The Tribunal ruled that the applicant's pay fixation must adhere to statutory rules following medical decategorisation, emphasizing compliance with past Tribunal directives.

ORDER

(By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)

Shri B N Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Raj Pal Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.

2. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief:

“(i) To issue a suitable order or direction to call for record and set-aside the impugned order dated 24.12.2022 (Annexure no. 1)

(ii) To issue a suitable order of 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 re-fix pay in pursuance of RBE order and V,VI,VII CPC the seniority of the applicant since initial appointment and pay arrears, promotion and all consequential benefits.

(iv) To pass such other and further order as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(v) To award cost of the petition in favour of the applicants”

3. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 14.12.2021 passed by the respondent no 2 referring to which the applicant has contended that the respondents have fixed his pay in an arbitrary and illegal manner subsequent to his decategorisation on medical grounds. The applicant has further contended that he had approached before this Tribunal earlier also being aggrieved with the same and his case was allowed and respondents were directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order thereby refixing the pay of the applicant in accordance with the rules and statutory provisions. However, once again the respondents have arbitrarily rejected the case of the applicant without issuing any speaking and reasonable order. By way of the instant original application, the applicant, who is still in service, alleges that on account of wrong fixation of pay, he is suffering huge financial loss and thereby seeks quashing of the order dated 14.12.2021 and also prays for a direction to the respondents to accord him suitable alternative employment and further to refix his pay in accordance with the relevant statutory rules and pay all the consequential benefits like arrears, promotion, etc.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

5. Disclosing a brief history of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was initially appointed on the post of Constable in the pay scale of Rs 825-1200 in the year 1989 in RPF (Railway Protection Force) and continuously worked up to 1995.The applicant was medically decategorised and given the alternative appointment to the post of Mark Man (in parcel), whereas as per the rule, he must have been given alternative appointment in Group ‘C’ post as the alternative appointment which has actually been conferred upon the applicant pertains to Group ‘D’ post. It was further argued that the Railway Board has issued order dated 11.10.1988 regarding classification of service. Further, Ministry of Railway have issued instruction vide letter dated 30.10.1987 regarding classification of posts as per which the applicant was liable to have been given suitable alternative post in Group ‘C’ cadre.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that the applicant had earlier approached before this Tribunal vide OA No 173 of 2007 which was decided vide order dated 15.07.2008 and the order of appointment of applicant in lower cadre of Group D was set aside and furthermore, the respondents were directed to consider appointment the applicant in Group C post and accordingly refix his pay. It was further argued that the respondents had challenged the or