Applicant failed to prove pay loss or discrimination; OA dismissed.

The applicant, Harish Kumar Singh, was medically decategorized from his post as Guard Mail Express after an accident on December 1, 2006, rendering him unfit for A2 medical category but fit for a lower medical category.

Despite recommendations for an alternative posting, he was posted as Head Trains Clerk without pay protection, which he claimed was not commensurate with his previous post.

He alleged that his juniors, who were also medically decategorized, were granted superior posts with higher pay.

His representation was rejected following directions in OA No. 284/2009, prompting the present original application seeking parity, payment of pay difference, and quashing of the order dated December 28, 2010, which was passed in compliance with the previous OA.

The respondents contended that the applicant was given pay protection and was posted as Head Train Clerk in the same pay scale with applicable running allowance via order dated May 12, 2009.

The applicant retired from service on June 30, 2022.

1. Whether the order dated December 28, 2010, passed by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North Eastern Railway, Lucknow, should be quashed.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to be absorbed on the post of Office Superintendent Grade II in the operating department with regular salary as per grade pay scale.

3. Whether the applicant is entitled to receive higher pay at par with his juniors who were allegedly paid higher pay after medical decategorization.

The court primarily applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which governs the filing of original applications seeking relief from service matters.

The court also implicitly considered principles regarding pay protection for medically decategorized employees and the requirement for specific evidence to establish claims of pay discrepancy or discrimination.

Case laws cited by the applicant regarding parity and pay were also considered but ultimately deemed inapplicable due to lack of specific evidence.

The court analyzed the applicant's claims in light of the retirement and the provided evidence.

Regarding the quashing of the order dated December 28, 2010, the court noted that the first part concerning the applicant's posting as Head Trains Clerk had become infructuous due to his retirement on June 30, 2022.

For the second part of the order relating to pay protection, the court found from the impugned order and counter affidavit that pay protection was indeed granted to the applicant, including the benefit of 30% running allowance.

The court highlighted the applicant's failure to provide specific evidence of the actual amount he was drawing at the time of medical decategorization or posting, thus failing to establish any pay difference.

Concerning the claim of parity with juniors, the court noted that no specific relief to this effect was sought in the application, and more importantly, the applicant failed to furnish details of the pay drawn by him and the junior employees to demonstrate actual discrimination or higher pay.

Without specific material to establish loss of pay or discrimination, the general arguments and relied-upon case laws could not benefit the applicant.

The court held that the relief relating to the applicant's posting after medical decategorization had become infructuous due to his retirement.

Regarding pay protection and parity with juniors, the applicant failed to place specific material on record to establish loss of pay or discrimination.

The impugned order dated December 28, 2010, was found to have granted due pay protection to the applicant.

There shall be no order as to costs, and all associated MAs are disposed of.