Facts
The applicant, Ranjit Bahadur Singh, was initially appointed as an Assistant Loco Pilot (ALP) and later promoted to Senior Assistant Loco Pilot (Sr. ALP).
Source reference: no citationIn 2016, an examination was conducted for promotion to Loco Pilot (Goods), and the applicant was among 92 successful candidates, listed at serial number 31 on the panel published on 25.05.2016.
Source reference: p.3The respondent No. 4 issued posting orders in two phases: the first 30 persons were posted as LP/G on 13.06.2016 (before 28.07.2016, the notification date of the 7th CPC), with their basic pay fixed at Rs. 41,100/-.
Source reference: p.3The remaining candidates, including the applicant (sl. No. 31 to 92), were posted on 12.08.2016 (after 28.07.2016), and their initial basic pay was fixed at Rs. 35,400/-.
Source reference: p.3This was later corrected, and the applicant received a corrected pay until 07.07.2020.
Source reference: p.3Subsequently, an order dated 08.07.2020 was issued, re-fixing/reducing the applicant's basic pay from Rs. 43,600/- to Rs. 38,700/- as of 01.07.2018, referencing RBE No. 90/2016 and Railway Board letter 10.07.2019, without a show-cause notice.
Source reference: p.3The applicant's representation against this was rejected on 17.07.2020 on the ground that his posting as LP/G was after 28.07.2016.
Source reference: p.3Previous OAs filed by the applicant (OA No. 372/2020 and OA No. 94/2021) led to directions for considering his representation, which was ultimately rejected by an order dated 12.12.2024, prompting the present OA.
Source reference: p.4The respondents contended that the delayed promotion of the applicant was due to administrative exigency and a shortage of Loco Pilot (Shunter) personnel at the time, which necessitated a phased promotion.
Source reference: p.5Issues
1. Whether the reduction of the applicant's basic pay from Rs. 43,600/- to Rs. 38,700/- on 01.07.2018, based on the implementation date of the 7th CPC, was illegal and discriminatory.
Source reference: p.22. Whether the applicant's basic pay should be fixed at par with co-employees promoted from the same panel before 28.07.2016.
Source reference: p.23. Whether the Railway Board's orders RBE 90/2016 and dated 10.07.2019 are discriminatory and inapplicable regarding the two yardsticks adopted for pre-28.07.2016 and post-28.07.2016 promotees from the same select panel.
Source reference: p.24. Whether the recovered amount towards overpayment should be refunded to the applicant with statutory interest.
Source reference: p.2Law Applied
The court considered the principles of non-discrimination and fairness under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Source reference: p.2It explicitly referred to the Railway Board Establishment (RBE) No. 90/2016 and Railway Board order dated 10.07.2019, which differentiate between promotions effected before and after the 7th CPC notification date of 28.07.2016.
Source reference: p.3, p.4, p.8The court also relied on its prior judgment in OA No. 269 of 2018, which involved similar facts regarding delayed promotion not attributable to the employee, and the application of RBE No. 90/2016.
Source reference: p.6, p.8Reasoning
The Tribunal found that the delay in the applicant's promotion and subsequent posting (effected on 20.08.2016) was due to administrative exigencies on the part of the respondents and not attributable to the applicant.
Source reference: p.7The respondents admitted that promotion was given in a phased manner due to a temporary shortage of Loco Pilot (Shunter) personnel, and that it was possible to complete the promotion process earlier, allowing all promotions to occur before 28.07.2016.
Source reference: p.7The court reasoned that the applicant should not suffer a monetary loss for a delay caused solely by the respondents.
Source reference: p.7Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the respondents had failed to adequately consider the applicant's representation in totality, despite previous orders from the Tribunal.
Source reference: p.8The bench also affirmed the applicability of its previous order in OA No. 269 of 2018, which dealt with analogous circumstances regarding delayed posting and RBE No. 90/2016, noting that the instant case was on a "better footing".
Source reference: p.8The discriminatory application of two different pay fixation yardsticks for employees from the same select panel, based solely on the date of administrative posting, was implicitly found to be arbitrary.
Source reference: no citationHolding
The OA was allowed.
The order dated 12.12.2024 and the preceding orders dated 08.07.2020, 17.07.2020, and 04.02.2021, which resulted in the reduction of the applicant's basic pay from Rs. 43,600/- to Rs. 38,700/- as on 01.07.2018, were quashed and set aside.
Source reference: p.8The respondents were directed to fix the applicant's basic pay at par with the first thirty promoted employees (who were promoted before 28.07.2016) from the same panel of 92 empanelled Loco Pilot (Goods).
Source reference: p.9The respondents were further directed to refund the amount already recovered towards overpayment/excess payment with statutory interest within three months from the date of the order.
Source reference: p.9No order was made as to costs.
Source reference: p.9Original Court PDF
Ranjit Bahadur Singh v. Union of India and Ors., OA/051/00185/2025
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in