The main legal point established in the judgment is that a railway servant who acquires a disability during service is entitled to suitable alternative employment without loss of pay and seniority, as provided under Sec.47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and the Indian Railway Establishment Manual.

O.A. No.1441 of 2000 dated 22-11-2002 confirming the order of the third respondent made in PB/SIC/OA.534/1998 dated 7-6-2000 and to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to extend all benefits of Grade Protection, Promotion, etc.)

Elipe Dharma Rao, J.

Aggrieved by the order dated 22-11-2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short the Tribunal), dismissing the original application, the original applicant has filed the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner, who was working as Station Master in the Chennai Division of Southern Railways in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000, was found to be medically unfit on 3-2-1997 and, therefore, he was offered an alternative employment as Head Train Clerk in the same pay scale of Rs.5000-8000. The writ petitioner, however, did not accept the offer. Thereafter, he was offered the employment of Clerk Grade in the Integral Coach Factory (in short ICF) with a condition that he will be placed at last in the seniority list of Clerk Grade.

3. Claiming that he should be given the pay protection as well as seniority protection, the writ petitioner filed an original application (O.A. No.534 of 1998) before the Tribunal. The said original application was disposed of on 18-4-2000 with a direction to the respondents therein to consider the claim of the writ petitioner and pass suitable orders. The respondents considered the claim of the writ petitioner, but rejected the same by order dated 7-6-2000.

4. Challenging the order dated 7-6-2000, the writ petitioner filed the original application (O.A. No.1441 of 2000) seeking the relief of direction to the respondents to place him in the grade of Rs.5000-8000 in the Clerk Grade with effect from 19-9-1997; to fix his seniority with effect from 8-11-1991 when he has been promoted as SM-II in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 (now Rs.5000-8000 with effect from 1-1-1996). The Tribunal dismissed the original application by observing that since the applicant had joined the post in the ICF on his own volition and knowing fully well the consequences after satisfying with the conditions set forth therein, under such circumstances it was not open to the applicant to claim protection of his pay and seniority. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the original applicant has filed the present writ petition.

.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not considering the plea of the writ petitioner that he is entitled to the benefits of grade protection and consequential benefits including seniority in terms of Sec.47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Paragraph 1304 read with Paragraph 1314 (a) and (c) of the Indian Railways Manual provides for an alternative employment in the equivalent grade even after accepting an offer made in the lower grade either permanently or temporarily even by creating a supernumerary post. Paragraph 1310 of the Indian Railways Manual enables the petitioner to decline an offer duly reserving his right seek alternative employment in equivalent grade. When paragraph 1306(6) of the Indian Railways Manual provides for making an option for alternative employment in a specific category, the finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner had joined the post in the ICF on his own volition and therefore it was not open to him to claim protection of his pay and seniority is unsustainable. Further, the Tribunal went wrong in holding that the petitioner was accommodated in the ICF by way of inter-railway transfer since there was no post other than Head Train Clerk was available is untenable since even after declining to accept the offer as Head Train Clerk, the petitioner was still holding the right for alternative employment in equivalent grade, for such an alternative employment there is no need for existence of a vacancy since the offer may be against a permanent or temporary even by