Dismissed

Union of India v. G. Yesumani

Telangana HC14 Sept 2023WP/28150/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal order regarding the pay fixation of chief matrons in South Central Railway. The High Court noted that the pay revision order was implemented by Northern Railway following the Principal Bench order, thus dismissing the challenge.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without costs, and the Tribunal orders attained finality.

Union of India Vs G. Yesumani — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹⁸ J

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA^{AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH^DAY OF^SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND^{KUMAR SHAVILI} AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE NAMAVARAPU^RAJESHWARRAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 28150 OF 2018

¶7

Between:

¶8

'1 . Union of lndia, Rep. by the Chairman, M/o Railways' Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. HYD

¶9

The General Manager, South Central^{Railway, Rail NilayamSecunderabad.}

¶10

The Chief Personnel Officer,^{SouthCentral Railway, Rail Nilayam} Secunderabad

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

1 G. Yesumani, D/o G. Ghandrappa,^{Aged about 57 years, Occ- Chief Matron,} Office of the Medical Director,^{Central Hosprtal,South CentralRailway,} Lallaguda, Secunderabad HYD

¶14

2 K. Padmalatha, W/o K. Bala^{Bhaskar, Aged about 50 years, Occ- Chief} Matron, ffice of the Medical Director,^{Central Hospital' South Central} Railway, Lallaguda, Secunderabad.

¶15

3 B.R. Swamalatha, W/o^D. Vikram^{Kumar,Aged about 52 years, Occ-Chief} Matron, ffice of the Medical Director,^{Central Hospital' South Central} Railway, Lallaguda, Secunderabad.

¶16

4 Georgina Francis, Wo T.G. Francis,^{Aged about 47 years, Occ- Chief Matron,} Officd of the Medical Director,^{CentralHospital,South Central Railway,} Lallaguda, Secunderabad.

¶17

5 P. Shantilatha, D/o Adinarayana^{Patnaik,Aged about 44 years, Occ- Chief} Matron, Office of the Medicil^{Director, Central Hospital, SouthCentral} Railway, Lallaguda, Secunderabad.

¶18

6 B. Padmavathi, Wo B.L.^{Narasimha Rao, Aged about 47 years' Occ- Chief} Matron, Office of the Medical^{Director, Central Hospital, South Central} Railway, Lallaguda, Secunderabad.

¶19

B. Saimala, W/o B. Venkata^{Ramana,Aged about 50 years, Occ-Chief} Matron, Office of the Medical^{Director, Central Hospital, South Central} Railway, Lallaguda, Secunderabad.

¶20

A. trilary Kalyani, D/o Late A.L. Marianna, Aged about 49 years, Occ- Chief lVlatron, Office of the Medical Director, Central Hospital, South Central Railway, Lallaguda, Secunderabad.

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nalure of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Pt respondent in passing the impugned order dated 19-O2-2O18 in OA.No.0211O144712014, directing the respondents therein to fix the pay of the applicants on a notional basis in the upgraded pay scale of Rs.7500-1 20001 w.e.f .01-01-2006 and thereafter on an actual basis in the pay scale of Rs.9300-348001 with grade pay of Rs.48001 duly directing the petitioners herein to pay the arrears from the date of filing of the OA, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the same.Q

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend impugned orders dated 19-02-2018 passed in OA.No.021/0144712014, on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the WP.

¶25

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶26

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the filing of the additional affidavit and receive the same.

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR,

¶28

DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶29

Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI K. R. K. V. PRASAD

¶30

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶31

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND^{KUMAR SHAVILI} AND HOMBLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU^RAJESHWARRAO

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.281s0 OF²⁰¹⁸

¶33

ORDER: ()er [7on'bh^Si Jatit Abhina^{Ktnar Shatili)}

¶34

Aggrieved by the orrder dated^{19.02.2018 in} O.ANo.O21/01447/2014^passed by^{the Gntral} Administrative Tribunal (for^{short, 'the Tribunal),} Hderaba4 the present (rit^{Petition is filed.}

¶35

I+ard the DepuySolicitor^{General of India for the} petitioners and Sri K.RK.V.Prasad,^{leamed counsel for} respondenm.

