Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench: An application was filed by employees of the West Central Railway challenging the revision and reduction of their pay following their promotion and being aggrieved that the benefit of switch over to 7th CPC pay structure already granted to the applicants have been withdrawn without issuing any show cause notice to them. A coram of Akhil Kumar Srivastava (Judicial Member) and Mallika Arya (Administrative Member), JJ., held that the decision to withdraw the benefits of the 7th CPC pay structure without providing a show cause notice or a hearing was unjustified and violated the principles of natural justice.
The applicants initially joined as Loco Pilot Goods and were subsequently promoted to Senior Assistant Loco Pilot in the erstwhile Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/-. After being found suitable for further promotion, they were elevated to the position of Loco Pilot Goods in Pay Band-II with a Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-. The General Manager of West Central Railway, recognizing the urgent shortage of Loco Pilot Goods, permitted the applicants’ promotion as a special case, with orders being issued on 14-12-2015. This decision was followed by another order on 31-12-2015, where the General Manager extended the promotion benefits to 101 Shunters, including the applicants. The promotions were deemed effective from the date of the initial promotion order, thereby entitling the applicants to all corresponding benefits. The formal promotion order for the applicants was subsequently issued on 04-08-2016.
The core issue arose from the application of the 7th CPC pay structure. On 28-07-2016, the Railway Board issued RBE No. 90/16, inviting options from Railway employees regarding their pay structure. Employees had the choice to continue drawing their pay under the existing structure or elect to switch over to the revised 7th CPC pay structure from the date of their promotion, in accordance with Rules 5 and 6 of the RS (RP) Rules, 2016. The applicants opted to switch over to the revised pay structure as per the statutory rules.
However, the applicants were later shocked to discover that the respondents, without any prior notice or opportunity for a hearing, had decided to withdraw the benefits of their switch-over to the 7th CPC structure. Not only was the switch-over rescinded, but the respondents also initiated recovery of the arrears that had been paid to the applicants under the revised pay structure.
The applicants contended that this arbitrary withdrawal of benefits and the consequent recovery was not only unfair but also unlawful, as it violated their legal rights, which had already accrued in their favor under the 2006 statutory rules. They further argued that this action breached the principles of natural justice, as no show cause notice or hearing was provided before the withdrawal of the benefits.
The Court noted that the respondents’ unilateral decision to withdraw the benefits without issuing a show cause notice or providing the applicants an opportunity to be heard was a clear violation of established legal principles. It emphasized that the right to fair hearing is a fundamental aspect of natural justice, particularly when an individual’s legal rights, such as pay benefits, are being taken away.
Furthermore, the Court observed the implications of the statutory rules under which the applicants had exercised their option to switch over to the 7th CPC pay structure. Once the applicants exercised their option and the revised pay structure was implemented, it became a legally protected right. Any attempt to alter or withdraw these benefits required adherence to due process, which the respondents had failed to follow.
Thus, the Court held that the respondents’ decision to withdraw the benefits of the 7th CPC pay structure without providing a show cause notice or a hearing was unjustified and violated the principles of natural justice. The Court also directed the competent authority to fix the pay of the applicants in accordance with the option they had earlier exercised, as well as in accordance with the letter dated 15-06-2018. Furthermore, any recovery that had been made by the applicants was ordered to be refunded to them within a period of 90 days from the receipt of the Court’s order.
[Santosh Kumar v. Kapil Kumar Sharma, 2024 SCC OnLine CAT 534, decided on 16-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Advocate Manan Agarwala for applicants
Advocate N.K. Mishra in OA Nos.1150/2019, 1151/2019 & in OA No.1152/2019 and Shri A.P. Khare in OA Nos.122/2020 & 230/2020