Vijay Kumar v. Union of India & Anr.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the Order dated 29.11.2018 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in C.P No. 300/2015 in O.A. No. 833/2014, titled Shri Vijay Kumar v. General Manager Northern Railway, H.Q. Baroda House & Anr., whereby the learned Tribunal disposed of the contempt petition filed by the petitioner, holding that the respondents had duly complied with the Order dated 12.08.2014 passed by learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 833/2014.

2. The learned Tribunal had disposed of the above O.A. filed by the petitioner, with the following directions:

3. Though the respondents challenged the aforesaid Order dated 12.08.2014 before this Court by way of a Writ Petition, being W.P.(C) 7002/2015, titled General Manager Northern Railway, H.Q. Baroda House & Anr. v. Vijay Kumar, the same was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 27.09.2017, finding no merit therein. The review petition filed there against by the respondents, bearing Review Pet. No. 66/2018, was also dismissed by this Court vide Order dated 20.02.2018.

4. It was only thereafter that, in purported compliance with the Order passed by the learned Tribunal, as upheld by this Court, the respondent issued an Office Order dated 09.04.2018, granting notional promotion to the petitioner to the Grade of Rs. 6,500-10,500/- with effect from 20.04.1995; however, with actual benefits accruing only from 01.07.2011.

5. Since arrears were not granted with effect from 1995, the question of payment of any interest thereon did not arise. Further, no interest was paid on the arrears for the period between 2011 to 2018.

6. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had filed the above contempt petition before the learned Tribunal.

7. The learned Tribunal, as noted hereinabove, held that there had been due compliance by the respondents with the Order dated 12.08.2014 and, therefore, closed the contempt petition.

8. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

9. The petitioner, who appears in person, submits that the arrears were required to be paid by the respondents in terms of the Order dated 12.08.2014, with effect from 10.04.1995. He further submits that such arrears have also been paid to his juniors, including Sh. Vidya Prakash, vide Office Order dated 28.07.2019. He submits that there is no justifiable reason why arrears have not been paid to the petitioner.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that although Sh. Vidya Prakash was initially junior to the petitioner; his seniority was later re-fixed pursuant to the Order dated 31.04.2000 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 1758/1997, and he was granted the pay fixation in the Grade of Rs. 6,500 – 10,500/- with effect from 10.04.1995. He submits that the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the said Office Order.

11. He further submits that, in terms of Rule 228 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Railway Rules’), even where an officer loses his promotion on account of an administrative error, the enhanced pay is payable only from the date of actual promotion and no arrears are admissible, as the officer did not actually shoulder the duties and responsibilities of the higher post.

12. We have considered these submissions made by the petitioner in person and the learned counsel for the respondents.

13. In the present case, the Order dated 12.08.2024 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 833/2014 was clear, unambiguous, and required no further interpretation. The Order was in two parts; first, it directed the respondents to grant the scale of Rs. 6,500–10,500/- to the petitioner with effect from 10.04.1995 “along with all consequential benefits.” These benefits were intended to be actual and not merely notional. Second, the Order provided that, in case other similarly placed persons had been granted arrears of pay and allowances “with interest”, the petitioner would also be entitled to the same benefit within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the Order. Therefore, it was only on the question of payment of interest that parity with other similarly placed persons was required. The issue was not whether such persons were senior or junior, but whether they were “similarly placed”, that is, persons who had been erroneously denied promotion at an earlier stage.

14. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on Rule 228 of the Railway Rules is also ill-founded, inasmuch as the direction of the learned Tribunal has to be complied with in letter and in spirit. Once the writ petition challenging the Order of the learned Tribunal has been dismissed and the said Order has attained finality, it cannot be reopened in contempt jurisdiction by unilaterally applying the said Rule.