IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 10855 of 2009(S) -------------------------- OA.261/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALGHAT. 2. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI-3. 3. THE RAILWAY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 4. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI-3. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,SR.SC, RAILWAYS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- VIVEK SREEDHARAN, SON OF SHRI P.SREEDHARAN, S.NO.J/T 2380, DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER (TRAFFIC), SOUTHERN RIALWAY, PALAKKAD DIVISION, PALAKKAD. BY // THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 10855 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioners are the respondents in O.A.261 of 2008. The respondent herein was the applicant. The applicant, while working as Head Train Clerk was promoted as Assistant Yard Master. Though the post carry the same scale of pay, the duties and responsibilities of the promoted post are higher. The first respondent is, therefore entitled to fixation of pay under Rule 1313 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code which corresponds to Rule 22(1)(a)(1) of the Fundamental Rules. But, an executive instruction issued by the Railways, Annexure-12, stands in the way of granting fixation to the respondent. Even according to the writ petitioners, Annexure-12 is admittedly an executive instruction. So, the respondent's claim for fixation supported by the statutory rules cannot be affected by that instruction. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench noticed the above position and upheld the claim of the applicant for getting fixation, on his promotion from the post of Head W.P.(C) NO. 10855/2009 2 Train Clerk to Assistant Yard Master. Challenging the said order of the Tribunal, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P4, the writ petitioners have filed this Writ Petition. 2. We find that the decision of the Tribunal is fully justified on the facts and law applicable to the case. The rights flowing from Rule 1313 of the Railway Establishment Code cannot be affected by Annexure A-12 executive instruction. In the result, the challenge raised against Ext.P4 order of the Tribunal is devoid of any merit. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.P.(C) NO. 10855/2009 3 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.P.(C) NO.10855/ 2009 JUDGMENT 1st June, 2009 W.P.(C) NO. 10855/2009 4