Kerala High Court
P.A.Prasanth vs Union Of India on 22 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1943
RP NO. 15 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.12.2019 IN OP(CAT) NO.158/2015 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.3:
P.A.PRASANTH, AGED 46 YEARS,
SON OF PRABHAKARAN, OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT,
OFFICE OF THE COACHING DEPOT, SOUTHERN RAILWAY,
TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT '18D, RAILWAY QUARTERS,
PETTA, TRIVANDRUM-695024.
BY ADVS.
T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY
KALA T.GOPI
B.NAMADEVA PRABHU
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 & 2/RESPONDENTS 1,2 & 4:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER,
SOUTHERN RAILWAY HEADQUARTERS OFFICE,
PARK TOWN.P.O., CHENNAI-600003.
2 THE DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER,
SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
3 B.SUDHEER KUMAR, S/O.BHASHKARAN PILLAI, JUNIOR CLERK,
CTLC OFFICE,SOUTHERN RAILWAY, RESIDING AT 'POURNIMA',
KALLUVATHUKKA.P.O., KOLLAM-691579.
4 N.CHANDRALAL, S/O.NANUKUTTAN, JUNIOR CLERK,
CCRC OFFICE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM,
RESIDING AT LAL BHAWAN, POUIKUZHY,
OACHIRA.P.O., KOLLAM-690526.
R.P. No.15 of 2021
In 2
O.P.(CAT) No.158 of 2015
5 A.BIJU, S/O.ANIRUDHAN, JUNIOR CLERK, DME/CD/OFFICE
SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT K.A.NIVAS,
WEST OF GHSS, ATTINGAL.P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695001.
BY SMT.SUMATHI DANDAPANI(SR.), SC, RAILWAY
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P. No.15 of 2021
In 3
O.P.(CAT) No.158 of 2015
K.VINOD CHANDRAN & V.G.ARUN, JJ.
---------------------------------------------
R.P. No.15 of 2021
In
O.P.(CAT) No.158 of 2015
---------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 22nd day of July 2021
JUDGMENT
Vinod Chandran, J.
The review is filed in an OP(CAT), filed by the
Union of India and the Southern Railway, which was from
an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Two
OPs(CAT) were filed, one by the applicants and the other
by the official respondents. The challenge was against
the order granting Grade Pay [for brevity, 'the GP'] of
Rs.2,400/- by the Tribunal to the applicants, who are
medically de-categorised Assistant Loco Pilots, absorbed
as Junior Clerks. The claim of the applicants before this
Court was a still higher GP of Rs.2,800/-. The Railways
challenged the grant of GP of Rs.2,400/- as against the
legally due GP of Rs.1,900/-. We rejected the OP(CAT)
filed by the applicants and allowed that by the official
respondents. The review is only against the interference
R.P. No.15 of 2021
O.P.(CAT) No.158 of 2015
to the GP granted by the Tribunal.
2. The grounds raised in the review petition are
that paragraph 1307 has not been correctly appreciated by
this Court and that the equivalence at the time of
medical de-categorisation has not been noticed. It is
also the claim of the review petitioners that Annexures
B, C & D indicate Chennai and Palakkad Divisional
Authorities having granted the claim raised by the
applicants, to similarly situated persons. The applicants
seek a rehearing of the matter, which is not permissible
in a review as has been held in State of WB v. Kemal
Sengupta [(2008) 8 SCC 612].
3. Paragraph 1307 & 1308 was specifically
extracted in the judgment and considered elaborately.
Paragraph 1307 speaks of reckoning of the element of
running allowance while finding an alternative post for
medically de-categorised running staff, who are disabled
while in employment. This is to compensate their loss in
running allowance when so de-categorised and absorbed in
stationary posts. The percentage of pay in lieu of
running allowance as spoken of in paragraph 1307 is
R.P. No.15 of 2021
O.P.(CAT) No.158 of 2015
admitted to be 30%. In the judgment under review, the
portion of the Counter Affidavit, illustrating such
reckoning of running allowance, having been added to the
basic pay was extracted. The basic pay of each of the
applicants was added with GP and 30% of that total amount
was computed. This 30% was added to the basic pay to
arrive at the basic pay which along with the GP and the
DA applicable were paid to each of them. In fixing them
in the pay bands, if a similar basic pay was not
available the basic pay was fixed at the point in the pay
band just below the amount arrived at adding 30% and the
balance allowed as personal pay to be absorbed in the
future increments.
4. The contention, in the O.P(CAT) filed by the
applicants, was that the GP eligible is the higher GP of
Rs. 2800/-and not Rs.1,900/-, which lower GP applies to
the post from which they were de-categorised. The review
is only concerned with the reversal of the Tribunal order
which granted GP of Rs. 2400/-. The claim has been raised
on the ground that 30% of GP has to be taken, which in
this case is 1900x30% which comes to 570 and then the GP
R.P. No.15 of 2021
O.P.(CAT) No.158 of 2015
should be 2470. Since such a GP is not available then the
next higher GP of 2800 has to be granted, was the
argument at the earlier point. We find it to be quite
fallacious since if a higher GP is granted then the de-
categorised employees would get a larger benefit in pay
than those running staff who continue as such. The 30% of
the GP, in the case of the applicants have already been
added to their Basic Pay and DA is also computed on that
amount. There can be no further claim for enhanced GP.
5. Paragraph 1307 does not speak of any such
higher GP, which concept itself was introduced only with
the VIth Pay Commission. There is no logic in claiming
that, by de-categorisation on medical grounds and
absorption in stationary posts, the de-categorised
employee would be entitled to a GP higher than those
continued as running staff, who are entitled to running
allowance. Insofar as other Divisional Authorities having
taken a different view, we can only say that the
Trivandrum Division having made the correct
interpretation, the same cannot be set aside for reason
of a wrong interpretation made by other Divisions. There
R.P. No.15 of 2021
O.P.(CAT) No.158 of 2015
is no equity in seeking an irregular grant made by
another authority and we would desist from creating a
wrong precedent.
6. We also notice a decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Union of India v. B. Banerjee [(2013) 10
SCC 265]. There the medically de-categorised driver
claimed Allowance in lieu of Kilometerage (ALK); which
the Hon'ble Supreme Court found he is not entitled to
since he no longer had any running duties. The protection
of running allowance ie: 30% of the Basic Pay was only to
comply with the provisions of the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights
and Full Participation) Act, 1995. That protection is
extended to the applicants herein.
We reject the review petition in limine.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN, JUDGE
sp/23/07/2021
//True Copy//
P.A. To Judge
