ORDER

DELIVERED BY HON’BLE MR. TARUN SHRIDHAR, MEMBER (A) The applicant No.1, who was appointed as a Constable in the pay scale of Rs.825-1200 in the Railway Protection Force during the year 1970, was decategorized in the year 1993 when he was found to be medically unfit to perform the duties of Railway Protection Force. The medical fitness of the applicant was assessed by the Chief Medical Officer. Subsequent to his becoming medically unfit, the applicant No.1 was given alternative appointment on the post of Labour Mate, which is a Group ‘D’ post bearing scale of Rs.775-1025. Applicant No. 2 was appointed as Constable in 1976 and decategorized in 1995 to the post of Head Bearer in the pay scale of Rs.800-1150. Applicant No. 3 was appointed as Constable in 1989 and decategorized in 1995 to the post of Mark Man (in Parcel) in the pay scale of Rs.800-1150. The applicants are aggrieved that while they should have been appointed against the Group ‘C’ post which at that particular time carried a pay scale of Rs.950-1500, they have in fact been demoted and put to financial loss in the name of alternative employment. The issue has been agitated earlier in OA Nos. 173/07, 174/07 and 175/07. On

15.07.2008, the OAs were disposed of with a direction to the respondents to provide alternative employment to the applicants in Group ‘C’ with all consequential benefits of the post i.e. admissible pay scale and seniority from the date of their initial appointment. While in that order, the Tribunal appreciated that it may not always be possible to provide equivalent post, however, it is incumbent upon the respondents to protect the pay scale of the applicants and not place them in a position wherein the pay gets reduced. So specific direction was given to the respondents to take steps in accordance with law and to extend the same pay scale to the applicants as they were drawing as a Constable in RPF. Further it was also directed that arrears of pay on this account be also released within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. This order was challenged by the respondents in the Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble High Court finally decided the matter in the year 2009 dismissing these petitions relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kunal Singh Vs. Union of India and others.

2. For the sake of greater clarity, the relevant portion of the OA seeking relief is reproduced below:-

“(i) To issue a suitable order or direction to set aside the order dated 19.08.2009 passed by the respondent NO.2 (Annexure No. A-1).

(ii) To issue a suitable order or direction to the respondents to provide the alternative appointment in Group ‘C’ cadre and admissible pay scales.

(iii) To issue a suitable order or direction to the respondents to fix the seniority of the applicants since initial appointment and pay arrears, promotion and all consequential benefits.

(iv) to issue any other suitable order or direction as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(v) to award the cost of the application in favour of the applicant from the respondents”.

3. The impugned order is a tabulation of the pay scale at various stages admissible to the applicants which shows that the applicant No.1 has been placed in the scale of Rs.825-1200 and his past pay fixed on 01.08.1993 as Rs.1100/- while he was drawing pay of Rs.1025/- on the same day as a RPF Constable, applicant No.2 has been placed in the scale of Rs.825-1200 and his past pay fixed on 09.02.1995 as 1070 while he was drawing pay of Rs. 1080 and applicant No.3 has been placed in the scale of 825-1200 and his past pay fixed on 19.01.1996 as Rs.960 while he was drawing pay of Rs.

950. While this tabulation does not throw much light on the issues flagged by the applicants, it does give the impression that even though their pay may have been fixed in a lower p