2.R.Pandian ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the impugned order in O.A.No.717 of 2006, dated 22.6.2007, from the files of the first respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras and quash the same. For petitioner : Mr.R.Thyagarajan, Senior counsel for Ms.Lita Srinivasan For R.1 : Mr.L.Chandrakumar O R D E R ELIPE DHARMARAO, J. This Writ Petition has been filed by the Administration, challenging the order passed by the first respondent thereby granting the relief of re-fixation of the pay of the first respondent, as prayed for. 2. The second respondent herein joined as the Assistant Station Master in the scale of Rs.1200-2040 on 13.3.1989 through Railway Service Commission, Chennai and on successful completion of the initial training, he was absorbed as Assistant Station Master with effect from 18.8.1989 and subsequently promoted as Station Master Grade-III in the scale of Rs.1400-2300 with effect https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ from 5.1.1992. The equivalent scale in the V Pay Commission to the scale of Rs.1400-2300 was Rs.5000-8000 and while the second respondent herein was working as such, he was promoted to the post of Traffic Apprentice in the scale of Rs.5500-9000 against 10% limited departmental competitive examination quota of Station Master Grade-II and was directed for training and after completion of the training for two years, the second respondent herein was absorbed as Station Master Grade-II in the scale of Rs.5500-9000 and the pay was fixed at Rs.6375/= with effect from 14.9.2002 and posted at Palur Station of Chennai Division. While so, the second respondent applied for the post of Section Controller in the scale of Rs.5500-9000 and he was promoted as Section Controller with effect from 23.11.2003 on the same pay of Rs.6550/= in the same pay scale of Rs.5500-9000, which he was drawing s a Station Master Grade-II. 3. It is the contention of the first respondent/employee that since his elevation to the post of Section Controller is a 'promotion' with high responsibility as he was subjected to a positive act of selection, both written as well as viva-voce and also undergone class room training at Zonal Training Centre, Trichirappalli and on the job training at Marshalling Yard, Tondiarpet and at Control Office, Chennai, his basic pay should have been fixed at Rs.6900/= with effect from 18.11.2002 as provided in Rule 1313 (FR22) (1)(a)(I) R-II of the Indian Railways Establishment Code and in terms of Railway Board's order No.E(NG)/I/90/ICI/1, dated 4.2.1991 and therefore, he submitted a representation dated 5.8.2005 to the Administration, claiming the said benefit. The said representation of the first respondent/employee was rejected by the Administration. Aggrieved by the said rejection order, the first respondent/employee filed Original Application No.717 of 2006 before the Tribunal and since the Tribunal has allowed the said Original Application and directed the Administration to issue necessary orders re-fixing his pay with effect from the date he assumed higher responsibilities i.e. 23.11.2003 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; the Administration has come forward to file this writ petition. 4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Administration would strenuously argue that admittedly the post of Station Master Grade-II and the Section Controller carry the same pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 and the promotion from the post of Station Master Grade-II to the Section Controller cannot be treated as a case of assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance and both these belong to two different cadres having different grades in their own hierarchy and therefore, the benefit of fixation under Rule 1313 FR 22(1)(a)(1) R-II (erstwhile FR 22 C) Indian Railways Establishment Code cannot be granted to the first respondent. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Administration would also argue that the pay of the first respondent has been correctly fixed on his promotion to the post of Section Controller by the Administration and the same https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cannot be commented otherwise. On such arguments, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Administration would pray to set aside the order of the Tribunal. 5. On the contrary, on the part of the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/employee it is submitted that though both the posts of Station Master Grade-II and the Section Controller carry the same scale of pay, the post of Section Controller is fastened with duties and responsibilities of greater importance and the Tribunal considering all the facts and circumstances of the case in their proper perspective has arrived at the conclusion of allowing the prayer of the applicant/employee and therefore no interference is called for into the order passed by the Tribunal. On such arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/employee would pray to dismiss this writ petition filed by the Administration. 6. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the selection of the first respondent/employee from the post of Station Master Grade-II to that of Section Controller has been treated by the Administration itself as a 'promotion'. The term 'promotion' has been defined in Rule 211 in Chapter II, Section B of the Indian Railways Establishment Code as 'promotion includes promotion from a lower grade to a higher grade, from one class to another class, from one group to another group'. While according to the respondent/employee, the post of Section Controller involves duties and responsibilities of greater importance and therefore, he is entitled to claim benefits under Rule 1313 FR 22 (1)(a)(1) R-II (erstwhile FR 22 C) of the Indian Railways Establishment Code, the same has been stoutly denied by the Administration. 7. To decide the issue on hand, we shall extract hereunder Rule 1313 FR 22(1)(a)(1) R-II (erstwhile FR 22 C) of the Indian Railways Establishment Code, which reads as follows: "Where a Railway servant holding a post, other than a tenure post, in a substantive, temporary or officiating capacity as the case may be, subject to the fulfilment of the eligibility conditions as prescribed in the relevant Recruitment Rules, to another post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to the post held by him, his initial pay in the time scale of the higher post shall be fixed at the stage next above the notional pay arrived at by increasing his pay in respect of the lower post held by him regularly by an increment at the stage at which such pay has accrued or rupees twenty-five only, whichever is more. Save in cases of appointment on deputation to an ex-cadre post, or to a post on ad hoc basis, the Railway servant shall have the option, to be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ exercised within one month from the date of promotion or appointment as the case may be, to have the pay fixed under this rule from the date of such promotion or appointment or to have the pay fixed initially at the stage of the time scale of the new post above the pay in the lower grade or post from which he is promoted on regular basis, which may be refixed in