HC pulls up govt; says don't entangle sports quota employees in protracted litigation

New Delhi, Oct 31 (PTI) The Delhi High Court said it disapproved of the "insensitive" approach of government authorities towards their employees who bring recognition and honour to the country's prestige through sporting excellence.

The high court, while hearing a case regarding a boxer seeking salary increments due to him, said such treatment of sportspersons, who serve as ambassadors of national institutions, undermines the very objective behind the schemes meant to foster sports and morale within public service.

"This court expresses its strong disapproval of this practice and expects the petitioner authorities to hereafter act with fairness and respect towards their own employees who bring medals to the organisation, rather than forcing them into unnecessary litigation for recognition they have already earned," a bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain said in an October 29 order.

The remarks came while dismissing an appeal by the Centre, through Railways, challenging a decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had directed the authorities to give two additional increments to a sportsperson along with arrears for his medal-winning performances.

The court also imposed a fine of Rs 20,000 on the petitioner.

The case relates to Ajay Kumar, a boxer who has represented India in international competitions and won medals at both national and international levels.

He was recruited in the Ambala Division of the Northern Railways in 2005, against the talent scouting quota reserved for sportspersons, with 17 advance increments awarded to him at the time of the recruitment.

In March 2007, Kumar won a silver medal in the 53rd Senior National Boxing Championship held in Hyderabad. In June 2007, he also represented India in the Asian Boxing Championship for Men in Mongolia and won a bronze medal.

Railways issued a policy in 2007 under which the sportspersons it recruited were eligible for the grant of additional salary increments for excellence in national and international championships.

However, the 2007 policy was superseded by a revised one in 2010, which stipulated that only five additional increments can be granted to a railway servant in their entire service career on the sports count.

In June 2014, Kumar submitted a representation seeking two additional increments due from 2007.

However, his request was rejected by the Railways on the grounds that by that time, the 2007 policy had been superseded, and the ceiling on the number of additional increments had been imposed.

This rejection was challenged by the sportsperson before the CAT, which directed the Railways to give two additional increments to him.

The Railways challenged the tribunal's order in the high court.

The court upheld the tribunal's order, saying there was no infirmity in the decision.

It said Kumar's entitlement crystallised on the dates of his medal-winning performances in 2007.

The administrative act of processing or granting the increment could follow later, but the source and measure of the entitlement remain those policies that governed on the dates of the achievements, it said.

"The rejection order dated June 5, 2015, was rested on the misapplication of the 2010 policy to the achievements of 2007 and on an erroneous understanding of the 2010 ceiling clause. The tribunal has, therefore, rightly set it aside and directed the grant of one incentive increment with effect from April 1, 2007, and one incentive increment with effect from July 1, 2007, together with consequential arrears," it said.

The bench said it cannot remain oblivious to the manner in which Kumar, a sportsperson who has brought recognition and honour to the country, has been made to run from pillar to post for what was legitimately due to him.

Rather than acknowledging and rewarding his achievements, the Railways chose to entangle him in protracted litigation spanning years, first before the tribunal and now before this court, it said.

"This approach reflects a regrettable insensitivity towards employees who have contributed to the institution and the nation's prestige through sporting excellence," the bench said.

It added that the conduct of the Railways in compelling the sportsperson to seek judicial intervention for benefits that are a matter of his rightful entitlement is both "arbitrary and unreasonable". PTI SKV PRK PRK PRK