The Central Administrative Tribunal held that upon medical decategorization, running staff's pay fixation only permits addition of running allowance to the pay band, not to the grade pay, and no enhancement of grade pay is permissible.

Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member-(A)

1.Heard Shri Pradeep Kumar Dubey holding brief of Shri Sanjay Kumar Om and Shri Atul Kumar Shahi, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By way of this original application the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-

" A. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order date 20.01.2013 to the effect it determines the grade pay of the applicants as Rs.4200/-/ and direct to correct the same to Rs.4600/-/ in terms of Railway Board Circular dt.29.04.1999 and thereby they may be posted in the Grade pay of Rs.4600/-/- w.e.f. the date of their medical de-categorization i.e. 18.04.2012, 31.07.2012 & 03.09.2012 respectively.

B. To issue a further writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dt.23.08.2016 passed by Respondent no. 2.

C. To issue a further writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to re-determine the salary of the applicants in the Grade pay of Rs.4600/-/- and grant them the entire arrears of salary with interest thereupon and other consequential benefits for which the applicants are entitled or may pass such another further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

D. To award the cost of the present O.A. in favour of the applicants."

3. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant in original application are that the applicants were initially appointed as Diesel Sahayaks on16.02.1989 and later promoted to Loco Pilots in the running cadre. In 2012, all three applicants were medically de-categorized from their posts and found fit only for stationary duties. They requested alternative employment and were subsequently absorbed as Crew Controllers in the stationary cadre with effect from their respective dates of de-categorization. At the time of absorption, their pay was fixed by adding 30% of running allowance to their basic pay, but this benefit was not extended to their grade pay.

3.1 According to the applicants, as per Railway Board instructions dated 29.04.1999 and relevant provisions of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, the 30% running allowance should have been added not only to the basic pay but also considered for determining the appropriate grade pay, which would have placed them in the higher grade pay of Rs.4600/- instead of Rs.4200/-. They argue that similarly situated employees, including those absorbed before and even after them, were granted this benefit and placed in the higher grade pay.

3.2 The applicants contend that the Railway Board instruction dated 29.04.1999 modified by the Railway Board circular dated 30.04.2013, which restricted the addition of 30% running allowance only to the pay band and not to grade pay, is prospective and not applicable to their case since their absorption took place in 2012. They also argue that another circular dated 05.10.2011 has been wrongly interpreted by the respondents, as it relates to a different situation and does not deny the benefit available under the 1999 instructions.

3.3 Despite submitting representations in 2015 and 2016, the applicants received no relief, and their claims were rejected by a speaking order dated 23.08.2016, which they claim is arbitrary, non-reasoned, and ignores relevant rules and past precedents. They state that the denial of the benefit granted to similarly placed employees is discriminatory and violates their right to equality, causing them continuous financial loss. Therefore, they seek correction of their pay in line with the 1999 Railway Board instructions and placement in the grade pay of Rs.4600/-. Therefore, having no other option, the applicant has filed this Original Application before the Tribunal.

4. On the other hand, counter affidavit has been filed from the side of the respondents, wherein it has been stated that the applicant’s application should be dismissed due to delay, as the applicants have not provided a proper day-to- day explanation for fil