IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7653 of 2009 With CWJC No.7966 of 2009 ------- In C.W.J.C. No. 7653 of 2009. 1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Department of Railway, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur. 3. Chief Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Hajipur. 4. The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur. 5. The Senior Personnel Officers, East Central Railway, Danapur ---------- Respondents…. Petitioners. Versus 1. Braj Kishore Jha, son of late M.D. Jha, resident of railway Qr. No.244/B, Loco Colony, P.O. Khagaul, District-Patna. 2. Nilesh Kumar, son of K.S.P.Srivastava, resident of 163 F.3, Jitwarpur Railway Colony, Samastipur. 3. Rajesh Kumar, C/O late Kamala Prasad, resident of 10H-MIE, New Railway Colony, Patna Jn.Patna. 4. Amar Deo Pandey, son of Lallan Pandey, resident of Q.No.768/B, Loco Colony, Danapur Post Office, Khagaul, District- Patna. 5.Rakesh Kumar, son of late Lal Balrs Gope Dallu, resident of Dalluchak, P.O. Khagaul, District-Patna. 6. Himanshu Gupta, son of Sri U.S. Prasad, C/O Smt. Neeta Gupta, Rly. Qr. No.217, New Colony, Post Office, Khagaul, Patna. 7. Dinesh Kumar Upasak, son of late G.Ram, Post Lal Imali, Post: Begumpur, District- Patna-9. 8. Shakil Ahmed, Son of H. Mohd. Gram Paharichak, Post: Sonepur, Thana Sonepur, District-Patna. 9. Santosh Kumar, son of late Awadesh Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Shivpuri, New Cinema Path, Post: Anisabad, District- Patna. 10. Amit Kumar, son of late Kaushal Kishore Singh, resident of Qr. No. 873/B, New Colony, Dulluchak, Khagaul, Patna. 2 11. Anit Kumar, son of S.C. Bose, resident of Mainpur, District- Patna. 12. Kamlesh Kumar Singh, son of R.K. Singh, working at Patna Jn. Enquiry, Patna. 13. Madan Das, son of late M. Das, working at Patna Jn. District-Patna. ---- Applicants --- Respondents. In C.W.J.C. No. 7966 of 2009 1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Department of Railway, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur 3. Chief Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Hajipur. 4. The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur. 5. The Senior Personnel Officers, East Central Railway, Danapur ---- Respondents --- Petitioners. Versus 1. Smt. Neelam Kumari, wife of Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, resident of 162 A.B. New Railway Colony, Patna. 2. Rajesh Kumar, son of Sri Upendra Mandal, resident of 132 B New Railway Colony, Patna G.P.O. Mithapur, Patna. 3. Umesh Prasad Gond, son of Sri Shree Ram, Gond, resident of Loco Colony, Khagaul, Qr. No.101/J, Patna. 4. Neelam Kumari, son of late Birendra Kumar Singh, resident of Lakhani Bigha, P.O. Khagaul, Patna. 5. Ram Ashray Singh Yadav, son of B. Yadav, resident of Village- Dalleschak (Deeisthan), P.O. Khagaul, District-Patna. 6. A. Ram Chandra Rao, son of A.B. Rao, C/O Dharab Kumar Sharma, resident of Choti Badal Pure, Khagaul, Patna. 7. Arun Kumar, son of Sri Shiwan Singh, resident of Gaytri Nagar (Naharpur), Bailey Road, Patna, P.O. B.V. College, Danapur. 8. Niraj, son of N.K. Pandey, resident of Maharaja Hotel, Arrah, District-Bhojpur. 9. Poonam Kumari, daughter of S.N. Pandey, resident of Wonciny as Engineering Clnll at Company Engineering Danapur, E.C. Railway, Danapur. 10. Ram Tahal Prasad, son of late Laxman, resident of Bidhipur, P.S. Bhakhatiarpur, 3 District- Patna ---- Applicants --- Respondents. ---------- For the Petitioners:Mr. Hemendra Prasad Singh. (in both the cases) For the Respondents: Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi & (in CWJC No.7653/2009)Mr. Sanjiv Krishna Bariar. For the respondents: Mr. Sanjiv Krishna Bariar & (in CWJC No.7966/2009) Mr. Rajiv Krishna Bariar. -------- 6. 25.6.2010 C.W.J.C. No. 7653 of 2009 is directed against the order dated 20.1.2009, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in O.A. No. 38 of 2005 (Braj Kishore Jha & Ors. Vrs. The Union of India & Ors.), whereby the original application filed by the original applicants (respondents herein), has been allowed and the authorities have been directed to make payment of the differential amount of their salary for having worked on temporary and ad hoc basis on the higher posts. C.W.J.C. No.7966 of 2009 is directed against the order dated 29.1.2009, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in O.A. No. 37 of 2005 (Smt. Neelam Kumari & Ors. Vrs. The Union of India & Ors.), whereby the original application preferred by the respondents herein has been allowed 4 with identical relief. Both the writ petitions raise identical issues and are, therefore, being disposed of by a common order. 2. The basic facts shall be drawn from C.W.J.C. No. 7653 of 2009 and O.A. No. 38 of 2005, unless by a specific reference to any other proceeding. 3. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The Indian Railways resolved to celebrate the year 2002-2003 as Passengers Amenities Year. Therefore, it set up computerized counters at railway stations for better information and facilities to the railway passengers. All the original applicants were substantively working as Group D employees. On the basis of a provisional selection process, they were selected to man posts at the computerized counters which are really posts of Group- C in the railway services. The respondents herein were assigned such duties of higher posts by the order dated 3.2.2003 (Annexure-3), the relevant portion of which is reproduced 5 hereinbelow: “The above result/arrangement is provisional. These staff are posted purely temporary on stop-gap measure for one month only. The successful candidates will be allowed to officiate one grade higher to their present substantive grade on ad- hoc basis. There will be no claim for their permanent utilization/ absorption against the job their lien will be maintained in their parent cadre. The administration has right to revert and back any or all staff in their parent cadre at any time without giving any prior notice. The concerned staff may be informed and spare with instruction to report to their place of posting. While sparing the staff the senior supervisors will obtain a declaration from them regarding acceptance of terms and conditions as stated above and send the same to this office for records.” 