[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra Shrivastava vs Union Of India on 21 January, 2026
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5607
1 MP-3539-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
ON THE 21st OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 3539 of 2024
JITENDRA SHRIVASTAVA
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akash Choudnary - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shyam Yadav - Advocate for respondents no.1 to 3.
"Heard on : 07.01.2026.
Pronounced on 21.01.2026."
ORDER
Per: Justice Deepak Khot
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed seeking following reliefs :-
"Summon the entire relevant record from the possession
of Respondents for its kind perusal;
Upon holding the impugned order dated 03.04.2024
passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal
in Original Application no.519/2020 as bad in law;
further issue a writ of Certiorari for setting aside the
impugned order dated 03.04.2024 as the same is bad in
law;
Upon holding the impugned inaction of the respondents
in not fixing his pay by adding 30% pay element as bad
in law; Quash and set aside the same by issuing a writ
in the nature of Certiorari;
Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus for directing the
respondents to forthwith rectify the mistake by granting
the benefit of 30% running allowance to his basic pay
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5607
2 MP-3539-2024
w.e.f. the month of September, 2006; If necessary quash
the order by which the earlier granted benefit was
withdrawn (Annexure P/3) by issuing a writ in the
nature of Certiorari;
Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus for directing the
respondents to extend the benefit of the judgment
passed in O.A. No. 130/2017 which got stamp of
approval by the Hon'ble High Court of U.P. Judicature
at Allahabad in W.P. No. 33309/2011, alongwith all
consequential benefits;
Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the facts & circumstances of the case,
may also kindly be passed in favour of the Petitioner, in
the interest of justice;
Cost of litigation may also be awarded."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner while working on
the post of Motorman i.e. running category in Western Railway in the pay
scale of Rs. 5,500-9,000/-, has applied for appointment to the post of Section
Engineer through RRB, Mumbai and after getting NOC, he appeared in the
selection process conducted by RRB, Mumbai and selected and appointed on
the post of Section Engineer and accordingly, he was relieved from the
Western Railway from the post of Motorman (running category) to the post
of Section Engineer (Stationery category) and joined on the said post on
09.03.2000, which carries the pay scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500. The
respondent department has fixed his basic pay in the month of April, 2000 by
adding 30% pay element of running allowance, However, subsequently, the
respondent authorities in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner, has
withdrawn the said benefit w.e.f. September, 2006 and an amount of Rs.
2,581/- was directed to be recovered monthly from the pay of the applicant in
72 instalments. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner had preferred
O.A.No.519/2020 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central
Administrative Tribunal without appreciating the merits of the case had
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5607
3 MP-3539-2024
dismissed the original application on the ground of limitation. Being
aggrieved therewith the petitioner has filed the present petition.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner sought clarification and lastly it was replied that as per Railway
Board's instructions, running category employees who are medically
decategorised and joined in stationary post, are entitled to get 30% running
allowance. However, as per Railway Board's Letter dated 15.09.2006, it
prescribes that employees who are competing through GDCE and are
appointed on a stationary post, they are not entitled for the benefit of 30%
pay element added to his basic pay. It is further submitted that as Para 3 of
the RB Circular dated 15.09.2006, specifically prescribes that the past cases
should not be reopened and it does not have any retrospective effect.
Thus, the petitioner who joined the stationary post in the year 2000
from running category after completing all procedure in accordance with law
has rightly received the benefit of 30% adding pay element in the basic pay
in the month of April, 2000 and there would be no application of that
circular. Thus, the action of the respondents in withdrawing the same by
harping upon the Railway Board Circular dated 15.09.2006 is bad in law.
