Judicial review does not extend to alterations of pay scales; absent formal orders, claims for past pay adjustments are unsubstantiated.

Original Application No. 431 of 2017 This the Day of 01^st day of August , 2025 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE SMT. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

1. Valkar Balwant, S/o Late V. Balaraj, aged about 48 years, r/o Matra Chaya, Kundru Badi, behind Kashyap Colony, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh - 495001.

2. S.K. Malewar, s/o Late G.N Malewar, aged about 55 years, r/o near Krisha Fabrication, Devrikhurd, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh – 495004.

……..Applicants Advocate for the applicants: Shri A.V. Shridhar V e r s u s

1. Union of India through General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh - 495001.

2. Chief Personnel Officer, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh - 495001.

3. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh - 495001.

4. Senior Divisional Operations Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh - 495001.

………Respondents Advocate for the respondents: Shri Tushar Dhar Diwan Page 1 of 8 O R D E R By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, Member (Judicial) :-

Present Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985 has been directed against the order dated 02.06.2017 (Annexure A-1). Prayer has also been made for a direction to the respondents to re- fix the pay of the applicants in accordance with para 913(i)(b) of IREM Vol. I with consequential benefits.

2. As per the applicants, while working as Passenger Guard, as per the direction of the respondents, they performed the duty of Mail and Express Guard in administrative interest. In the meanwhile, the applicants were promoted as Mail and Express Guard on 11.10.2011 and 11.12.2011 respectively. Thereafter, they preferred representation for fixation of their pay from the date they had been shouldering the responsibilities of Mail and Express Guard, which was rejected vide order dated 10.04.2012. Being aggrieved by the rejection of their representations the applicants filed OA no. 18/2014 which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the claim of the applicants with regard to grant of officiating allowance from 2005 to 2011 and in compliance thereto the respondents reconsidered the representation of the applicants and rejected their claim vide order dated 28.05.2014 stating that the fixation of their pay would be done Page 2 of 8 from the date of their actual promotion to the higher post (Annexure A-2). The applicant again filed another OA No. 95/2015 challenging the order dated 28.05.2014 which was also disposed with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the claim of the applicants. The respondents again considered the claim of the applicant and rejected the same vide order dated 16.06.2016 on the ground that there was no initial approval for officiating on the post of Mail Express Guard and no formal orders were passed in favour of the applicants either for 30 days or less or exceeding 30 days (Annexure A-3).

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the first representation of the applicants was rejected on the ground that there were as many as 49 employees senior to the applicants in the cadre of Mail Express Guard whereas, while rejecting their claim for the second time, the respondents have raised an all together new reason that there was no proper approval or specific order for the applicants to officiate on the higher post of Mail Express Guard and further and while rejecting the revision of the appl