4. It appears that it was perhaps intended that persons who would discharge their duties efficiently would be considered for promotion after subjecting them to further tests. Contrary to the expectation indicated in the order, the administration did not complete the selection process for substantive promotion within a period of one month, and consequently the provisional arrangement continued for a longer duration. However, the selection process ultimately took place. Respondent nos.1 (Braj Kishore Jha ), 2 (Nilesh Kumar), 4 6 (Amar Deo Pandey), 8(Shakil Ahmed), 9 (Santosh Kumar), 11(Anit Kumar) and 13 (Madan Das) were substantively promoted to Group C posts, vide order dated 2.5.2008(Annexure-5). In other words, the remaining respondents, namely, respondent nos.3 (Rajesh Kumar), 5 (Rakesh Kumar), 6(Himanshu Gupta), 7(Dinesh Kumar Upasak), 10 (Amit Kumar), and 12 (Kamlesh Kumar Singh), either did not appear or were unsuccessful at the selection process and, therefore, their names did not find place in the order dated 2.5.2008(Annexure-5), and rendered themselves liable for reversion to the substantive posts of Group D. 5. As to C.W.J.C. No. 7966 of 2009, respondent nos.1 (Smt. Neelam Kumari), 2(Rajesh Kumar),3 (Umesh Prasad Gond), 4(Neelam Kumari),5(Ram Ashray Singh Yadav) and 7(Arun Kumar) were substantively promoted by the same order dated 2.5.2008. Respondent nos. 6(A.Ram. Chandra Rao), 8 (Niraj),9 (Poonam Kumari), and 10 (Ram Tahal Prasad) did not find their places in the order of promotion and rendered 7 themselves liable for reversion to the substantive posts of Group-D. 6. It is relevant to state that these unsuccessful candidates who were not substantively promoted continued to function and discharge the duties of Group C and have not till date been reverted to their substantive posts of Group D. 7. The question arose before the authorities about payment of the differential amount of salary for the period the successful candidates had worked on Group C posts, namely, 3.2.2003 to 2.5.2008. The admitted position is that those successful candidates have been given the pay scale admissible to the posts mentioned in the letter of promotion after the order. In so far as the unsuccessful candidates are concerned, the issue of payment of the differential amount of salary before and after the order of promotion arose, leading to the two original applications. Both have been allowed by different orders and are the subject matter of the two writ petitions before us at the instance of the 8 administration. 8. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. We shall deal with the cases of the two categories of employees separately. In so far as successful candidates are concerned, as is manifest from the order dated 3.2.2003, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereinabove, the railway administration intended to make ad hoc and temporary arrangement for one month and, therefore, it was inherent in the situation that steps for substantive promotion shall be completed in the meanwhile, or should have been reverted forthwith. The same could not be done and nearly five years were taken to complete the process. In other words, the railways continued to take work from 3.2.2003 to 2.5.2008 on the higher posts of class C. We are, therefore, of the view that they are entitled to salary in the pay scale attached to the posts they worked. The admitted position is that the successful candidates are getting the salary as per the scale admissible to the 9 higher posts with effect from 2.5.2008. This concludes the matter in so far as successful candidates are concerned. 9. In so far as the unsuccessful candidates are concerned, the same considerations as indicated hereinabove would apply till 2.5.2008. We are, therefore, of the view that unsuccessful candidates shall also be entitled to differential amount of salary for the posts they worked from 3.2.2003 to 2.5.2008. A separate consideration with respect to them seems to arise after 2.5.2008. The admitted position is that those unsuccessful candidates have continued to discharge their duties and functions of the higher posts till date. Once it was found that these respondents had not been substantively promoted, it was incumbent on the railway administration to revert them to substantive posts in Group D. Allowing them to continue to discharge their duties and functions to Group C is entirely of the volition of the railway administration. We are, therefore, of the 10 view that they are liable to pay the salary of these unsuccessful candidates after 2.5.2008 till today. However, we further direct that they shall automatically stand reverted to their substantive posts in group D with effect from tomorrow, i.e. 26.6.2010. 10. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed with the aforesaid clarification. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)