CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.4755 of 2006 (In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) SANJEEV RAMAN, son of Shri Kamaleshwari Sharan Verma, presently posted as Commercial Superintendent Grade –I, (Commercial Inspector at the time of filing of OA 718/99), under Divisional Commercial Manager, E C Railway, Samastipur Division, Samastipur, Resident of Quarter No.551/D, Gandak Colony, PO & PS Samastipur, Distt. Samastipur (Bihar) … Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Divisional Railway Manager, EC Railway, Samastipur Division (Bihar) 2. The Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), EC Railway, Samastipur Division (Bihar) 3. The Divisional Commercial Manager, E C Railway, Samastipur Division (Bihar) 4. The Registrar, The Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna 5. Shiv Kumar Prasad 6. Priyadarshi Sujit …. Respondents ****** For the Petitioner : Mr. M.P.Dixit, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Hemendra Prasad Singh, Advocate ******* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL S K Katriar,J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 9.8.2005 (Annexure 8), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in OA No.718 of 1999 (Shiv Kumar Prasad & Others v Union of India & Others), whereby the original application preferred by the present petitioner along with others has been dismissed. He was applicant no.3 before the Tribunal. 2. According to the writ petition, there are two levels of recruitment relevant in the present context. One of them is Traffic Inspector which is a generic name of that category of employees who, after their recruitment and completion of training, serve the Indian Railways as Assistant Station Master, Assistant Yard Master, Traffic Inspector and Section Controller. This category is not relevant in the present context, and we may not pursue it further. The other category is relevant in the present context, namely, Commercial Apprentice which once again is the generic expression who, after recruitment and prescribed training, are given 2 different assignments like Assistant Claims Inspector/Supervisor, Assistant Commercial Inspector, Assistant Rates Inspector (Goods & Coaching), etc. Until 15.5.1987, the entire recruitment to the category of Commercial Apprentice was by promotion from the next lower grade. The Indian Railways issued a memorandum on 15.5.87, whereby it brought about some changes in the recruitment of Traffic/Commercial Apprentices – one of the changes being that on and from 15.5.1987 the recruitment of these apprentices would be made in the pay scale of Rs.1600-2660 (this earlier scale was Rs.1400-2300) and, instead of all the posts being filled up by promotions, ratio of promotees was made 75%. Of the remaining 25%, 10% were required to come through Railway Recruitment Boards, and 15% on the basis of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination. The pre-1987 Commercial Apprentices laid their claim for the higher scale of pay on the basis of 1987 memorandum. This claim was allowed by various Benches of CAT. In other words, the new mode and manner of recruitment and the quota allotted to the three groups were enforced with effect from 15.5.1987. 2.1) The petitioner claims to have been appointed as a Commercial Apprentice, as a direct recruit by the Railway Recruitment Board, in the 10% quota by order dated 25.6.93 (Annexure 1), in the unrevised pay scale of Rs.1600-2660. He was posted as Commercial Superintendent Grade-II. By communication dated 22.2.96 (Annexure 2), the petitioner was called for written test and interview for promotion to the next higher post of Commercial Superintendent Grade-I. By order dated 28.5.96 (annexure 3), the petitioner was selected and was promoted as Commercial Superintendent Grade-I, equivalent to Commercial Inspector Grade- I, in the unrevised pay scale of Rs.2000-3200, the revised pay scale being Rs.6500-10500. By order dated 21.8.96 (Annexure 4), the petitioner was posted as Commercial Inspector Grade-I at Sitamarhi in the revised pay scale of Rs.6500-10500. 2.2) The petitioner was thereafter served with show-cause notice dated 5.10.99 (Annexure 6), which stated that, in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India v M Bhaskar [(1996) 4 SCC 416] , the petitioner had inadvertently and erroneously been given the unrevised pay scale of Rs.1600- 3 2660. It further stated that grant of the higher pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 has consequently resulted in a situation where his seniors became juniors to him. He was called upon to show cause as to why he be not reverted to the lower pay scale. The petitioner had shown cause on a consideration of which the impugned order dated 17.11.99 (Annexure 7), was passed, whereby the petitioner was deprived of his pay scale of Rs.6500-10500, and was reverted to the next lower pay scale of Rs.5500-9000, leading to OA No.718 of 1999. The Tribunal has rejected the original application on the ground that the impugned order is consistent, and indeed in true execution of, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v M Bhaskar (supra). 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. We are indeed very sorry that the Tribunal did not examine the facts and circumstances of the case and, by a general and vague order, rejected the original application. Neither did it make the requisite attempt to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the present case, nor did it really appreciate, let alone correctly apply, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v M Bhaskar (supra). It appears to us to be of paramount importance in the present case that the petitioner was a direct recruit in 10% quota as Commercial Apprentice in the unrevised pay scale of Rs.1600-2660. Therefore, the petitioner did not belong to pre-15.5.1987 era having been appointed on 25.6.93. The judgment in Union of India v M Bhaskar (supra) is entirely confined to the employees who had commenced their employment in the Indian Railways prior to 15.5.1987, which had resulted in the anomaly of grant of pay scales to junior persons which erroneously made them senior to their seniors. It is thus evident that the petitioner was rightly given the unrevised pay scale of Rs.1600- 2660 at the time of his entry into service, and was rightly given the revised pay scale of Rs.6500-10500, consequent upon his promotion as Commercial Superintendent Grade-I (Annexure 2), and equally rightly when he was promoted to the next higher post of Commercial Inspector Grade-I (Annexure 4). In view of the position that the judgment of the Supreme Court did not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no question of the petitioner’s 4 promotion creating any anomaly with the employees who had already entered services of the Indian Railways prior to 15.5.1987. We disagree with the order dated 17.11.99 (Annexure 7), which has been erroneously upheld by the Tribunal. 5. In the result, we allow this writ petition. The order dated 17.11.99 (Annexure 7), and that of the Tribunal of 9.8.2005, passed in OA No. 718 of 1999, in so far as the same relate to the present petitioner, are hereby set aside. The petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner shall be entitled to costs quantified at Rs.5000/- (five thousand) which shall be paid to him with his salary. ( S K Katriar ) Kishore K Mandal, J. I agree. ( Kishore K Mandal ) Patna High Court, Patna The 13thof April 2010 NAFR/mrl.