Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Ors vs Gopal Dutt Pandey & Ors on 15 April, 2015
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of hearing and order: 15th April, 2015.
+ W.P.(C) 3641/2015 & C.M. Appl. No. 6487/2015 (Stay)
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ashok Singh, Advocate
versus
GOPAL DUTT PANDEY & ORS ..... Respondents
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
ORDER
%
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (ORAL)
By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioners seek to challenge the impugned order dated 31.10.2013
passed in 2896/2012 and order dated 05.12.2014 passed in R.A. No.34/2014,
by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
Assailing the tenability of the aforesaid orders, Mr. Ashok Singh, the
learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal has not
appreciated the fact that the respondents were given arrears in lump sum in
terms of Rule 5 of the Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 vide
RBE No.103/2008 and this fact by itself was sufficient to prove that the
respondents were not fully aware of the said Circular with regard to the
revised pay modified in the year 2008. Another contention raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents had also not
challenged the Rule 6(3) of the said Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules,
2008 and in the absence of any challenge raised by them and also being
aware of the benefit of the said rules, the learned Tribunal could not have
granted the relief claimed by the respondents.
In support of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the judgment in the case of Union of India and other
vs. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59.
We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner and also perused the impugned orders passed by learned Central
Administrative Tribunal.
The respondents had preferred the O.A.No. 2896/2012 claiming the
following reliefs:-
"(i) that the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to
pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 24.7.2012
and order dated 12.7.2012 as mentioned in order dated
24.7.2012 declaring to the effect that the same is illegal,
arbitrary and discriminatory and consequently, pass an order
directing the respondents to extend the benefits of option as
stated in rule 5 and 6 of the Railway Service (Revised Pay)
Rules, 2008 with all the consequential benefits including the
arrears of difference of pay and allowances.
(ii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may further graciously be
pleased to pass an order directing the respondents to relax the
provision of Rule 6 of Railway Service (Revised Pay) Rules,
2008, if necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case to
extend the benefits of option to the applicants for fixation of
their pay while fixing their pay as per Railway Services
(Revised Pay) Rules, 2008."
The main grievance raised by the respondents was that the petitioner
had failed to notify the said Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008
although in terms of instructions issued under RBE No. 103/2008 it was
incumbent upon them to have duly notified the said rules to the Railway
Servants. It is also the case of the respondents that they came to know about
the requirement of exercising option in terms of instructions issued under
RBE No. 103/2008 only when some of their juniors started getting more pay
in spite of the fact that they were promoted as Assistant Loco Pilots and as
Shunters much later in time. The learned Tribunal on the factual matrix of
the case reached to the conclusion that these petitioners failed to place any
material on record in compliance of the said Railway Services (Revised Pay)
Rules, 2008 that had taken requisite steps to give publicity amongst the staff
working under them so that they could exercise their option. Since the
petitioner had failed to establish the said fact before the learned Tribunal,
therefore,in exercise of writ jurisdiction, we are not inclined to interfere with
the findings of fact arrived at by the Ld. Tribunal to hold that the petitioners
failed to take requisite steps to give due publicity to the said Railway
Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 , thus, depriving the respondents to
exercise their option.
Finding no merit in the present petition filed by the petitioner, the
same is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
I.S. MEHTA, J
APRIL 15, 2015
pkb
