ORDER

(Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J) Shri P K Mishra, holding brief of Shri S.K. Om, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Bablu Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.

2. The instant original application has been filed seeking following relief:

“A) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dt. 30.06.2010 passed byRespondents no. 3 (Annexure No. 2 to Compilation No.I) and to modify the order dt. 27.01.2010 to the extent it absorbs the applicant on the post of Office Superintendent Grade – II in the grade pay of Rs. 4200. B) To issue a further writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to 2 | P a g e consider the applicant for any suitable post, in the grade pay of Rs. 5400, for which the applicant is eligible for. C) To issue a further writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to add 30% of the grade pay, in the grade pay itself, instead of adding the same to the pay band. D) To pass any other suitable order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. E) To award the cost of the present O.A. in favour of the applicant.” 3. A compendium of the facts as have been narrated in the present original application is that the applicant is aggrieved by theorder dated 30.06.2010 by way of which his representation seeking re-fixation of his pay has been rejected by the respondents. Theapplicant has sought the quashing of the order dated 30.06.2010 andmodification of the order dated 27.01.2010 which was passed signifying his absorption in the stationary cadre.

4. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents on record.

5. Disclosing a brief history of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was initially appointed on31.12.1991 as Goods Guard in the respondents’ department and was promoted as Passenger Guard in the year 2006. As he belonged to running cadre, he was granted running allowance in addition to his salary. Learned counsel submitted that in case running staff is put to stationary duty then, in lieu of running allowance he is liable to be granted 30% of his salary, in addition to his usual pay.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that w.e.f.01.01.2006, the salary of the applicant was revised from Rs. 5000- 8000 to the pay band of Rs. 9300-34800 and his salary was fixed asRs. 15330 + Rs. 4200 grade pay + running allowance. However,while working as passenger guard on 15.07.2009, the applicant was medically decategorized and was found unfit in A & B categories, 3 | P a g e however, he was found fit for C-1 and below category. Consequently,vide order dated 17.07.2009, the applicant was put to stationary duties in his office. The applicant later requested the authorities concerned for his absorption on any suitable post according to hismedical decategorization. However, later the applicant on 21.12.2009 made a representation to Respondent no. 3 requesting therein that while granting the alternative job for the applicant, 30% of pay as running allowance may be considered to be included in the pay band as well as in the grade pay of his. Subsequently, the applicant was appointed on the post of Office Superintendent Grade – II vide orderdated 27.01.2010 in the grade pay of Rs. 4200/-/ but the benefit of 30% running allowance was not added to his grade pay. Learned counsel further explained that while considering the applicant for stationary post, the standing committee erroneously considered the grade pay of the applicant as Rs. 4200 only, whereas it was supposed to be Rs. 4200/- + 30% (in lieu of running allowance) and accordingly the applicant should have been considered in the gradepay of Rs. 5400/- instead of Rs. 4200/-. This is because 30% was supposed to be added in lieu of