Artificial nomenclature distinctions between "Chowkidar" and "Watchman" cannot justify withdrawal of cadre restructuring benefits.

The applicant was initially appointed as a Gangman but was medically de-categorized and posted as a Chowkidar in 1989

Following a Railway Board circular dated 17.08.2012 (RBE No. 9/2012) regarding cadre restructuring, the posts of Trackman, Gateman, and Watchman were merged into the "Track Maintainer" cadre

Based on a combined seniority list, the applicant was granted the Grade Pay (GP) of Rs. 2400 (Track Maintainer-II) effective from 17.08.2014

However, via an impugned order dated 09.06.2017, the respondents withdrew this benefit and reverted him to GP Rs. 2000, alleging that his category as a "Store Chowkidar" was not covered under the restructuring scheme

Consequently, the respondents effected a recovery of Rs. 36,859 from his salary without issuing a show-cause notice

The applicant challenged this withdrawal and sought promotion to GP Rs. 2800 at par with his juniors

1. Whether the withdrawal of the Grade Pay of Rs. 2400 and the subsequent recovery of salary without a show-cause notice violated the principles of natural justice

2. Whether the post of "Chowkidar" or "Store Chowkidar" is distinct from "Watchman" for the purposes of the cadre restructuring scheme under RBE No. 9/2012

The court applied the principles of Natural Justice, specifically the requirement of a show-cause notice before withdrawing a financial benefit or effecting recovery

It relied on the Railway Board’s cadre restructuring policy (RBE No. 9/2012) which merged various track-related categories

In interpreting the nomenclature of "Chowkidar" and "Watchman," the court applied the Literal Rule of statutory interpretation, holding that terms not defined in an enactment should be construed in their ordinary sense

It further cited the precedent in Deokinandan v. Emperor (AIR 1936 ALL 753) to establish that "Chowkidar" is synonymous with "Watchman" in common parlance

The Tribunal observed that the respondents failed to provide any rule or statutory definition distinguishing the duties or hierarchy of a "Store Chowkidar" from a "Watchman"

Referring to dictionary definitions and RTI replies from the respondents themselves, the court found that "Chowkidar" and "Watchman" are functionally identical

The Tribunal noted that as a medically de-categorized employee, the applicant was entitled to pay protection from his original post of Gangman

The court reasoned that withdrawing a long-standing pay grade just prior to retirement without a show-cause notice was a significant violation of natural justice and amounted to an illegal reversion

Furthermore, the court held that the final seniority list of 2018 could not be applied retrospectively to justify an action taken against an employee who retired before its publication

It held that there was no valid distinction between "Chowkidar" and "Watchman" that would exclude the applicant from the restructuring benefits

The respondents were directed to restore the applicant’s Grade Pay of Rs. 2400 w.e.f. 17.08.2014, pay the resulting arrears, and refund the recovered amount of Rs. 36,859 within two months