Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 56435
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AMIT RAWAL, K. V. Jayakumar, JJ
P.MURUGANANDAN – Appellant
Versus
THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY – Respondent
OP (CAT) NO. 310 OF 2017 | OP (CAT) NO. 313 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN
For the Respondents: SRI.MATHEW BOBBY KURIAN, SC, RAILWAYS, S. BIJU
SRI.B.RAJESH, SC, RAILWAYS, SREEJITH P. R, S. BIJU
The court ruled that a disabled railway employee is entitled to pay protection from the date of reassignment, prior to the enactment of the relevant disability legislation.
Headnote:(A) Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - The Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) Vol.I, Paragraphs 1301 to 1311 - Modification of tribunal order regarding pay fixation of medically decategorized employee - The court determined that the applicant was entitled to pay protection from the date of his reassignment in 1994, not limited to the Act's effective date of 1996, reinforcing the right to accommodation for disabled employees. (Paras 9, 10, 14)
(B) Delay and Laches - The court found that the recurring nature of the claim negated the argument of delay, emphasizing that the applicant's rights should not be restricted due to timing. (Paras 6, 11)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, a railway employee who became disabled in 1994, sought pay protection upon reassignment to a less physically demanding role. Despite tribunal ruling limited to 1996, the applicant argued for earlier benefits based on existing regulations.
Findings of Court:
The tribunal's limitation of benefits to 1996 was modified, with the court directing that the applicant's pay protection should be effective from 27.04.1994.
Issues: The primary issues included the appropriate date for pay protection in light of the applicant’s disability and the applicability of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that existing regulations provided for pay protection prior to the Act's enactment, thus the applicant was entitled to benefits from the earlier date, affirming the principle of accommodating employees with disabilities. The tribunal's restriction was deemed unjustified.
Result: O.P.(CAT) No.310 of 2017 is allowed; O.P.(CAT) No.313 of 2017 stands dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's analysis on the application of irem and disability act. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 2. court's decision on the date of benefit entitlement. (Para 10 , 11) |
AMIT RAWAL This order shall dispose of two petitions; O.P.(CAT)
No.310/2017 filed by the applicant seeking modification of the order of the tribunal dated 30.05.2017 in O.A.No.36 of 2014 and O.P.(CAT) No.313 of 2017 filed by the Railway against the claim of the applicant for granting identical pay prior to re-deployment and selection from 1996, when the Act (Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of Rights and full participation) Act 1995) came into force.
2. The short point involved in this case is that on having attained the physical disability of epilepsy, the applicant Sri.P.Muruganandan while working in the post of Switch Man in Railway in the scale of pay of Rs.1200-2040 and drawing a salary of Rs.1290/- was deployed as Commercial Clerk. The Indian Railway Establishment Manual (hereinafter called ‘IREM’) Vol.I, Paragraphs 1301 to 1311 shows that the persons who have been found to be physically incapable can be adjusted in a post involving less physical involvement with the same pay scale and service. Even the master circular No.25 was also in the same terms. Paragraph 10 of the said circular reads as follows :-
10. Fixation of pay of medically decategorised staff:
10.1. The pay of a Railway servant who is medically decategorised and absorbed in an alternative appointment will be fixed at a stage corresponding to the pay drawn in the post held in the parent departmet. If there is no such stage in the post in which he/she is absorbed, he/she is to be given the stage below the pay previously drawn by him/her.
10.2. In the case of running staff, the last pay drawn in the parent cadre + percentage of this pay in lieu of the running allowance which is 30% at present is also protected. It is, however, subject to the condition that the employee is not entitled to a pay more than maximum of the absorbing grade though he might be drawing more pay in his parent department, if decategorisation had arisen on account of the causes mentioned in para 3(i) and 3(ii). However, if the medical decategorisation has arisen due to the causes mentioned in para 3 (iii), 3 (iv), 3 (v) and 3 (vi), the pay of the decategorized employee (in the case of running staff, pay + percentage of pay treated as emoluments in lieu of the running allowance) should be protected in the absorbing grade and if it exceeds the maximum of the absorbing grade, the difference will be allowed as personal pay to be absorbed in future increase(s) in pay.
10.3. The pay of the medically decategorised employees (in the case of running staff pay + 30% of pay in lien of running allowance) falling under Groups (iii) to (vi) of para 3 above, and not in Ground (i) & (ii) of the same para should the protected fully in the absorbing grade and if it exceeds the maximum of the absorbing grade, the difference will be permitted as personal pay to be absorbed in future increases.
10.4. If before medical decategorisation an employee is empanelled or trade tested and if the panel or trade test list is valid even at the time of decategorisation and vacancy arises in the parent department whilst the panel or the list is still in force, the decategorised employee must be considered for giving him the benefit of promotion which he would have received but for his decategorisation subject to the following conditions:
a. The benefit will be admissible only in cases where teh medical decategorisation is owing to:
i. Accidents, which arose out of and in the course of employment, ii. Accidental injuries received due to willful act or negligence of Co-employee.
b. The benefit will be admissible only if the relevant panel (in the case of selection posts) or suitability list (in the case of non-selection posts) including posts filled through trade test is valid on the date from which the benefit is due.
c. The benefit will be limited only to t
