Orissa High Court
Rajendra Kumar Jena vs Union Of India And Others on 26 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P (C) No. 21197 of 2014
Rajendra Kumar Jena ..... Petitioner
Mr. N.R. Routray, Adv.
Vs.
Union of India and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. D. Gochhayat, CGC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE B.P. SATAPATHY
ORDER
26.10.2022
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
07.
2. Heard Mr. N.R. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. D. Gochhayat, learned Central Government Counsel
appearing for the opposite parties.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash
the order dated 15.10.2014 passed in O.A. No.229 of 2011 under
Annexure-1, by which the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Cuttack Bench, Cuttack has dismissed the original application
filed by the petitioner by holding that the petitioner is not entitled
to 30% pay element in lieu of running allowance in the grade of
Traffic Apprentices/Section Controller.
4. Mr. N.R. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner at the
outset contended that the petitioner was initially appointed as a
Goods Guard. While working as such, he was selected for the post
of Traffic Apprentice in the year 2005 through a General
Departmental Competitive Examination Scheme and on
completion of training, he was posted against the working post
with effect from 16.09.2007 and accordingly his pay was fixed in
the scale of pay of Rs.5500-9000/-. But the Railway Board issued
RBE No.132 of 2006 for pay fixation of running staff on their
appointment to posts under the General Departmental Competitive
Examination Scheme. Thereafter, though the petitioner submitted
his representation for fixation of his pay with benefit of 30% pay
elements, the same was rejected. Therefore, the petitioner
approached the tribunal by filing O.A. No. 229 of 2011 and in turn
though the tribunal heard the matter on 17.03.2014, but delivered
the judgment on 15.10.2014. Thus, it is contended that there is
inordinate delay in disposal of the matter. To substantiate his
contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the
case of Nityananda Barik v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 16659
of 2014 disposed of on 05.05.2022), by which this Court taking
note of the provisions contained in Sub-rule (a) of Rule-105 of
Chapter-XVII of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of
Practice, 1993 came to a conclusion that the order impugned
having been passed after long lapse of keeping the order reserved,
the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
5. Mr. D. Gochhayat, learned Central Government Counsel
appearing for the opposite parties relying upon the counter
affidavit stated that the tribunal is well justified in passing the
order impugned, which does not warrant any interference of this
Court at this stage. It is further contended that the scale of pay of
the petitioner has been fixed on his appointment to working post
Dy. S.S. considering notional pay at Rs.5500/- w.e.f. 01.08.2005
under RS (RP) Rules, 1997, getting pay fixation notionally w.e.f.
01.01.2006 as per RS (RP) Rules, 2008 and allowing onwards
notional increments as per extant rules applicable for direct
recruitees. Therefore, it is contended that this Court should not
interfere with the order passed by the tribunal.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the records, this Court finds that the petitioner claims for
fixation of his scale of pay and, as such, it is contended that the
reliance placed on RBE No.132/2006 issued by the East Coast
Railway Establishment has no application to the present case and,
therefore, the contention raised by learned counsel for the opposite
parties cannot sustain in the eye of law. But at the same time it is
seen that though the tribunal heard the matter on 17.03.2014, but
delivered the judgment on 15.10.2014 after long lapse of time.
Therefore, in view of Sub-rule (a) of Rule-105 of Chapter-XVII of
the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993, the
order so passed by the tribunal cannot sustain in the eye of law, in
view of the ratio decided by this Court in Nityananda Barik
(supra). Thereby, the order dated 15.10.2014 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.229
of 2011 under Annexure-1 is liable to be quashed and the same is
hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the tribunal for
fresh adjudication by giving opportunity of hearing to all the
parties.
7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
Ashok/Debasis (B.P. SATAPATHY)
JUDGE
