U.Gopinathan vs The Chairman Rail Board
2021 Latest Caselaw 14383 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

      TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943

                       WP(C) NO. 18571 OF 2013

PETITIONER:


          U.GOPINATHAN, S/O UMMINI (RETD. FROM THE OFFICE OF THE
          BRM SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, SECUNDERABAD WHILE IN THE
          RANK OF HAVILDAR) SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY,
          SECUNDERABAD, RESIDING AT VILAKKUMTHARAYIL HOUSE,
          ARINALLOOR (P.O), THEVALAKARA, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
          SRI.B.BIPIN
          SRI.R.REJI
          SMT.THARA THAMBAN


RESPONDENTS:

1         THE CHAIRMAN,
          RAILWAY BOARD, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110 011.

2         DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE,
          NEW DELHI, PIN - 110 011.

3         CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER,
          RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY,
          SECUNDERABAD, 500 003.

4         THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER,
          RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SECUNDERABAD DIVISION,
          SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, SECUNDERABAD, PIN- 500 003.

          BY ADV. SRI.K.SHRI HARI RAO, SC, RAILWAYS

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 18571 OF 2013
                                 -2-

                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that he retired from

the services of "Railway Protection Force" in

the rank of an Havildar, on attaining the age

of superannuation, with effect from 31.07.2003.

He has approached this Court impugning Ext.P7,

through which, his request for a First-class

Privilege Pass has been denied for the reason

that he was only drawing a basic pay of

Rs.4,800/- at the time when he had

superannuated.

2. The petitioner says that the stand of

the competent Authority in Ext.P7 is contrary

to the directions of this Court in Ext.P5

judgment, wherein, it has been clearly

mentioned that his pay had been fixed

erroneously at Rs.4,800/-, and was satisfied

with the same, though he was entitled to a WP(C) NO. 18571 OF 2013

higher pay.

3. The petitioner says, therefore, it is

obvious that though he was entitled to a pay

scale of more than Rs.4,800/-, he opted that it

be fixed at that figure, so that he can obtain

a First-class Privilege Pass. He submits that

this was done because he did not want to

trouble the Railways with his claim for

fixation of salary; but that on account of this

fairness shown by him, the Railways have now

rejected his First-class Privilege Pass, saying

that his basic pay was only Rs.4800/-, and not

Rs.4,900/-, at the time when he retired from

the service. He, therefore, prays that Ext.P7

be set aside and the competent Authority of the

Railways be directed to favour him with First-

class Privilege Pass, adding that he is now

over 78 years in age and his primary need is to WP(C) NO. 18571 OF 2013

travel to meet his son, who is out of Kerala.

4. I have heard Sri.M.V.Thampan - learned

counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.Shri Hari

Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the

respondents.

5. Sri.K.Shri Hari Rao - learned Standing

Counsel for the respondents, submitted that

Ext.P7 cannot be faulted by the petitioner,

because admittedly, he was only drawing a basic

pay of Rs.4,800/- at the time when he retired

from service; and it is without doubt that a

First-class Privilege Pass can be issued only

to a person who is drawing a pay of Rs.4,900/-.

He, however, conceded that petitioner joined

the service in the year 1964 and on that basis,

he is qualified to the said privilege, but has

been disentitled solely for the above reason.

He thus prayed that this writ petition be WP(C) NO. 18571 OF 2013

dismissed.

6. Before I consider the rival submissions

in this case, I must first carefully examine

the intent of this Court in Ext.P5 judgment.

7. As is clear therefrom, petitioner had

approached this Court through W.P.(C)No.2460 of

2008, complaining that his juniors were granted

a higher scale of pay, while he was confined to

the basic pay of Rs.4,800/-. He had sought for

a declaration that he is entitled to the

eligible pensionary benefits and a "free

railway pass", as had been granted to the

juniors, and he had also mentioned the case of

a particular individual in support of his plea.

After considering this request of the

petitioner, a learned Judge of this Court

disposed of that writ petition in the following

manner:

WP(C) NO. 18571 OF 2013

"4. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner shall make a fresh representation highlighting his grievances to respondent No.3 along with a copy of this judgment.

Respondent No.3 shall give a personal hearing to the petitioner and try to resolve the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt of the application without being influenced by the earlier order. Petitioner undertakes that he will be satisfied with the fixation at Rs.4,900/- and to enable him to get first class, but without any monetary benefit."

9. It is, therefore, ineluctable from the

afore extracted observations in the judgment

that the intention of this Court was that the

competent Authority must consider the

petitioner's plea for a First-class Privilege

Pass, based on his contention that he was

entitled to a pay of more than Rs.4,800/-; but

recording that he was confining it to that

figure so that he can at least get this WP(C) NO. 18571 OF 2013

privilege.

10. However, in Ext.P7, the petitioner's

plea that he was entitled to at least a pay

scale of Rs.4,900/-, which would have made him

eligible to a First-class Privilege Pass, had

not been considered at all; but the Authority

has proceeded to factually say that since he

was drawing a pay of Rs.4,800/- only at the

time when he had superannuated, he is not

eligible to a First-class Privilege Pass.

11. I am, therefore, of the firm view that

this matter requires to be reconsidered by the

Authority who issued Ext.P7; for which purpose,

I deem it appropriate to order this writ

petition as below.

Consequently, and for the reasons above, I

allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P7;

with a resultant direction to the Authority WP(C) NO. 18571 OF 2013

which issued the said order, to reconsider the

matter, taking note of the specific

observations of this Court in Ext.P5 judgment;

and thus issue appropriate orders thereon, as

expeditiously as is possible, but not later

than two months from the date of receipt of a

copy this judgment.

Needless to say, once orders as above are

issued by the competent Authority, same shall

be communicated to the petitioner without any

avoidable delay.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv WP(C) NO. 18571 OF 2013

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18571/2013

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22-10-2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO S/X/626/MISC/ SETTLEMENT FILE DATED 27-12-2007 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 01-

06-2009 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 26-06-2009

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29-01-

2013 IN WPC NO 2460 OF 2008 (P)

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 02-03-2013 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO 71/2013 DATED 28-03-2013

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE