New Delhi [India], October 31 : The Delhi High Court has slammed the Indian Railways and dismissed its petition challenging a tribunal order in favour of a medal-winning national-level boxer employed with the national carrier.
The High Court also imposed a cost of ₹20,000 on the Railways, to be paid to the boxer within four weeks.
A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain upheld the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had directed the Railways to grant two additional increments to sportsperson Ajay Kumar, along with arrears, for his medal-winning performances in the national and Asian boxing championships in 2007.
"Rather than acknowledging and rewarding his achievements, the petitioner chose to entangle him in protracted litigation... This approach reflects a regrettable insensitivity towards employees who have brought recognition and honour to the country," the High Court observed while dismissing the petition.
The Bench expressed strong disapproval of the Railways' conduct in compelling a decorated sportsperson to "run from pillar to post" for his rightful dues.
"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," the High Court said, directing compliance with the Tribunal's order within six weeks.
Ajay Kumar, who joined the Northern Railways under the sports quota in 2005, had won a Silver Medal at the 53rd Senior National Boxing Championship (March 2007) and a Bronze Medal at the Asian Boxing Championship (June 2007).
Under the 2006 and 2007 Railway Sports Policies, medal-winning athletes were entitled to incentive increments for national and international achievements.
However, when Kumar formally applied for the increments in 2014, his claim was rejected in 2015 under the 2010 Sports Policy, which capped such increments at five for an entire career.
In November 2023, the CAT quashed the Railways' rejection order and directed that Ajay Kumar be granted one increment each from April 1 and July 1, 2007, with arrears. Challenging this, the Union of India argued before the High Court that since Kumar applied in 2014 after the 2010 Policy came into effect, his case should be governed by the new policy, which superseded earlier ones.
Rejecting the Centre's contention, the High Court held that the 2006-2007 policies, which were in force when the medals were won, governed the entitlement. "The 2010 Policy consolidates and supersedes earlier instructions prospectively and not retrospectively. Rights that had already accrued prior to December 31, 2010, shall continue to be governed by the earlier policies," the Court ruled.
It further stated that administrative discretion under the policy cannot be exercised arbitrarily or to deny legitimate benefits, especially when other similarly placed sportspersons had been granted the same.
The High Court dismissed the Union of India's petition, upholding the Tribunal's direction to release the two increments with arrears and to pay ₹20,000 as costs to the sportsperson.