This judgment considers an appeal against an order upholding a promotion. The High Court upheld the CAT's view that a railway employee retained the promotional pay scale despite a subsequent medical decategorization, dismissing the appeal. The court noted the employee signed a willingness under pressure. The writ appeal was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14800 of 2016
=========================================================== 1. The Union of India through the General Manager, North East Frontier Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
Sri Sanjay Kumar, S/O Sri Kali Charan Prasad, Senior Clerk under Senior Section Engineer (Telecom), North East Frontier Railway, Katihar (Bihar)
.... .... Respondent/s
=========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. M.P. Dixit, Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Choubey, Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dixit, Advocate
Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Advocate
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date: 01-05-2017
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
the private respondent.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14800 of 2016 dt.01-05-2017
2/11
O.A. application and directed that the applicant, who is the private respondent in the writ application will continue to get the benefit of pay-scale of Rs. 9300 – 34800/- + Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- from the date of order of promotion, i.e., 04.04.2011 and no recovery would be made from the salary, which has been paid to the private respondent on the basis of the order of promotion.
“(i) That your Lordships may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 01.12.2011 together with order dated 30.04.2012 as contained in Annexure-A/4 and A/6 respectively.
(ii) That your Lordships may graciously be pleased to direct/command the respondents to post the applicant to the equivalent post/grade/ emoluments of Senior Technician/MCM in the Pay Band of Rs. 9,300-34,800/- Grade Pay of Rs. 4200 instead of Technician Grade-1 in the Pay Band of Rs. 5,200-20200/Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/-.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14800 of 2016 dt.01-05-2017
3/11
(iii) That the respondents further be directed to pay/release the difference of salary of the applicant to the post of Senior Technician/ MCM in the Pay Band of Rs. 9300-34800/Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- instead of Technician Grade-1 in the Pay Band of Rs. 5,200-20200 Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/- along with interest at the rate of 20 percent per annum.
(iv) That the respondents be directed to grant all consequential benefits arising out the said relief as prayed above.
(v) Any other relief or reliefs including the cost of proceeding may be allowed in favour of the applicant.”
The case of the applicant, briefly, is as follows:-
(i) The applicant was initially appointed as Electrical Signal Maintainer Grade-II on 19.08.2002 in the pay scale of Rs. 4000 – 6000/and posted as Senior Section Engineer, North Frontier Railway, Katihar.
(ii) The applicant was promoted in the year 2006 as
Patna High Court CWJC No.14800 of 2016 dt.01-05-2017
4/11
Technician Grade-1 in the pay scale of Rs. 4500 – 7000/-.
(iii) While working as Technician Grade-1, he was empanelled for promotion for the post of Senior Technician (SM)/MCM in the scale of Rs. 9300 – 34800 plus Grade Pay of Rs. 4200 by OM dated 07.07.2010. He was promoted in this scale and Grade Pay as MCM vide order dated 04.04.2011 (AnnexureA/1).
(iv) The applicant resumed his duty on the promotional post on 09.05.2011 (Annexure-A/2).
(v) Meanwhile, the applicant was sent for Special Medical Examination on 03.03.2011, where the Medical Board decided him fit in medical category B-1 for sedentary nature of job only as he has to refrain from doing physically strenuous activities in view of recurrent hemoptysis (AnnexureA/3). The applicant contends that instead of granting/ posting him in a sedentary job as per B-1 category, the respondents sent him before the Screening Committee on 23.08.2011
Patna High Court CWJC No.14800 of 2016 dt.01-05-2017
5/11
and, thereafter, he was posted as Senior Clerk in the pay band of Rs. 5200 – 20200 plus grade pay of Rs. 2800/- by order dated 01.12.2011 (Annexure-A/4). Hence, aggrieved.”
