Bombay High Court
Union Of India & 2 Others vs Vinod Ramniwas Chaturvedi & 4 ... on 22 July, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1/7 2207WP132.2000-Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 132 OF 2000
PETITIONERS:- 1) Union of India, through General Manager,
Central Railway, V.T.Mumbai.
2) Divisional Railway Manager, Central
Railway, Nagpur.
3) Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer,
Central Railway, V.T.Mumbai.
ig ...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Vinod s/o. Ramniwas Chaturvedi, Aged
about - 37 years, Occupation - Assistant
Reservation Supervisor;
2) Omprakash s/o. Jagannath Ghodke, Aged
about - 38 years, Occupation - Enquiry-
cum-Reservation Clerk;
3) Narendra s/o. Vishwanath Gondnale, Aged
about - 33 years, Occupation - Assistant
Reservation Supervisor;
4) Babulal s/o. Ramavatar Kaithwas, Aged
about 34 years, Occupation - Enquiry-cum-
Reservation Clerk;
5) Ramesh Khaparde, Aged about - 35 years,
Occupation - Enquiry-cum-Reservation
Clerk;
All respondents No.1 to 5 working in
Reservation Office, Central Railway, Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R.S.Sundaram, counsel for the petitioners.
Ms N.G. Choubey, counsel for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 27/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 23:40:57 :::
2/7 2207WP132.2000-Judgment
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 22.07.2016
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A. Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the order of
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Nagpur, dated
02/07/1999, allowing the original application filed by the respondents
and directing the petitioners to pay the officiating allowance to the
respondents with interest at the rate of 12% per annum only if the
payment is not made within ninety days.
2) The respondents had challenged the order of the
petitioners, dated 27/06/1994 by rejecting their claim for their services
that were utilized in the higher grade. According to the respondents,
they were officiating in the higher grade from 1979 to 1981 till they
were regularly promoted in the higher grade. The respondents made
several representations to the petitioners seeking the officiating
allowance, but since they were not decided, the respondents filed
Original Application No.877 of 1992, seeking a direction to the
petitioners to decide their representations. The said original application
was allowed and the petitioners were directed to decide the
representations of the respondents. The representations of the
respondents were rejected by the communication, dated 27/06/1994,
3/7 2207WP132.2000-Judgment
that was challenged in the present original application. The Tribunal,
on an appreciation of the material on record, held that the respondents
were entitled to the officiating allowance. The order of the Tribunal is
impugned by the petitioners in the instant petition.
3) Shri R.S.Sundaram, the learned counsel for the
petitioners, had two submissions to make in support of his challenge to
the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. It is stated that the
respondents were never issued or served with any orders for officiating
in the higher grade and hence they would not be entitled to the
officiating allowance even if, they had worked in the higher grade.
Secondly, according to the learned counsel, the respondents were
directed to work as relieving clerks as and when the regular employees
in the higher grade were on leave and hence, the respondents would
not be entitled to officiating allowance for the entire period for which
the claim is made. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in (1996) 5 SCC, page 83 (Tagin
Litin v. State of Arunachal Pradesh) to substantiate his submission
that in the absence of an order, the relief cannot be granted.
4) Ms N.G.Choubey, the learned counsel for the respondents,
has supported the order of the Tribunal. It is submitted by taking this
Court through the reply filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal that
4/7 2207WP132.2000-Judgment
the petitioners did not dispute that the respondents were officiating in
the higher grade. It is stated that merely because an order directing the
respondents to officiate in the higher grade was not passed and served
on them, the respondents cannot be denied the officiating allowance.
It is stated by taking this Court through the various paragraphs in the
reply filed by the petitioners that the petitioners have not disputed that
the respondents were officiating in the higher grade. The learned
counsel has also relied on the office order, dated 29/04/1988 by which
the Authorities of the petitioners held that the respondents were
entitled to post-facto sanction for payment of officiating allowance from
the dates, as mentioned in the order, in respect of each of the
respondents.
5) On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the impugned order, we find that there is no scope for
interference with the impugned order, in exercise of the writ
jurisdiction. Admittedly, the respondents had officiated in the higher
grade for the period mentioned in the office order, issued by the
Personnel Department of Divisional Railway Manager office, dated
29/04/1988. This fact is not denied by the petitioners in the reply filed
by them before the Central Administrative Tribunal. If the respondents
had actually officiated in the higher grade, there was no occasion for
the petitioners to refuse to grant the officiating allowance to the
5/7 2207WP132.2000-Judgment
respondents. In fact, the Personnel Department in the office of the
Divisional Railway Manager has granted post-facto sanction for the
payment of officiating allowance to the respondents by the order, dated
29/04/1988. Merely because formal orders were not issued in favour
of the respondents directing them to officiate in the higher grade, the
officiating allowance cannot be denied to them, when admittedly the
respondents have officiated in the higher grade. We also do not find
any merit in the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the
respondents did not officiate continuously in the higher grade during
the period mentioned in the office order, dated 29/04/1988 and they
were just sent as relieving officers in the higher grade as and when the
employees in the higher grade were absent. Such a plea is not to be
found in the reply filed by the petitioners before the Central
Administrative Tribunal. The said submission appears to be an
afterthought and is not in consonance with the office order issued by
the Personnel Department in the office of the Divisional Railway
Manager, dated 29/04/1988. We find that though the petitioners had
raised a ground in the reply that the respondents worked as relieving
clerks as an administrative arrangement under which such employees
may have to work in the higher grade till the relieving arrangement is
done in due course of time, there is no statement in the reply that the
respondents had worked as relieving officers/clerks only for a period of
couple of days and/or till the employees in the higher grade were
6/7 2207WP132.2000-Judgment
absent. We further find that officiating allowance appears to have been
paid to Shri S.L.Bajaj, though he was similarly situated like the
respondents and in the reply filed by the petitioners, while making a
reference to the payment to Shri S.L.Bajaj towards official allowance, it
is stated that his case would be appropriately dealt with. There is no
denial in the reply of the fact that Shri S.L.Bajaj was not paid the
officiating allowance. The judgment, reported in (1996) 5 SCC, page
83 and relied on by the counsel for the petitioners, has no application to
the case in hand.
6) Since we find that the order of the Tribunal is just and
proper and since we do not find any merit in any of the submissions
made on behalf of the petitioners, we dismiss the writ petition with no
order as to costs. We direct the petitioners to pay the officiating
allowance to the respondents within a period of three months. If the
same is not paid within three months, the same would carry interest at
the rate of 6% per annum till the amount is paid. With the aforesaid
observations, the rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
7/7 2207WP132.2000-Judgment
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of
original signed Judgment.
Uploaded by : G.S.Khunte, Uploaded on : 27/07/2016
P.A.to Hon'ble Judge
