Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3197
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
OM PRAKASH, J, MOHAN PYARE, A
Sandeep Kumar Thakur – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 330/253/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri K.K. Mishra
For the Respondents: Ms. Rachna Dubey
The court established that pay reductions and recoveries without proper notice violate principles of natural justice, affirming rights to stepping up pay for seniors in equivalent positions.
Headnote:(A) Railway Servants (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 - Rule 7(10) - RBE No. 133/2019 - Stepping up of pay - Applicant, a Chief Loco Inspector promoted prior to 01.01.2016, challenged the reduction of his pay and recovery of excess payment after stepping up to match juniors promoted post-01.01.2016 - Court found that the applicant's pay was unlawfully reduced without due process or justifiable grounds - Clarifications in RBE 133/2019 regarding feeder cadres were deemed arbitrary - The applicant's stepping up of pay was restored, and recovery of excess payment was prohibited. (Paras 18-21)
(B) Natural Justice - Recovery of excess payment - No show cause notice issued prior to recovery - Court emphasized adherence to natural justice principles, ruling that recovery without notice is impermissible. (Paras 16-20)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, initially appointed as Assistant Loco Pilot and later promoted to Chief Loco Inspector, faced pay reduction and recovery following an order citing RBE No. 133/2019, which was challenged in this application.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the impugned order, restoring the applicant's pay and prohibiting recovery of any excess payment.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the legality of the pay reduction, adherence to natural justice, and the interpretation of RBE No. 133/2019 regarding stepping up of pay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's pay should remain at par with his juniors as per previous rulings, and recovery of excess payments without due process is unjustified.
Result: Original Application allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant's promotion and pay issues (Para 2) |
| 2. respondents' justification for pay reduction (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's analysis of prior case laws (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. arguments of both parties (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. court's reasoning and conclusions (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. final ruling and order (Para 21) |
ORDER
BY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASAH -VII, MEMBER (J)
By means of present Original Application, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-
“(i) That this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 20.02.2024 issued by respondent No.5 (Annexure A-1 with Compilation No.1).
(ii) That this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents not to reduce the pay scale of applicant from Rs. 1,30,400/- to 1,05,900/- and refund the amounts which is deducted on account of reducing the basic pay from Rs. 1,30,400/- to 1,05,900/-
(iii) That this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to pass such other and/or further order as deem fit, proper and necessary in the circumstances of the case.
(iv) Award costs to the applicant”.
2. The facts in brief in this case are that applicant has been initially appointed as per the recruitment Rules of the Railway Recruitment Board on the post of Assistant Loco Pilots w.e.f 19.09.1987. He has been promoted as Chief Loco Inspector in the panel of 2009. From the Seniority List of Chief Loco Inspectors published on 19.4.2022, it is clear that Shri J.N. Tiwari who stands at Sl. No. 78 is much junior to the applicant. After a gap of more than seven years, respondent No. 5 without any reason raised the dispute of pay fixation, which has been granted by the Competent Authority after 01.01.2016 and stepped up the pay of the applicant. Vide letter dated 07.2.2024, respondent No.5 issued a show cause notice to 35 CLIs treating them to be ineligible Chief Loco Inspectors in respect of fixation of pay on account of stepping up after 01.01.2016. Applicant submitted his representation. Without considering the representation of the applicant, respondent No. 5 passed the impugned order dated 20.02.2024 informing the applicant that amendment in pay fixation on the basis of stepping up and recovery of excess payment on the basis of stepping up is under process in the light of letters dated 12.01.2024 and 13.10.2023 respectively. Aggrieved against the impugned order, applicant filed the present original application.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents filed counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that applicant was appointed as Assistant Loco Pilots and was promoted as Loco Pilot Goods then Loco Pilot Passenger and subsequently promoted as Chief Loco Inspectors. Juniors of applicant namely Shri J.N. Tiwari has been promoted as Chief Loco Inspectors from the post of LPM on 08.02.2016 although applicant has been promoted from LPP, thus, the pay of the applicant became fixed more than his senior who were promoted earlier from different categories of Loco Running Cadre. The matter had been forwarded to Senior DFM/Prayagraj vide note dated 14.09.2017 in the light of RBE No. 90/2016 vide which Senior DFM/Prayagraj has given concurrence for stepping up of pay at par with his junior Shri J.N. Tiwari and pay have been fixed equal. Senior DRM (P), Allahabad referred the matter to Audit Department who made endorsement that the Railway Administration granted stepping of pay to 42 Chief Loco Inspectors without obtaining clarifications regarding ambiguous conditions of stepping up from higher authorities/the Railway Board. Later on (in July 2019), the clarifications for the same were issued by the Railway Board and it proved that stepping up of pay earlier granted by the Railway Administration was not in order. Thus, non-obtaining of clarifications earlier on stepping up, resulted in unavoidable payment of ₹9.13 crore. On the basis of audit report, Assistant Personnel Officer wrote a letter to General Manager (
