Railway employee not entitled to double running allowance; pay fixation must adhere to rules.

The applicant, Karmendra Joshi, was initially appointed as an Assistant Loco Pilot.

He was medically de-categorized and subsequently given an alternative appointment as a Train Clerk (TNC) in a non-running category on October 12, 2007.

His pay was fixed at Rs. 11,990/-, which included a 30% running allowance [p.1].

He was promoted to Sr. TNC on July 24, 2009, with a revised pay of Rs. 13,610/- [p.2].

Following selection in a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), he was appointed as a Goods Guard on February 24, 2010, and his pay was fixed at Rs. 14,420/- as of February 25, 2010 [p.2].

The respondents, via an order dated June 26, 2014, subsequently reduced the applicant's pay from Rs. 16,250/- to Rs. 12,810/- without prior notice [p.2].

The reduction was due to the detection that the applicant was receiving a 30% running allowance twice: once from his initial alternative appointment as Train Clerk and again as a Goods Guard, the latter being a running category post [p.3].

The respondents contended that this earlier grant of 30% running allowance as a Train Clerk was withdrawn proforma from November 1, 2007, as it constituted a double benefit [p.3].

The applicant's representations against this reduction dated August 1, 2014, and August 29, 2014, received no response [p.2].

Whether the reduction of the applicant's pay by the respondents was illegal, arbitrary, or against the principles of natural justice [p.2].

Whether the applicant was legitimately entitled to receive a 30% running allowance twice, once during his alternative appointment as Train Clerk and again upon his appointment as Goods Guard [p.5].

The court considered Para 1308 of Chapter XIII of IREM Vol. I (revised Edition) which pertains to the fixation of pay for medically de-categorized employees with the inclusion of a 30% running allowance [p.3, p.4].

The principle applied was that such an allowance is typically granted for running category posts.

The court also referenced the Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh and Ors. 2017 SCC 148, which holds that the equation of posts and determination of pay scales is primarily an executive function, and courts should ordinarily not undertake this task [p.5].

The court found no dispute regarding the fundamental facts: the applicant's medical de-categorization leading to an alternative appointment as a Train Clerk with a 30% running allowance, and his subsequent appointment as a Goods Guard (a running category post) where his pay was again fixed with a 30% running allowance [p.4].

The core of the matter was whether the applicant was entitled to receive this running allowance twice.

The respondents argued and the court concurred that the applicant was receiving the benefit of a 30% running allowance on two occasions [p.3, p.4].

The counsel for the applicant failed to present any rule or instruction from the Railways to support the claim that the applicant was entitled to a double running allowance [p.4].

Therefore, the court concluded that the respondents were left with no alternative but to accurately fix the applicant's pay according to the rules, which necessitated withdrawing the previously granted 30% running allowance from his non-running post of Train Clerk [p.4].

The court also highlighted the judicial restraint principle, affirming that pay fixation is primarily an executive function [p.5].

Consequently, the Original Application No. 791/2014 was dismissed [p.5].

No costs were awarded [p.5].