Administrative inability to relieve an employee cannot defeat an ordered financial upgradation with retrospective effect.

The applicant, a Chief Office Superintendent in Level 7, was working in the South Western Railway Construction Organisation at Hubballi, while his lien and seniority were maintained in the Mysuru Division.

By Office Order dated 7 September 2023, the applicant was granted financial upgradation to Level 8 with effect from 1 December 2022 and was advised to report to the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Mysuru, on upgradation.

The applicant approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking directions for his release from the Construction Organisation and implementation of the Level 8 financial upgradation from 1 December 2022, with consequential benefits.

Respondent No. 2 opposed his immediate release on the ground that the Construction Organisation was engaged in time-bound railway projects and was suffering from staff shortages.

Whether Respondent No. 2 could continue to retain the applicant in the Construction Organisation despite the Office Order directing him to report to the Mysuru Division upon financial upgradation.

Whether the applicant was entitled to implementation of his financial upgradation to Level 8 with effect from 1 December 2022, along with consequential benefits.

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which a government employee may seek redress against a service-related grievance before the Tribunal.

It also applied the terms of the Office Order dated 7 September 2023, particularly the condition that the applicant report to the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Mysuru, upon upgradation and receive admissible transfer benefits.

The governing principle was that an administrative authority must give effect to a valid financial-upgradation order and cannot, through inter-departmental disagreement or inaction, deprive the employee of the benefits already granted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s financial upgradation to Level 8 had already been granted with retrospective effect from 1 December 2022 by the competent authority.

The order specifically required him to report to the Mysuru Division, making his release from the Construction Organisation necessary for implementation.

Although Respondent No. 2 relied on project requirements and staff shortages, Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 acknowledged that the applicant’s lien remained in Mysuru and expressly requested his release so that the upgradation could be implemented.

The Tribunal held that the applicant could not be made the “scapegoat” of the dispute between the railway authorities, particularly when the delay was affecting his financial benefits and future progression to Level 9.

Accordingly, administrative exigency could not justify indefinite non-compliance with the upgradation order.

Respondent No. 2 was directed to relieve the applicant from the Construction Organisation at Hubballi and release him to the Mysuru Division immediately.

Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 were directed to implement the applicant’s financial upgradation to Level 8 with effect from 1 December 2022, as ordered on 7 September 2023, together with consequential benefits.

Compliance was directed within eight weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

No order was made as to costs.