CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW Original Application No. 332/00086/2023 Dated, this 12th day of August, 2024 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member-Judicial Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative Deepak Kumar Rajvanshi aged about 56 years, S/o Shri Jawahar Lal Rajvanshi, R/o 982, Kiran Enclave, Paikara Mau, Kursi Road, Near Integral University, Lucknow.

…..Applicant By Advocate: ShriPraveen Kumar VERSUS

1. Union of India, through the General Manager, North Central Railway, Prayagraj.

2. The Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Jhansi.

3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North Central Railway, Jhansi.

4. The Senior Divisional Finance Manager, North Central Railway, Jhansi.

…..Respondents By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta ORDER (ORAL)

Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case, the applicant seeks the following reliefs:

“1. To quash the impugned orders dated 03.10.2022 and order dated

12.01.2023 (contained as Annexure No A-1 and A-1A to this OA), with all consequential benefits.

2. To restrain the respondents from reducing the pay, pension and other settlement benefits, during pendency of the present case.

3. To refund the amount recovered if any, from the pension of the applicant in pursuance of order dated 03.10.2022.

4. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case, may also be passed.

5. Cost of the present case as the applicant has unnecessarily been dragged in litigation.”

2. The facts of the case are that the applicant’s pay, while working on the post of Chief Loco Inspector under the respondents, was stepped up in November, 2020. He retired voluntarily on 11.12.2020. Thereafter, vide order dated 03.10.2022, the respondents cancelled stepping up of pay. The applicant challenged the order dated 03.10.2022 in OA No. 531 of 2022 which was disposed of by this Tribunal on 13.12.2022 directing the respondents to decide the claim of the applicant in light of RBE No. 07 of 2020. The respondents rejected the applicant’s claim vide order dated 12.02.2023. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

3. It is contended by the applicant that the cancellation of stepping up of his pay is not as per letter and spirit of RBE 07 of 2020 and has been done at the dictat of respondent no. 1 vide letter dated 11.08.2021. Any recovery, as a consequence of such cancellation, would be in violation of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Punjab vs Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) (2015) 4 SCC 334 and the instruction issued by the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) vide office memorandum (OM) dated 02.03.2016.

4.1 Per contra, the respondents state that the Railway Board’s RBE No. 133 of 2019 dated 16.08.2019 on the subject of anomaly in fixation of pay of Chief Loco Inspector appointed prior to 01.01.2016 with reference to juniors appointed after 01.01.2016 mentions in paragraph 3 (f) that in cases where the conditions are not met, steeping up of pay will not be admissible. For instance, a Chief Loco Inspector promoted from Loco Pilot (Goods) prior to 01.01.2016 and a Chief Loco Inspector promoted from Loco Pilot (Passenger) or from Loco Pilot (Mail/Express), i.e., from a different post/cadre after 01.01.2016 are not identical and as such would not come under the purview of instructions relating to stepping up of pay. It has also been mentioned in paragraph 3 (g)

thereof that Loco Pilot (Goods), Loco Pilot (Passenger) and Loco Pilot (Mail/Express) constitute three different cadres.

4.2 It is further contended that the RBE No. 07 of 2020 dated 27.01.2020 making special provision in regard to decision of Hon’ble Court would not be applicable in all similarly situated cases as clarified vide letter dated 18.02.2022. Such similar cases are required to be decided taking into account RBE No. 133 of 2019 and RBE No. 196 of

2019.

5. We have heard both the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that at he