4. Per contra, the respondents have submitted that petitioner was
initially appointed in Railway Services on the post of Motorman (in running
department) under Mumbai Central Division, Western Railway on
26.07.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner was recruited by RRB Mumbai and
appointed in Railway Services on the Post of Apprentice Section Engineer in
"Mechanical Department under Sr. D.M.E. (Diesel) Itarsi, Bhopal Division
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5607
4 MP-3539-2024
on 09.03.2000 and his pay was fixed at Rs. 6500 under Rule 601 of the
Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Volume-1 (Revised Edition 1989)
(Annexure R/1). Under Rule 924(i)(d) of the Indian Railway
Establishment Manual, Volume-I (Revised Edition-1989) of Running
Allowance Rules, 1981 fixation of pay in "Stationary Posts" shall be
reckoned as Pay, but the petitioner was appointed on the post of
Apprentice Section Engineer in "Mechanical Department" in pay scale Rs.
6500-10500 (RSRP) under Sr. DME (Diesel) Itarsi, Bhopal Division
on 09.03.2000, hence it is crystal clear that the petitioner is not entitled for
reckoning of 30% of the Basic Pay in pay fixation on the post of Apprentice
Section Engineer, pay scale Rs. 6500-10500 (RSRP) on 09/03/2000 in
"Mechanical Department". The respondents further submitted that the instant
O.A. is also barred by limitation under section 21 of the Administrative
Tribunal Act 1985, as the applicant is claiming the relief for grant of
reckoning of 30% of the basic pay in pay fixation on the post of Apprentice
Section Engineer, pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 (RSRP) from 09.03.2000.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. While working as Motorman (in the running department) in the
Grade of Rs.5500-9000/- the petitioner appeared in the selection process
conducted by RRB, Mumbai and selected and appointed on the post of
Section Engineer (stationary post) in the grade of Rs.6500-10500/-. He
joined the post on 6.3.2000 and after joining, the basic pay of the petitioner
was fixed by the respondent Department in the year 2000 by adding the 30%
running allowance to his basic pay. However, by the order dated 8.5.2007
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5607
5 MP-3539-2024
the earlier benefit of adding 30% running allowance in the basic pay has
been withdrawn and an amount of Rs.2,581/- was directed to be recovered
monthly from the pay of the petitioner in 72 instalments.
7. Now, coming to the legal point, whether the rules provide for
inclusion of 30% running allowance to the applicant, the same has to be read
in terms of the relevant rules. The rules relating to the same are as under :-
(a) Para 903 of the Indian Railways Establishment Manual provides
pay element in running allowance which states that 30% of the basic pay of
the running staff will be created to be in the nature of pay representing the
pay element in the Running Allowance. This pay element would fall under
clause (iii) of Rule 1303 - FR-9 21(a) i.e. "emoluments, which are specially
classed as pay by the President".
924. Reckoning of Running Allowance as pay :-
i) 30% of basic pay of running staff shall be reckoned as pay for
following purposes :
a. xxxx
b. xxxx
c. xxxx
d. Fixation of pay in stationary posts.
e. xxxx
f. xxxx
g. xxxx
g. xxxx
i. xxxx
j. xxxx
k. xxxx
That a part of running allowance is available to a railway employee
to be treated as a part of his pay on his transfer or promotion to a stationary
post is a settled position vide the direction of the Apex court in the case of
G.C.Ghosh V. Union of India, 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 497 which reads as under
:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5607
6 MP-3539-2024
It is, therefore, directed that the petitioners should be
accorded the same treatment as their counterparts are
being accorded in the Northern Railway in regard to
treating the running allowance granted to the running
staff as part of the pay when they are transferred or
promoted to a stationary post during the period they
hold the officiating in the stationary post to the same
extent and in the same manner as enjoined by the
Allahabad High Court pursuant to the aforesaid
judgment.
