The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed a writ petition challenging a CAT order regarding the petitioner's pay in an officiating capacity. The Court held that the claim was no ground for interference as the Industrial Tribunal had already granted the relief under Para 1313 of the Railway Establishment Code.
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 PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 25863 of 2013
Date of decision : November, 26, 2013
Avinashi Lal
... Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. K.B. Sharma, Advocate for Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Surya Kant, J
The petitioner impugns the order dated 4.3.2011 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, dismissing his Original Application wherein he sought protection of his pay drawn in officiating capacity on a higher post.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have gone through the record.
It appears that one of the plea taken by the petitioner before the Tribunal was regarding non payment of difference in pay and emoluments relating to the period during which he worked in officiating capacity on a higher post. The Tribunal has observed that such a relief has already been granted by the Industrial Tribunal and arrears have already been paid to him.
Still if anything was payable, a direction was issued to the authorities to do Deepak Kumar 2014.01.10 11:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document which has been signed by the Hon'ble Bench High Court, Chandigarh
Civil Writ Petition No. 25863 of 2013
the needful.
The petitioner, however, assails the Tribunal's order claiming that the relief sought for by him was for protection of pay drawn by him while working in officiating capacity on a higher post. Reliance is placed on Para 1313 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, which pertains to fixation of initial pay of railway servant who is appointed to a post on a time scale of pay. The paragraph relied upon by the petitioner simply deals with pay fixation of a railway servant who is promoted on substantive or temporary or officiating capacity and according to this paragraph the pay to be drawn by him on such promotional post shall be fixed at the stage next above the notional pay fixed on the lower post. To simplify it, the aforesaid rule merely contemplates that pay of a railway servant on the promotional post, irrespective of nature of promotion, shall not be less than the pay drawn by him on the feeder cadre post. The aforesaid rule does not advance the petitioner's claim as canvassed before us.
No ground to interfere is made out.
Dismissed.
November 26, 2013 deepak
(Surinder Gupta) Judge
Deepak Kumar 2014.01.10 11:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document which has been signed by the Hon'ble Bench High Court, Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the protection of pay drawn in officiating capacity on a higher post is maintainable when Industrial Tribunal has already granted relief.
Whether Para 1313 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code supports the claim for fixation of pay in an officiating capacity.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Avinashi Lal
Union of India
Surya Kant
Surinder Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
