The Delhi High Court has expressed strong disapproval of the “insensitive” manner in which government bodies treat their employees, especially those who have achieved sporting excellence and brought honor to the nation.
During a hearing for a boxer seeking rightful salary increments, the High Court observed that such neglect of sportspersons—who represent national institutions—defeats the fundamental purpose of schemes designed to promote sports and boost morale within public service.
A bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain, in an order dated October 29, stated, “This court expresses its strong disapproval of this practice and expects the authorities concerned to henceforth treat their medal-winning employees with fairness and respect, rather than compelling them into needless legal battles for well-deserved recognition.”
These critical remarks were made while dismissing an appeal filed by the Union government, represented by the Railways. The appeal contested a directive from the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had ordered the Railways to grant a sportsperson two additional increments and associated arrears for his distinguished medal-winning achievements.
Furthermore, the court imposed a fine of ₹20,000 on the petitioner (the Railways).
The case specifically involved Ajay Kumar, a talented boxer who has proudly represented India in various international competitions, securing medals at both national and international levels.
Kumar was initially recruited in 2005 by the Ambala Division of Northern Railways under the sportspersons’ talent scouting quota. At the time of his recruitment, he was granted 17 advance increments.
His achievements include a silver medal at the 53rd Senior National Boxing Championship in Hyderabad in March 2007, followed by a bronze medal representing India at the Asian Boxing Championship for Men in Mongolia in June 2007.
In 2007, the Railways introduced a policy that made recruited sportspersons eligible for extra salary increments based on their outstanding performances in national and international championships.
However, this 2007 policy was later replaced by a revised policy in 2010. The new guidelines restricted the total number of additional increments a railway employee could receive for sports achievements to a maximum of five throughout their career.
In June 2014, Kumar formally requested the two additional increments that were due to him from 2007.
The Railways rejected his request, citing that the 2007 policy had been superseded by the 2010 revision, which introduced a cap on the number of additional increments.
Kumar subsequently challenged this rejection before the CAT, which ruled in his favor and ordered the Railways to grant him the two additional increments.
The Railways then appealed the CAT’s order to the Delhi High Court.
The High Court upheld the tribunal’s decision, affirming that there was no flaw in its ruling.
The court clarified that Kumar’s right to these increments became fixed on the dates he won his medals in 2007.
It emphasized that while the administrative process of granting increments might occur later, the fundamental eligibility is determined by the policies in effect at the time the achievements were made.
“The rejection order dated June 5, 2015, was based on an incorrect application of the 2010 policy to achievements made in 2007 and a misunderstanding of the 2010 increment cap. Consequently, the tribunal rightly overturned it, directing the Railways to grant one incentive increment effective from April 1, 2007, and another from July 1, 2007, along with all resulting arrears,” the court concluded.
The Bench further highlighted its concern over how Kumar, a celebrated sportsperson who brought national prestige, was forced to endure a lengthy and arduous process to claim his rightful dues.
Instead of recognizing and rewarding his accomplishments, the Railways opted to draw him into protracted legal battles for years, first at the tribunal level and then before the High Court.
This behavior, the Bench noted, “reflects a regrettable insensitivity towards employees who have contributed significantly to the institution and the nation’s reputation through their sporting excellence.”
The court concluded that the Railways’ action of forcing a sportsperson to pursue legal action for benefits that were his undisputed entitlement was “arbitrary and unreasonable.”