1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1826 OF 2001 Union of India, through the General Manager, Western Railway, Churchgate, Bombay – 400 020. ..... Petitioner V/s. Mrs.N.G.Sheikh, Working as Lab Superintendent Grade II, Jagjivan Ram Hospital, Western Railway, Mumbai – 400 008. ..... Respondent Mr.Suresh Kumar, for the petitioner. Mr.Ramesh Rammurthy i/by Saikumar Rammurthy, for the respondent. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 08th MAY, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : - 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner i.e. Western Railway, has challenged the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Original Application No.346 of 2001. The respondent herein had preferred the said Original Application on the ground that the Department had done injustice to her by not giving promotion in the Scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500, though her junior was given said benefit. The Tribunal by the impugned order came to the conclusion that the applicant-respondent is 2 entitled to be considered for the post of Lab. Superintendent Grade I and further promotion to the post Chief Lab Superintendent, which is a non- selection post. The Tribunal further directed the Department to hold a review DPC and consider the case of the respondent to the post of Lab Superintendent Grade I and if found fit, to promote her from the date on which her junior was promoted in the said Grade. 2. It is the aforesaid order which is impugned at the instance of the Railway administration. Mr.Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the respondent herein was entitled to be considered for promotion in Grade I after issuance of the Circular of the Railway Board dated 06-07-2000. The said Circular provides one time relaxation in the matter of educational qualification. It is not in dispute that the respondent is not B.Sc, which is a requirement for appointment to the Post of Lab Superintendent Grade I. However, as per the Circular of the Railway Board dated 06-07-2000, the respondent is entitled to one time relaxation in respect of the educational qualification and from 06-07-2000 onwards, she was entitled to be given benefit of Grade I in the Pay Scale of Rs.6,500-10,500 and said benefit is required to be given to her from the date when her junior was given the said benefit. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the junior of the respondent was promoted in Grade I in the scale of Rs.6,500-10,500 3 from September 2000. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was not aware about the actual date as to when the junior was promoted. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. In our considered opinion and in view of the consensus prevailing between both the learned counsel, we modify the order of the Tribunal to the effect that the respondent shall be entitled to the benefit of the pay scale of Rs.6,500-10,500, which is revised pay scale of Lab. Superintendent Grade I, from the date on which her immediate junior was promoted. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the respondent is entitled to benefit of Grade I In the pay scale of Rs.6,500-10,500, from 06-07-2000 i.e. After the said one time relaxation came in the picture. According to the petitioner also, the respondent is entitled to the said benefit from 06-07-2000 as per the ground taken in Para (r) of page 8 of the petition. 6. In our considered opinion and in view of the consensus prevailing between both the learned counsel, we modify the order of the Tribunal to the effect that the respondent shall be entitled to the benefit of the pay scale of Rs.6,500-10,500, which is revised pay scale of Lab. Superintendent Grade I, from the date on which her immediate junior was 4 promoted. Since the respondent has already retired from service by way of superannuation, it is not necessary to ask the Railway Board to hold a review DPC as directed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. It is directed that the respondent shall be entitled to notional benefit of the said Grade for the computation of her pay with Increments and revision of pension. The difference in pay need not be paid as the same is notional. The benefits should be paid to her within a period of six months from today and arrears of pension is required to be paid also within the aforesaid time. Pension should be revised accordingly on that basis in the Grade of Rs. 6,500-10,500. It is clarified that this order is passed in view of the consensus more or less prevailing between the parties and even the averments of the Railway board in Para (r) of Page 8 is also on that line. 7. The writ petition is accordingly partly allowed by modifying the order of the Tribunal to the aforesaid extent. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )