CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH OA No.310/00419/2024 Dated Thursday the 22^nd day of August Two Thousand Twenty Four CORAM : HON'BLE MR. M. SWAMINATHAN, Member (J)

&

HON'BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, Member (A)

A. Arokiaraj, Track Maintainer II, O/o. Sr. SSE/P.Way/TN/MDU Divin, (Supernumerary), Southern Railway, Tuticorin – 628001. … Applicant By Advocate M/s. Ratio Legis Vs

1. Union of India represented by The General Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai 600003.

2. The Divisional Personnel Officer, Madurai Division, Southern Railway, Madurai - 625016. ...Respondents By Advocate Mr. K. Rajendran

ORAL ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan (J))

By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following relief:

“to call for the impugned order Office Order No.54/I/WP/2024, dated 05.03.2024, made by the 2^nd respondent and to quash the same and continue the applicant the applicant in Pay Matrix Level 4 in supernumerary capacity and further to direct the respondents to alternatively appoint him in a post carrying Pay Matrix Level 4 duly protecting his service benefits including seniority and to pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper and thus to render justice.”

2. Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant:

The applicant while working as a Trackman carrying the Level

4 Pay Matrix was medically incapacitated and thereby offered and posted in Level 1 after screening committee evaluations, vide order dated 05.03.2024, which is impugned in this Original application since the disputed posting is in gross violation of Sec.20 of the Disability Act and Chapter 3 & 13 of the Establishment Manual and hence this original application is preferred before this Hon'ble Tribunal for intervention and to render justice.

3. When the matter was taken up for final hearing, learned counsel for the applicant brought to our notice that this issue is covered by the orders, dated 24.03.2023, in OA No. 1579/2019, and, dated 20.03.2024, in OA 1942/2016, passed by this Tribunal.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents has filed his reply and vehemently opposed the contentions of the applicant and sticked to his reply.

5. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials on record and found that the issue is no longer res integra and is covered by the decision cited supra of this Tribunal. The relevant portions are extracted below:

“9. It is to be noted that the said order was challenged by the respondents by Union of India before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no. 4625 of 2009 and the same has been dismissed on 6.8.2015. Accordingly, the order of the Hon'ble High Court has attained finality.

10. It is also to be noted that in the similar matter of The General Manager & Ors Vs. C Gunasekaran, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP No.21404/2019 on 13.9.2019.

11. It is also to be noted that in the similar matter, this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No. 1387/2019 by order, dated 21.10.2019, directed the respondents to consider the case of the similar employee. A. Francis Augustine in the light of the relevant rules and regulations and disposed of the matter.

12. It is to be noted that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the matter of S.Raghuraman that no establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service. The Division Bench held that the right to livelihood, which is an integral facet of the right to life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, coupled with the protection under Section 47 of the Disabilities Act entitles the employee who was incapacitated during service for continuance of service in suitable alternative post with same scale of pay drawn and other service benefits. It was also held that the employee's right to alternate employment cannot be deprived solely on ground of medical invalidation, as his right in protected under Section 47 of the Disabilities Act.

13. In view of