Performance of instructor duties mandates Training Allowance despite administrative lapses in formal selection procedures.

The applicant, a retired Senior Section Engineer of the Eastern Railway, was transferred and posted as an Instructor/Engg. at the Signal & Telecom Training School, Liluah, via an order dated 26.07.2018

He joined the post on 26.11.2018 and continued to impart training until his superannuation on 30.04.2023

Following retirement, he sought the grant of 'Training Allowance' based on Railway Board Circulars dated 28.03.1989 and 24.01.2003

His representation was rejected by the respondents on 13.09.2023 on the grounds that he was not selected through the formal procedure prescribed under RBE No. 127/2001 and had not undergone the requisite trainer training

The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking parity with similarly placed employees who were granted the allowance under previous Tribunal orders in O.A. Nos. 1420/2016 and 111/2020

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to Training Allowance for the period he discharged the duties of an Instructor, despite the absence of a formal selection process under RBE No. 127/2001

2. Whether the respondents can deny the allowance based on procedural lapses (lack of formal selection/training) when they themselves posted the applicant to the role and utilized his services for several years

The court primarily applied the Railway Board Circular dated 28.03.1989 and RBE No. 21/2003 (Circular dated 24.01.2003), which govern the grant of Training Allowance to faculty members "drawn on deputation from the field" for the purpose of imparting training

It further interpreted RBE No. 127/2001, which outlines the selection criteria for trainers based on aptitude and performance

Additionally, the Tribunal relied on the administrative law principle established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in East Coast Railway & Another v. Mahadev Appa Rao & Others, which mandates that administrative orders must be judged solely by the reasons stated within the order and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons during litigation

The Tribunal found that under Para 5(c) and 5(d) of RBE No. 21/2003, the eligibility for Training Allowance is determined by the nature of the duties—specifically, whether the employee is "directly engaged in imparting training"

The Tribunal noted that the applicant was officially joined as an "Instructor/Engg." and was never repatriated to his parent cadre, implying his performance was satisfactory

The court reasoned that if the respondents failed to conduct the screening or training mandated by RBE No. 127/2001, such administrative negligence cannot be used to penalize the employee who actually performed the teaching functions

Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the respondents failed to distinguish the applicant's case from those of colleagues who received the allowance under earlier Tribunal mandates, thereby rendering the denial discriminatory

Following the Mahadev Appa Rao precedent, the court held that the impugned order’s reliance on the lack of a selection process was unsustainable given the applicant’s continuous administrative posting in that specific capacity

It held that the applicant’s actual discharge of instructor duties entitled him to consideration for the allowance.

The respondents were directed to reconsider the applicant’s claim for Training Allowance from 26.11.2018 to 30.04.2023 in light of the policy and the Tribunal's observations

A reasoned and speaking order must be passed within eight weeks, and consequential benefits must be extended if the applicant is found entitled

The O.A. was allowed with no order as to costs