¶36

It has been contended^{by the petitionen that the} respondens were appointed^{as Staff Nurse initiallyduring} IV/ Y Crntral Pay Commission^{(for shon, 'CPC) werein} force. Later respondents^{were appointed as Nursrng sisten} during V CPC scales^{were in forceand the responden$were} further promoted^as Chief^{Matronand they were placed in} the Pay Band-Z of^{Rs.930O-34800 with Grade Pay of}

¶37

¶38

AKS.J &^IIRN.J W.l'.No.28150 -201E

¶39

Rs.54O0l- after^{implementation of M CPCC-onsequent} upon introduction^{of the VI CPC scale for Crntral} Govemment^{employeeswith effect from 01'01'2006'the} Ministry of Railwala^{issued the Revision Pay Rules' 2008} vide RBE No.103/2008,^{dated 06.09.2008.}

¶40

Leamed counsel^{for the petitioners has funher} contended that in Pursuant^{to the proceedings, dated} 06.09.2008^{issuedby the petitioners, the pay of Nuning} sisten was upgraded^{from Rs.550G9000/-to Rs'750G} I2OOO/ - i.e. equivalent^{pay scale of PB-2of Rs'9300-3 4800/-} u.tl-r Gradc Pay of^{Rs-4800/- and the respondents were} clarmtns pay scale^{of Nursing Sisten who were direct} recmitees, srnce^{the respondents who were promoted were} paid less. In^{those set of circumstances'the respondents} ha.,e ,rpproached^{the Tribunal by fili"gO'ANo'} O2l/a1447/2014^{and the Tribunal vide ordersdated} 19.02.2018^was pleased to^{allow the O'A in favour of the} rcspondenrs and directed the petitionen^{to fix the pay of the}

¶41

AKS,J & RRN,J W P.No.l8l50 20lli

¶42

¶43

respondents on a notional basis in the^upgraded Pay^{scale of} Rs.75OG12OO0/- with effect from 01.01.2006^{and thereafter,} on an actual basis in the pay scale of^{Rs.9300-34800/-wfuh} Grade Pay of Rs.+gOO/- vdthout^{appreciating any of the} contentions raised by the petitionen.^{Therefore, appropriate} orden be passed in the writ^{petitionby setting aside the} orders passed bythe Tribunal^{in O.ANo. 02l/01447/2014} darcd t9.02.2018 and allowthe writ^petition.

¶44

On the other hand, leamed counsel for^the respondents had contended that the^{Tribunal allowedthe} O.A by following the orders^passed by^{the PrincipalBench} m of Gntral Administrative Tribunal, Emakulam O.ANo.856 of 2Oll dated^{13.07.2012 and the petitionen} have also implemented the orders^{passedby the Principal} Bench of the Tribunal in O.ANo.855 of^{2011 dated} 13.07.2012 vide proceedingp dated23.ll.2017^{and when the} petitioners have implemented the^{ordenpassed by the} Principal Bench of the Tribunal, there is no^{reason why the}

¶45

¶46

AKS,J & RRN,J w.P.No.28l50 2018

¶47

I I I I I I I

¶48

petitioners have challenged the impugned orrder passed by the Tribunal as it had attained finaliry IN the form of implementrng the Principal Bench orders.

¶49

kamed counsel for the respondents has funher contended that the orders passed by Principal Bench were implemented byNorthem Railwap and the petitionen being Southem Railwap cannot take a different stand, and this issue fell for consideration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G.C.Ghosh Vs. [Jnion of Indial, wherein it was held bythe Hon'ble Supremc Clurt that when once zonal railwap have implemented the orders passed by this Court, the Southem railwap cannot take a different stand. Therefore, there are no medts in the wnt peririon and the same is liable to be dismissed

¶50

This Coun having considered the rival submissions made by the partics is of rhe view that when the Principal Bench orden passed m O.ANo.856 of 20lL dated '^{l9gI Sul,f(l )]e'}

¶51

¶52

¶53

AKS,J & RRN,J W.P. No.2ll150 2018

¶54

13.07 .2012 were implemented by the Northem Railwap vide

¶55

proceedings dated 23.1I.2017, we do not see any reason ro interfere with the or'ders passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, this C-oun is not inclined to interfere with the orden passed bythe Tribunal.

¶56