Railway employees are entitled to pay protection on request transfer without two years’ service in the promoted grade.

The applicant was appointed as a Junior Accounts Assistant in Central Railway in 1992 and promoted to Accounts Assistant in 1995.

On his request, he transferred to Southern Railway with effect from 30 September 1996.

His pay was fixed at Rs. 1,320 in the lower scale, rather than protecting the pay of Rs. 1,440 he had drawn before transfer; the respondents relied on his not having completed two years’ regular service in the promoted grade.

After making representations, including in 2011 and 2021, he applied under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking pay protection and consequential benefits.

The respondents opposed the application principally on limitation grounds and stated that the Railway Board had earlier found him ineligible for pay protection.

Whether the applicant’s claim for pay protection on an inter-divisional transfer on request to a lower post was barred by limitation.

Whether the applicant was entitled to protection of the pay drawn before transfer despite not having completed two years’ regular service in the promoted grade.

The Tribunal proceeded under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and relied on the principles applied by the CAT, Ernakulam Bench in M.S. Muthuvel v. Union of India, OA No. 637/2006 (30 October 2007), and N. Venugopal v. Union of India, OA No. 1064/2010 (7 September 2012).

Those decisions treated pay and pension losses as recurring and held that pay drawn in the higher scale could be protected at the appropriate stage in the lower scale following an inter-divisional transfer on request; the two-year service requirement did not defeat that protection.

The Tribunal also relied on the interpretation of Rule 227 and Rule 1313 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, and on the DOPT Office Memorandum dated 14 February 2006 concerning pay fixation.

Consistent with the cited Ernakulam Bench decisions, arrears were limited to three years preceding the filing of the application.

The Tribunal rejected the limitation objection because the applicant’s alleged loss of pay was recurring, relying on the reasoning in N. Venugopal.

On the merits, it considered the Ernakulam Bench decisions directly applicable: the transfer was an inter-divisional transfer on request to a lower post, and the absence of two years’ service in the promoted grade did not preclude pay protection under the principles applied in those cases.

The respondents’ submissions focused on limitation, and the Tribunal found no substantive basis in their reply or arguments to distinguish the cited decisions.

Arrears were restricted to the three years preceding the filing of the application.

Compliance was directed within eight weeks of receipt of the certified copy; the application was disposed of with no order as to costs.