Central Administrative Tribunal - ErnakulamM.Abdul Rasheed vs Union Of India Represented By The ... on 26 November, 2008CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL 
				ERNAKULAM BENCH 

				O.A.No.100/08 

			Wednesday this the 26th day of November 2008 

C O R A M:
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.THANKAPPAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER 
HON'BLE Dr.K.S.SUGATHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER 

M.Abdul Rasheed, 
S/o.Mohammed Ismail, 
Senior Clerk, General Branch, 
O/o. Divisional Railway Manager, 
Southern Railway, Trivandrum. 		...Applicant 

(By Advocate Mr.Ahzar) 

		Versus 

1. 	Union of India represented by the Secretary, 
	Government of India, Ministry of Railways, 
	Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 

2. 	The General Manager, 
	Southern Railway, 
	Park Town P.O., Chennai - 3. 

3. 	The Divisional Railway Manager, 
	Southern Railway, Trivandrum Division, 
	Trivandrum -14. 

4. 	The Divisional Personnel Officer, 
	Southern Railway, Trivandrum Division, 
	Trivandrum - 14. 			...Respondents 

(By Advocate Mr.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil) 

This application having been heard on 26th November 2008 the 
Tribunal on the same day delivered the following:

		O R D E RHON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.THANKAPPAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER 

	The applicant, now working as Senior Clerk in the Railways, 
approached this Tribunal underSection 19of the Central Administrative 
Tribunal Act, 1985 praying that the respondents may be directed to grant 
the 2nd financial upgradation to the applicant as he had completed 24 
years of service on 19.1.2007. The short facts which are necessary for the 
consideration of the O.A are as follows:-2. 	Having been appointed as a Rakshak in the Railway Protection 
Force (RPF in short) and having been subsequently appointed as Clerk in 
the grade of Rs.3050-4590/-in the General Branch, Trivandrum after 
completion of 12 years of service, he was allowed the1st  financial 
upgradation benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme 
(ACPS in short) with effect from 1.10.1999 as per the order dated 
19.12.2003. As the applicant has completed 24 years of service as on 
20.1.2007, he is entitled for the 2nd financial upgradation, contended the 
applicant.3. 	After having admitted the Original Application, the respondents have 
filed their reply statement and in the reply statement the stand taken is that 
the applicant was actually appointed in the service only on 25.9.1983 and 
not 19.1.1983 as contended by the applicant and paragraph 10 of the reply 
statement reads as follows :"10. The averments in paragraph 4(5) that the applicant has 
	completed 24 years of service on 20.1.2007 is not correct and 
	hence, denied. As his date of appointment is 25.9.1983, the 
	date of completion of 24 years of service is only 24.9.2007. As 
	per the file noting, his date of appointment is 25.9.1983. The 
	applicant, in his application dated 28.10.2008 for issue of 
	Second Class Privilege Pass, has mentioned his date of 
	appointment as 19.1.1983."4. 	We have heard both the counsel appearing on either side and had 
perused the documents produced before this Tribunal. Learned counsel 
appearing for the applicant submits that as per the service records the 
applicant has been appointed on 19.1.1983 and if so, he should have been 
given the 2nd financial upgradation on 20.1.2007 as per the ACPS. To 
substantiate his claim, the applicant has now produced a copy of the 
application for final withdrawal of Provident Fund dated 30.6.2008 and as 
per this document the actual appointment date of the applicant he claims 
as on 19.1.1983. If so, the stand taken by the respondents in the reply 
statement is not correct. Counsel appearing for the respondents relying on 
the statement contends that as per the service records now available with 
the Department the applicant was appointed in the service only on 25th 
September 1983. According to the counsel for the respondents the 
applicant is entitled for the 2nd financial upgradation only on 24.9.2007 that 
is now assigned to him also. Considering the rival contention now raised 
before us, we are of the view that as the stand taken in the reply statement 
that the service records of the applicant are not available in the 
Department, the only course to be followed by us is to see the records now 
produced by the applicant showing that his date of entry in the service as 
19.1.1983. If so, this is a fact to be verified by the Department and to take 
a decision in the matter. While considering these matters the Department 
may consider the fact that the applicant was originally appointed as a 
Rakshak in the RPF and, if any service records are available with the RPF 
that also may be verified for deciding the issue in question. Considering all 
these aspects and documents now produced by the applicant before us, 
the respondents have to consider the case afresh and pass appropriate 
order thereon within a timeframe.5. 	Accordingly, the O.A is disposed of by directing the respondents to 
consider the entire documents once again produced by the applicant as 
well as the records available with the Department and also the documents, 
if any, which are now available with the RPF office. The final orders in this 
matter shall be passed as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of 
three months from today. It is also informed to us that some arrears with 
regard to the 1st financial upgradation was also due to the applicant. That 
shall be disbursed to the applicant forthwith. With the above directions, 
the O.A is disposed of to the extent indicated. There shall be no order as 
to costs.(Dated this the 26th day of November 2008) 

K.S.SUGATHAN 				K.THANKAPPAN 
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER 			JUDICIAL MEMBER 

asp