(Emphasis supplied)
Pay Fixation in respect of such of the railway employees who qualify in
some competitive examination for appointment to any other category is
governed by Rule 1315 r/w rule 1313 of the Indian Railway Establishment
Code. The said rules are as under:
1313. (FR-22) (I) The initial pay of a railway servant who is appointed
to a post on a time scale of pay is regulated as follows:--
(a) (1) Where a railway servant holding a post, other
than a tenure post, in a substantive or temporary or
officiating capacity is promoted or appointed in a
substantive, temporary or officiating capacity as the
case may be, subject to the fulfillment of the eligibility
conditions as prescribed in the relevant Recruitment
Rules, to another post carrying duties and
responsibilities of greater importance than those
attaching to the post held by him, his initial pay in the
time scale of the higher post shall be fixed at the stage
next above the notional pay arrived at by increasing his
pay in respect of the lower post held by him regularly
by an increment at the stage at which such pay has
accrued or rupees twenty five only, whichever is more.
8. Similar question arose before the C.A.T. Allahabad in the case of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5607
7 MP-3539-2024
Rajeev Mishra Vs. Union of India in O.A.No.408/2004 decided on
10.3.2005 wherein the learned Tribunal held that the applicant therein is
entitled to the reckoning of 30% of running allowance for the purposes of
fixation of pay for the post of enquiry cum reservation clerk.
9. The running allowance under Para 924 of Indian Railway
Establishment Manual provides 30% basic pay to running staff, to the
reckoned as pay. The running allowance paid to the staff is specifically
included in the pay as pay element. In the circumstances, even if the
petitioner appeared and selected through RRB Mumbai, though he was
initially holding a post of running category, his pay had to be protected. The
running allowance included with his pay as his pay element could not be
separated for the purposes of stepping up the pay on his appointment on
higher post.
10. So far as reliance placed on circular dated 15.9.2006 is concerned,
apparently for the reason that para 3 of the circular clearly provides that the
past cases decided otherwise, need not be reopened. In the present case, as
observed above, the petitioner was appointed on 9.3.2000 and his pay was
fixed including running allowance. The circular specifically provides that it
will not have retrospective effect. Thus, it would not be applicable to the
case of the petitioner for deducting running allowance as element of pay for
fixing the pay and to direct recovery of the excess payment.
11. While dealing with similar issue, the High Court of Allahabad vide
order dated 1.2.2012 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.33309/2011
(Union of India & Ors. Vs. Shubhasis Halder & Anr. ) has dismissed the writ
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5607
8 MP-3539-2024
petition preferred by the Union of India through General Manager, North
Central Railway, by upholding the order of the Tribunal whereby the
Tribunal has quashed the order of withdrawal of 30% of pay element and
recovery of the applicant, who while working as Electrical Assistant Driver
was selected as ECRC and pay fixed with 30% of pay element.
12. So far as limitation is concerned, the question of limitation does
not arise in the matters pertaining to fixation of pay as it is a recurring cause
of action. In this regard Hon. the Apex court in the case of M.R.Gupta Vs.
Union of India, (1995) 5 SCC 628 has held as under :-
"6. .....The claim to be paid the correct salary computed
on the basis of proper pay fixation, is a right which
subsists during the entire tenure of service and can be
exercised at the time of each payment of the salary
when the employee is entitled to salary computed
correctly in accordance with the rules. This right of a
government servant to be paid the correct salary
throughout his tenure according to computation made in
accordance with the rules, is akin to the right of
redemption which is an incident of a subsisting
mortgage and subsists so long as the mortgage itself
subsists, unless the equity of redemption is
extinguished. It is settled that the right of redemption is
of this kind."
13. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal with regard to limitation is
hereby set aside.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion and the enunciation of law, the
impugned order dated 3.4.2024 passed by the Tribunal is hereby set aside
and the Original Application filed by the applicant is hereby allowed.
Accordingly, the respondents are directed to restore the pay of the applicant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5607
9 MP-3539-2024
as initially granted and refund the money recovered in pursuance of the
impugned order dated 8.5.2007 from him with interest @ 9% per annum
from the date of recovery of entire amount till the date of payment. This
order shall be complied with within a period of three months from the date of
communication of this order.
15. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE JUDGE
HS
