(Open Court)

Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench, Allahabad ****

Original Application No. 284 of 2019 This the 09^th Day of February, 2026.

HON’BLE MR. RAJNISH KUMAR RAI, MEMBER-J.

HON’BLE MS. MANJU PANDEY, MEMBER-A.

Alston Craig Ross, aged about 53 years, S/o Shri Terrence Ross, Presently working as Technician-II, SSE (Operation), Kanpur, R/o

871, Anand Nagar, Jagai Purwa, Lal Bunglow, Kanpur.

….Applicant.

By Advocate: Mr. Santosh Kumar Kushwaha.

Versus

1. Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway Baroda House, New Delhi.

2. Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi.

3. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, New Delhi.

4. Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer EMU Car Shed, Northern Railway Ghaziabad.

5. Assistant Divisional Electrical Engineer, G.M.C. North Central Railway, Kanpur.

...Respondents.

By Advocate: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma.

ORDER By Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (Judicial)

Mr. S.K. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. M.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, are present and heard.

2. The instant original application has been filed seeking following reliefs: -

“i) The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 7/8.12.2017 to the extent by which the respondents have denied the fixation of pay on promotional pay scale and further direct the respondents to fix his pay after asking option for fixation in old Grade Rs. 2650-4000/- and then further given opportunity to avail option for fixation of pay in Ist M.A.C.P. with all consequential benefits.

ii) The Hon'ble Tribunal may further graciously be pleased to issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon’ble Court finds deem fit ad proper.

iii) Award costs in favour of applicant.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, Alston Craig Ross, is presently working as Technician-II/SSE (Operation) under the Northern Railway. He was initially appointed after completing apprenticeship and was subsequently promoted to the post of Helper Grade-I after passing the requisite trade test. The grievance of the applicant is confined to non-fixation of his pay in the promotional pay scale of Rs. 2650–4000, which resulted in denial of proper pay fixation under the Sixth Central Pay Commission and consequential financial benefits. Although similarly situated juniors were granted fixation of pay and benefits, the applicant was denied the same without any justifiable reason. The applicant made several representations seeking redressal of his grievance; however, the same did not yield any result, culminating in issuance of the impugned order dated 07.08.2017 whereby his claim was rejected. Aggrieved by the said action and alleging violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing the present Original Application.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was duly promoted to the post of Helper Grade-I after passing the prescribed trade test and was therefore entitled to fixation of pay in the promotional pay scale of Rs. 2650–4000. However, vide the impugned order dated 07.08.2017 issued by respondent no.4, the said benefit was denied in an arbitrary and illegal manner, whereas similarly situated juniors were granted the same, resulting in hostile discrimination. Learned counsel further submitted that denial of fixation of pay adversely affected the applicant’s pay under the Sixth Central Pay Commission as well as his subsequent financial benefits. It was also submitted that during the pendency of the present Original Application, the respondents filed a supplementary counter affidavit stating that the pay of the applicant was revised and fixed vide DPO/DLI letter dated 04.12.2017 along with a due and drawn statement. However, despite such averments, no actual monetary benefit has been paid to the applicant and, therefore, the grievance still survives.

5. Learned counsel for the respon