accordance with this rule on the date of accrual of next increment in the scale of the pay of the lower grade or post. In cases where an ad hoc promotion is followed by regular appointment without break, the option is admissible as from the date of initial appointment/promotion, to be exercised within one month from the date of such regular appointment: Provided that where a Railway servant is, immediately before his promotion or appointment on regular basis to a higher post, drawing pay at the maximum of the time scale of the lower post, his initial pay in the time scale of the higher post shall be fixed at the stage next above the pay notionally arrived at by increasing his pay in respect of the lower post held by him on regular basis by an amount equal to the last increment in the time scale of the lower post or rupees twenty- five, whichever is more." 8. Clinging on this provision of law, it has been argued on the part of the Administration that the benefits of this Rule would be applicable only in case of promotion from one post to the other post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attached to the post held by the employee at the time of his promotion. According to the administration, the two categories i.e. Station Master Grade II and the Section Controller belong to different grades in their own hierarchy and therefore, the first respondent/employee is not entitled for the benefits of this Rule. 9. The General Rules, 1976 defined the terms 'Controller' and 'Station Master' as follows: "Controller" means a railway servant on duty who may for the time being be responsible for regulating the working of traffic on a section of a railway provided with the system of speech communication." "Station Master" means the person on duty who is for the time being responsible for the working of the traffic within station limits, and includes any person who is for the time being in independent charge of the working of any signals and responsible for the working of trains under the system of working in force." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10. Thus, when the Station Master is fastened with the responsibility of the traffic within the station limits and independent charge of the working of any signals and also responsible for the working of trains under the system of working in force, the Controller is fastened with the more responsibility of regulating the working of traffic on a section of a railway. While the duties of the Station Master are within the station limits, the duties of the Controller are on a section of a railway and therefore, there cannot be any doubt that the Controller is fastened with more duties and responsibilities than the Station Master Grade II. 11. We fail to understand the argument advanced on the part of the Administration that since both the posts carry the same scale of pay and in spite of it being a 'promotion', more duties and responsibilities are not cast on the employee on his 'promotion' to the post of Controller. If it is not carrying higher duties and responsibilities and it is not a 'promotion' for the monetary benefits also, then what is the use of an employee being given the 'promotion'? Had it been a mere conversion from one post to another, the Administration should not have made use of the term 'promotion' in the proceedings issued by the Administration. But, in the case on hand, the first respondent/employee was conferred with the promotion, on being selected on merit, having been subjected to a process of selection involving written test and viva-voce. 12. From the materials placed on record, we are able to see that the Administration itself has sent a proposal to the Railway Board to extend the benefit of Rule Rule 1313 FR 22(1)(a) (1) R-II (erstwhile FR 22 C) of the Indian Railways Establishment Code in the case of appointment from Station Master Grade-II to Section Controller in the same pay scale of Rs.5500-9000, but the Railway Board had not acceded to the said request made on the part of the writ petitioners on the ground that the said benefit could not be extended as the two categories belonged to different grades in their own hierarchy. 13. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners/Administration would rely on a judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS vs. ASHOKE KUMAR BANERJEE [1998 SCC (L&) 1277], wherein it has been held: "... for the applicability of FR 22(I)(a) (1), it is not merely sufficient that the officer gets a promotion from one post to another involving higher duties and responsibilities but another condition must also be satisfied that he must be moving from a lower scale attached to the lower post to a higher scale attached to a higher post and if benefit of higher scale has already been given to him, FR 22()I)(a)(1) cannot be applied again" https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14. In the above said case before the Honourable Apex Court, the employee, while working as Junior Engineer in pay- scale of Rs.1640-2900 was granted Assistant Engineer's pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 on personal basis, on completion of 15 yeas' service as Junior Engineer and his pay was fixed under FR 22(I) (a)(1) and the employee there also availed the benefit of getting his pay fixed under the said Rule from the date of his next increment. Thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant Engineer on functional basis in pay scale of Rs.2000-35000. In those circumstances, since the employee already availed the benefit of fitment under FR 22(I)(a)(1) by granting him the pay scale of the promotional post, the Honourable Apex Court has held that on his promotion on functional basis, he cannot be granted the benefit of the Rule for a second time. 15. But, same is not the situation in the case on hand. Here, though the first respondent/employee was granted 'promotion', after subjecting him to a process of selection, to a post carrying higher duties and responsibilities, just for the reason that both the posts are carrying the same scale of pay, he has been denied the monetary benefit attached to such a 'promotion'. The reasons assigned by the Administration that their proposal to grant monetary benefits to the employee has not been approved or recommended by the Railway Board cannot be appreciated, since such a rejection made on the part of the Railway Board does not seem to be on sound principles of service jurisprudence. 16. The Tribunal below has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case in their proper perspective and has arrived at an unerroneous conclusion of granting the relief sought for on the part of the employee, wherein we find no reason to cause our interference. In the result, this writ petition filed by the Administration fails and the same is dismissed. The petitioners are directed to implement the order of the Tribunal within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 of 2007 and 1of 2008 are closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar Rao To The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ + 1 cc to Mrs.Lita Srinivasan,Advocate,SR.13734 + 1 cc to Mr.L.Chandrakumar,Advocate,SR.12991 W.P.No.30151 of 2007 RB(CO) EM/3.3.10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/