Dismissed

Union of India v. Smt.Vijaya Sukumar

Kerala HC21 Jun 2016WP(C)/21889/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which stepped up the respondent's pay on par with her juniors. The Court held that the Tribunal correctly applied the Supreme Court precedent allowing pay stepping up even for those not in the post.

What did the court decide?

Interference with the C.A.T. order declining; Writ Petition dismissed.

Union of India Vs Smt.Vijaya Sukumar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2016/31ST JYAISHTA, 1938

¶6

WP(C).No. 21889 of 2008 (S)

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 763/2006 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 10.1.2008

¶8

PETITIONERS:

¶9

UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, NEW DELHI.

¶10

THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O., CHENNAI-3.

¶11

THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O., CHENNAI - 3.

¶12

THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALAKKAD DIVISION, PALAKKAD.

¶13

THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL FINANCE MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALAKKAD DIVISION, PALAKKAD.

¶14

THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CONSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 14.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI TOJAN J.VATHIKULAM, SC, RAILWAYS ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,SR.SC, RAILWAYS

¶16

RESPONDENT:

¶17

SMT.VIJAYA SUKUMAR,

¶18

W/O.N.SUKUMARAN, OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT GRADE II, (AD HOC), SOUTHERN RAILWAY, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER/CONSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (RESIDING AT APRA - 7, NO.TC29/1086/1, PALKULANGARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 24)

¶19

BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY ADV. SMT.D.HEERA ADV. SRI.G.SHYAM RAJ

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.21889/08

¶22

PETITIONERS' EXTS:

¶23

EXT.P1: COPY OF LETTER NO.PC III/79/SP/1/UDC DATED 11.7.1979. EXT.P2: COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF RULE 7 OF THE RAILWAY SERVICES (REVISED PAY) RULES, 1997.

¶24

EXT.P3: COPY OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.763/06 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURE FILED BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.

¶25

EXT.P4: COPY OF M.A.No.1042/06 IN O.A.No.763/2006 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.

¶26

EXT.P5: COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN MA No.1042/208 IN OA No.763/06.

¶27

EXT.P6: COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN OA No.763/06.

¶28

EXT.P7: COPY OF REJOINDER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN OA No.763/06.

¶29

EXT.P8: COPY OF ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN OA No.763/06 BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.

¶30

EXT.P9: COPY OF ORDER DT.10.1.2008 IN OA No.763/2006 PASSED BYTHE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.

¶31

RESPONDENTS' EXTS : NIL

TRUE COPY

P.S.TO JUDGE

dsn

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶36

-------------------------------------------------W.P.(C)No.21889 OF 2008

¶37

--------------------------------------------------

¶38

DATED THIS THE 21^st DAY OF JUNE, 2016

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J .

¶41

Challenge is against the stepping up of pay of the respondent on par with her juniors notionally from 1.1.1996, but actually from November 2003, as ordered by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide Ext.P9 order dated 10.1.2008 in O.A.No.763/2006 preferred by the applicant.

¶42

The O.A. was filed with the following prayers:

¶43

“(a) Call for the records leading to the issue of Annexure A1 and quash the same.

¶44

(b) direct the respondents to step up the applicant's pay on part with her junior Smt.K.Ajitha Kumari in scale of 5000-8000/- with effect from 1.1.96 and to grant₹ the consequential benefits arising therefrom, including arrears of pay and allowances.”

¶45

The claim was sought to be resisted from the part of the

¶46

Department. When the matter came up for consideration before the Tribunal, it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that exactly similar question was considered by the Apex Court and the position was answered in favour of the persons like the applicant as

¶47

W.P.(C)No.21889/08

¶48

-2-

¶49

per the decision reported in Union of India v. P.Jagdish (1997

¶50

(3) SCC 176) . After making a reference and after extracting the relevant provisions, the Tribunal dealt with the issue and a verdict was rendered in favour of the applicant, which in turn is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

¶51

Heard Sri Tojan J.Vathikulam, the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners/Railways as well as Sri T.C.Govindaswamy, the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶52

During the course of hearing, the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners submits that the factual position involved in the present case is something different, in so far as the respondent/ applicant was never available in station and that, had she been available at the relevant time, she would have been considered in respect of the identified quota to be accommodated in the concerned post with requisite benefits of special pay. This, however, cannot be found as a fault or lapse on the part of the Department, and as such, the Tribunal was not justified in ordering 'stepping up' of pay with reference to the juniors and hence Ext.P9 order is liable to be intercepted, submits the learned counsel.

¶53

The learned counsel for the respondent points out that the

¶54

W.P.(C)No.21889/08 -3-

¶55

idea and understanding of the petitioners is thoroughly wrong and misconceived, in so far as the issue considered by the Apex Court and the declaration of law as per the decision relied on by the Tribunal squarely applies to the case of the respondent as well. On going through the verdict passed by the Apex Court, it is seen that the relevant question considered by the Apex Court as dealt with in Paragraph 5 of the verdict was whether the applicant/employee can claim for 'stepping up' of pay in the promoted cadre of Head Clerk, when the juniors who were later promoted were given fixation at a higher slab in the cadre of Head Clerks, taking into account the special pay which they were drawing in the lower category of Senior Clerk. This has been answered in Paragraph 7, holding that 'stepping up' of pay is liable to be granted even in respect of persons who had not actually worked in the post in question. The said paragraph in its entirety has been extracted by the Tribunal in Ext.P9 order. In so far as the Apex Court has made it clear that 'stepping up' of pay is liable to be effected even in respect of persons who had not actually worked, the distinction now sought to be drawn by the petitioners contending that the applicant was 'not in station' does not impress this Court in any manner. This Court finds that the issue is squarely

¶56

W.P.(C)No.21889/08 -4-

¶57

covered by the verdict passed by the Apex Court, which was rightly followed by the Tribunal while passing Ext.P9 order, granting the benefit of 'stepping up' of pay. The Tribunal was conscious enough to hold that the 'stepping up' of pay will be notional from 1.1.1996 and would carry monetary benefits only from November, 2003.

¶58

The question of 'limitation' projected from the part of the

¶59

Department was also dealt with by the Tribunal and the same was answered in favour of the applicant, placing reliance on the verdict passed in M.R.Gupta v. Union of India (1995 (5) SCC 628) . This Court finds that the verdict passed by the Tribunal is perfectly within the four walls of law and is not assailable under any circumstance. Interference declined. Writ Petition stands dismissed.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON , JUDGE

¶62

Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶63

dsn

¶64

True copy

¶65

P.S.to Judge

Union of India v. Smt.Vijaya Sukumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Smt.Vijaya Sukumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Remadevi Vs Sujatha L

Dr.Alina Arun Kanattu Vs the Admission Supervisory Committee for Professional Colleges

Mr. Ayoli Abdulla Vs M/S. Meezan Realtors Pvt. Ltd.

Union of India Vs P. Rajumon

Superintendent of Post Office,Thiruvalla Vs C.P. Santhamman and Another

Union of India Vs v.Selvam