Delhi High Court
The Divisional Personnel Officer vs Shri Pratap Rai on 23 September, 2009
Author: S.N. Aggarwal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C.) No. 10634/2005
% Date of Decision: 23rd September, 2009
# THE DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER
..... PETITIONER
! Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
VERSUS
$SHRI PRATAP RAI
.....RESPONDENT
^ Through: None.
CORAM:
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL
1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see
the judgment? NO
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest? NO
S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)
The management of Northern Railway, in this writ petition, seeks to
challenge an order under Section 33(C)(2) passed by the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi directing the petitioner to
calculate the retiral benefits admissible to the respondent workman at
basic pay of Rs.1,540/- and make payment of arrears to him.
2 The respondent was working as a Goods Clerk with Northern
Railway at the time of his superannuation on 31.03.1992. He was working
in the pay scale of Rs.1,200-2,040/-. He was awarded punishment of
reduction of his pay in the lower grade of Rs.975-1,540/- for a period of
one year vide order of the competent authority dated 20.03.1989 w.e.f.
28.03.1989. This order of punishment was to come to an end after expiry
of one year which expired on 27.03.1990. Thereafter the respondent was
to revert back to his original pay scale of Rs.1,200-2,040/- in which he
was working at the time of punishment. The basic pay of the respondent
prior to punishment imposed on him was Rs.1,650/- in the pay scale of
Rs.1,200-2,040/-. The plea of the petitioner management is that the
respondent remained absent from duty w.e.f. 01.05.1989 till the date of
his retirement i.e. 31.03.1992. The impugned award does not deal as to
how the period of alleged absence of the respondent from 01.05.1989 till
31.03.1992 was dealt with by the petitioner. There is nothing on record to
show as to whether the alleged absence of the respondent was
authorized or unauthorized. There is also nothing on record to show
whether the respondent had any leave either medical or earned leave to
his credit at the time of his superannuation or before he allegedly
absented himself from duty. In law, the petitioner management was
bound to revert the original pay of the respondent after expiry of the
period of punishment which expired on 27.03.1990. Be that as it may,
since the workman has not filed any challenge against the impugned
award, this Court does not consider it necessary to go into the question
as to whether the respondent was entitled for a higher pay in the pay
scale of Rs.1,200-2,040/- at the time of his superannuation. What the
Tribunal has granted to the respondent is the end of basic pay of lower
grade for the purpose of computation of his retiral benefit. Admittedly,
the basic pay of the respondent at the time he was placed in the lower
grade of Rs.975-1,540/- on account of punishment imposed on him vide
order of the competent authority dated 20.03.1989 w.e.f. 28.03.1989 was
Rs.1,510/-. Even if the respondent was to continue in the lower grade till
the time of his retirement, he was at least entitled to annual increments
in the said lower grade of Rs.975-1,540/-. Had he got these three
increments, his basic pay at the time of his superannuation on
31.03.1992 would not have been less than what has been ordered by the
Tribunal for the purpose of computation of his retiral benefits.
3 In view of what has been stated above, I do not find any perversity
or illegality in the impugned award that may call for an interference by
this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution. This writ petition therefore fails and is hereby dismissed.
SEPTEMBER 23, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'a'
