Railway employee not entitled to First Class Privilege Pass without regular appointment during specified period.

The applicant, Arvind Khare, was initially appointed in the Railway as a Daily Rated High Skilled Technical Mistri on May 21, 1987.

He subsequently joined as Apprentice I.O.W. Grade III/Junior Engineer Grade-II construction on June 30, 1997.

The Respondent Railways issued a circular dated January 14, 2000, entitling employees who joined Railway service between April 1, 1987, and November 10, 1987, to First Class Privilege Pass upon reaching a certain pay scale.

The applicant was issued First Class Privilege Passes from September 11, 2000, until September 17, 2002.

However, an audit objection in January 2003 claimed that these passes were wrongly issued due to a misinterpretation of the circular.

The applicant's subsequent representations for clarification and re-issuance of passes were not addressed, leading him to apply for Second Class Passes.

Approximately 10 years later, the authorities imposed a recovery of Rs. 83,310/- against the applicant, citing that he was not regularly employed between April 1, 1987, and November 10, 1987, as per Rule 2(h) of the Railway Servant (Pass) Rules, 1986.

An installment of Rs. 6943/- was deducted from his July 2012 salary.

The applicant challenged this recovery in O.A. No. 664/2012, which the Tribunal disposed of on August 27, 2014, directing him to make a representation.

His representation was rejected by the respondents, who reiterated that he did not meet the criteria for irregularities condonation under Rule 14 of the Railway Servant (Pass) Rules, 1986.

The respondents stated that the applicant only attained temporary status on May 16, 1988, and was not regularly appointed between the specified dates.

This is the third round of litigation, as the applicant's earlier O.A. 981/2004 was dismissed on merits on August 18, 2005, affirming that he was not entitled to 1st class privilege passes.

Whether the applicant was entitled to First Class Privilege Passes as per the Railway Board's circular dated January 14, 2000, despite his initial appointment as a Daily Rated High Skilled Technical Mistri on May 21, 1987, and attaining temporary status on May 16, 1988?

Whether the recovery of Rs. 83,310/- from the applicant for the alleged wrongful issuance of First Class Privilege Passes was justified?

The Tribunal applied the Railway Board's circular dated January 14, 2000, which defined eligibility for First Class Privilege Passes based on the date of joining Railway service and pay scale.

It also referred to Rule 2(h) and Rule 14 of the Railway Servant (Pass) Rules, 1986, which pertain to the eligibility and condonation of irregularities for pass issuance.

Central to the decision was Para No. 2005 of Chapter XX in the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol. II, emphasizing that service prior to absorption in a regular cadre after selection/screening does not count for seniority, implying it wouldn't count for benefits tied to regular appointment dates.

The Tribunal also acknowledged the principle of *res judicata* or issue estoppel by noting that the matter had been previously decided on merits in O.A. 981/2004.

The court reasoned that the applicant was not regularly appointed to the permanent establishment of the Railways between April 1, 1987, and November 10, 1987, which was the crucial criterion for entitlement to First Class Privilege Passes under the Railway Board's circular dated January 14, 2000.

While the applicant reported his date of appointment as May 21, 1987, this was as a daily-rated casual labourer.

Furthermore, he only acquired temporary status on May 16, 1988.

The Tribunal underscored that his regular appointment was much later, after successfully completing training for the IOW Grade-III post, and his basic pay was fixed at Rs. 5450/- with effect from July 1, 2000.

The court highlighted Para No. 2005 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol. II, Chapter XX, which clearly states that casual labour treated as temporary are entitled to benefits admissible to temporary railway servants, but their service prior to absorption in a regular cadre does not count for seniority.

This principle was extended to pass entitlement, indicating that the period as a casual labourer or temporary status did not fulfil the "regularly appointed" criterion for the First Class Privilege Pass.

Moreover, the Tribunal noted that this precise issue of pass entitlement had been previously adjudicated and dismissed on merits in O.A. 981/2004 on August 18, 2005, reinforcing its current decision.

The applicant's basic pay being Rs. 5450/- on July 1, 2000, and regularization from July 1, 1998, did not alter the fact that his initial appointment date did not fall within the stipulated period for first-class pass eligibility.

It held that the applicant was not entitled to First Class Privilege Passes in light of the Railway Board's letter dated January 14, 2000, because he was not regularly appointed in the railways between April 1, 1987, and November 10, 1987.

The recovery of Rs. 83,310/- was therefore implicitly upheld as justified.

No costs were awarded.