railways before the CAT that the private respondent could not be allowed to join the promotional post of Senior Technician/ MCM in the pay-scale of Rs. 9300 – 34800/- + grade pay Rs. 4200/- because he was de-categorized by the Medical Board, which was held on 03.03.2011. It was also the stand that because of the de-categorization, the private respondent ought not to have been permitted to join the promotional post. Even though the railways have granted the benefit of promotion by virtue of an order, which has also been brought on record as Annexure-2 to the writ application. What is of significance in the said notification i.e. Annexure-2 dated 04.04.2011 is that this order of promotion was to take effect immediately and the pay and place of posting was also indicated for the two persons, who
were beneficiaries of the notification and included the private respondent. In furtherance thereto, he gave his
Patna High Court CWJC No.14800 of 2016 dt.01-05-2017
6/11
joining, which was accepted. He has worked for more than six months and derived pay and privileges on the promoted post. Now he is sought to be adjusted on a post of Senior Clerk, which is in the pay-scale of Rs. 5200 – 20200 + grade pay of Rs. 2800/-. This was the pay-scale which the private respondent was drawing before the order of promotion and the corresponding post, which was identified for him after de-categorization on medical ground.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14800 of 2016 dt.01-05-2017
7/11
the relief in the following words:
“11. Now we come to the question whether the applicant’s promotion came into effect or not. It transpires from the document of the respondents that he availed his higher pay scale from May, 2011 to October, 2011. Therefore, the respondents’ contention that the applicant’s joining report dated 09.05.2011 was not accepted in view of his decategorization is not correct. If the Railways meant that the applicant had been decategorized while he was in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 + GP Rs. 2800, there was no occasion to give him the pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800+Grade Pay 4200. Therefore, it is clear that his joining report dated 09.05.2011 was accepted and he worked in the promotion post for several months.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14800 of 2016 dt.01-05-2017
8/11
its findings that it can be said that the determination of category has taken place. This is also evident from common sense because the Medical Board may have difference of opinion or they may have consultation with each other, and they could take time between medical examination and recording their determination. Till that time the applicant has no means of knowing under what category he was going to be placed by the Medical Board. Therefore, in all fairness, the date when the Medical Board declared him fit for B-1 category for sedentary job has to be taken as 07.04.2011. The applicant had already been promoted w.e.f. 04.04.2011 as we have observed earlier. Further, the respondents have also paid him salary for six months in the higher post. Therefore, their contention that he was de-categorized in the grade pay of Rs. 2800/- is based on a technical triviality which is fit to be rejected.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.14800 of 2016 dt.01-05-2017
9/11
to the position or post, which he was holding. The policy emerges from the Legislation, which is in vogue, extending the benefit to people, who are held to be disabled for one reason or the other under the Disability Act. As a model employer, the railways would be bound by the policy and they cannot be allowed to infringe the right of the promotional post, which the private respondent was conferred and allowed to enjoy that status for almost six months when a decision was taken to even reduce the post and position on the basis of de-categorization. This aspect of the matter has already been dealt with by the CAT, which has been quoted in the earlier part of the order. The railwayauthorities cannot be permitted to resile from the position and the benefit, which was extended to the private respondent by virtue of the order of promotion notified by them on 04.04.2011. Since the private respondent was working on the promoted post then the decision to decategorize him taken on a subsequent date, i.e., on 23.08.2011, which was done by the Screening Committee will be required to be revisited and the de-categorization is required to be done on the pay-scale of Rs. 9300 – 34800 + grade pay Rs. 4200/-.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14800 of 2016 dt.01-05-2017
10/11
tries to draw our attention towards Annexure-8 to the writ application to take advantage of the willingness expressed by the private respondent on 23.08.2011.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14800 of 2016 dt.01-05-2017
11/11
interest of the employee as well as the post and position which the private respondent was holding by virtue of the promotion order issued in his favour by the railwayauthorities themselves.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)
(Nilu Agrawal, J.)
Arjun/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 05 .05.2017 Transmission NA Date
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a railway employee who was promoted but medically decategorized subsequently could retake the interest of the promotional post.
Whether the High Court erred in upholding the Central Administrative Tribunal's order protecting the employee's promotional pay scale.
Whether an employee's willingness to accept a lower post after de-categorization was given under coercion and pressure.
Union of India
Sanjay Kumar
AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI
NILU AGRAWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
