IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2009 / 29TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 10983 of 2006(S) -------------------------- OA.590/2003 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI-3. 2. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALGHAT. 3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALGHAT. BY ADV. SMT.M.R.SREELETHA, SC, RAILWAYS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- K.K.SURENDRAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.KUNJU KUNJU, TRAVELLING TICKET EXAMINER/ SLEEPER, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALGHAT, RESIDING AT RAILWAY QUARTERS NO.113-A, HEMAMBIKA NAGAR, PALGHAT. (DIED ON 18.3.08) ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS: 2. SMT.SOBHA SURENDRAN, W/O.LATE SRI.K.K.SURENDRAN, RESIDING AT ATHIRA NIVAS, NEAR MARIAMMAN KOVIL STREET, GRAMAM ROAD, VADAKKANCHERRY P.O., PALAKKAD. 3. S.ARAVIND, S/O.LATE K.K.SURENDRAN, RESIDING AT ATHIRA NIVAS, NEAR MARIAMMAN KOVIL STREET, GRAMAM ROAD, VADAKKANCHERRY P.O., PALAKKAD. WPC 10983/06 4. S.AKSHARA, D/O.LATE K.K.SURENDRAN, RESIDING AT ATHIRA NIVAS, NEAR MARIAMMAN KOVIL STREET, GRAMAM ROAD, VADAKKANCHERRY P.O., PALAKKAD. (ADDL RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 4.9.2008 IN I.A.NO.11291/08). ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SMT.D.HEERA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 10983/06 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.10.1991 OF CMS/PGT. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.11.1991 OF CMS/PGT. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT DATED 4.12.1991. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO.590/2003 DT. 13.7.2003. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.11.2002 (ANNEXURE 4 IN THE ABOVE O.A.) EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF ANNEXURE A2 DATED 7.12.2001 ATTACHED TO THE ABOVE O.A. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN THE ABOVE O.A. DATED JAN. 2004. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 8.3.2004 FILED BY THE APPLICANT IN THE ABOVE O.A. EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONERS FILED IN THE ABOVE O.A. DT. MAY, 2004. EXT.P10 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.1.2006 OF THE CAT. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 10983 OF 2006-S ----------------------------------------- Dated 19th January, 2009. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners are the respondents in O.A.No.590/2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The respondent was the applicant in that O.A. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent died and his legal heirs have been impleaded as additional respondents 2 to 4. 2. The applicant, while working as Goods Guard in the scale of pay of Rs.1200-2040, was found medically unfit to discharge the functions of that post. So, the Chief Medical Superintendent, as per Ext.P1 dated 28.10.1991, recommended that he may be given a job not involving heavy manual labour. That was followed by Ext.P2 clarification issued by the said officer, stating that the applicant may be given a job not involving strenuous type of duties and heavy manual labour and in his case de-categorisation is not necessary. Later, with effect from 25.12.1991 the applicant was posted WPC 10983/06 2 as Travelling Ticket Examiner in the scale of pay of Rs.1200-2040. Running staff like Goods Guards are entitled to get 30% of the basic pay at the minimum and maximum of the scale of pay as an additional benefit. The dispute raised in the O.A was whether the applicant was entitled to get that benefit. According to the applicant, once he is found medically unfit to do the work of running staff, he is entitled to get the said benefit. Reliance is placed on paragraphs 1301 to 1315 of the Railway Establishment Manual, in support of that submission. 3. The writ petitioners would submit that the applicant/respondent is entitled to get the said benefit, if only he is medically de-categorised. In his case, that was not done. 4. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and relying on a decision of the Hyderabad Bench of the C.A.T., granted reliefs to the applicant. But, the said decision was rendered, relying on Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. We notice that this Act was enforced only on 7.2.1996. So, the decision rendered by the C.A.T., Ernakulam Bench, relying on the provisions of the above said Act is unsustainable in law. The claim of the applicant has to be determined, based on paragraphs 1301 to 1315 of the Railway Establishment Manual mentioned above, which were in force at WPC 10983/06 3 the relevant time. In the result, the impugned order Ext.P10 is set aside and the O.A is remitted to the C.A.T for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The Tribunal shall endeavour to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. Nm/