Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Vir Singh vs General Manager N C Rly on 17 May, 2019
Reserved
(On 10.05.2018)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
Dated: This the 17th day of May 2019
Original Application No 330/00477 of 2019
Hon'ble Ms. Ajanta Dayalan, Member - A
1. Vir Singh, S/o Panna Lal, R/o Mohalla - Nehru Nagar, Lalitpur.
2. Laxmi Narayan, S/o Damodar, R/o Mohala-H. No. 565 (Near
Primary School) Nehru Nagar, Lalitpur.
. . .Applicants
By Adv: Sri Dharmendra Tiwwari
VERSUS
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Central Railway,
Head Quarter Officer, Subedarganj, Allahabad.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Jhansi.
3. Senior Divisional Engineer (CO), North Central Railway, Jhansi.
. . . Respondents
By Adv: Sri S.M. Mishra
ORDER
The present OA has been filed by the applicants - Vir Singh and Laxmi Narayan seeking directions to the respondents "to consider and ensure early payment of overtime allowance and conveyance allowance as per revised rates to the applicants". They have also sought direction as deemed fit by this Tribunal and cost in favour of the applicants.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants stated that the applicant No. 1 retired from service in August 2018 from the post of Pump Operator (MCM). The applicant No. 2 also retired in May 2018 from the same post. According to the applicants, they worked on this post for more than prescribed period of duty hours throughout service. The applicants requested the authorities for payment of overtime allowance and the matter was discussed with National Railway Mazdoor Union on 01.12.1995. A letter in this regard was issued on 18.12.1995 (Annexure 2 A-1). According to the applicants, they, thereafter, approached the concerned authorities for payment of overtime allowance, but no action has been taken and the payment is yet to be made. The applicant No. 1 sought some information under RTI Act, which was received vide letters dated 02.11.2018 and 06.11.2018.
3. The applicants have further made available information received by them through RTI Act, vide department letter dated 09.11.2018 (Annexure A-4). According to this, the applicants' claim that they were entitled for overtime allowance for extra hours, which they performed throughout their service period above prescribed duty hours. Regarding conveyance allowance, the applicants have further relied on Railway Board's Circular dated 10.08.2017, whereby it was made clear that revision of rates of conveyance allowance were to be applicable w.e.f. 01.07.2017, but the applicants are yet to be paid on revised rates.
4. In view of non receipt of dues payable to them (overtime and conveyance allowance), the OA has been filed by the applicants.
5. The matter was heard on admissibility of OA.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that the OA is very general and does not state the period for which allowances are payable. They have also stated that the OA is highly time barred, as the claim is perhaps being made for the whole service period of the employees, whenever they performed duty over and above the prescribed period and is not restricted to a particular period. He also pleaded that no representation has been made by the applicants to the department for the said claims.
3
7. It is observed that the letter dated 18.12.1995 regarding meeting with National Railway Mazdoor Union basically states the decision taken in the meeting. It states that provisional payment is to be made to the employees and if they were found guilty, action may be taken against them. Further, regarding item No. 220 of Lalitpur, it states that in case the duty register is of 12 hours, the employees need to be given weekly two days rest. Further, it states that till clarification is received from personnel branch, the employees may be paid overtime for the work done. In case of Lalitpur, report is sought as to how four Pump Operators are working at Lalitpur and if so, how their duties have been fixed with duty roster of 12 hours.
8. I am, therefore, of the view that these are general instructions about payment of claims to the employees. On a specific question asked by this Tribunal as to whether the applicants made any representation to the department about non-payment of claims to them, learned counsel for the respondents stated that no such representation was made. The counsel for the applicants also did not deny this. I also do not find any such representation having been enclosed in the OA. The documents enclosed are only photocopy of letters / information received by the applicants in response to their request under RTI Act and other Board orders.
9. Thus, I find that applicants have not made any representation to the authorities about their claims. They have not produced any document in the OA to show that they have made such claim. During arguments, when they were specifically asked to produce any such representation, they stated that no such representation was ever made. The applicants are, therefore, approaching this Tribunal without approaching concerned authorities.
4
10. Section 20 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 clearly provides that the Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances. I find that in this case no such representations have ever been made by the applicants during their whole service career and even after their retirement. The OA has been filed without exhausting other remedies or approaching the department. Hence, the OA is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
11. It is also noted that the documents enclosed by the applicants in support of their claim about overtime allowance are all duty rosters. But these are mostly gang wise and names of person in the gang are not noted. Hence, these do not prove beyond doubt that the applicants worked overtime. Further, the duty rosters are of broken period of a few months only and are definitely not spreading to the whole period of service of the applicants or even a substantial period thereof. As regards conveyance allowance, no proof about non-payment of conveyance allowance to the applicants has been provided at all. Thus in short, the applicants have not been able to support his claim by the documents annexed in the OA.
12. I also note that the OA also does not indicate specific period for which conveyance and overtime allowances are sought. In the main pleadings of the OA, the entire service period is covered i.e. from initial appointment of the applicants in 1982 / 1984 onwards till their retirement in 2018. It is settled law, as per catena of judgments pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court, including that of C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining - (2008) 10 SCC 115 that law of limitation has to be strictly enforced and the person who sleeps over his rights loses the right itself. 5 In this case, the applicants have not made any claim during their entire service of almost 35 years, even to their own department. Even now, they have not made any representation to the department and are directly approaching this Tribunal. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 also provides that no application shall be admitted beyond limitation prescribed therein. Moreover, this Section is worded in negative terms and hence has to be applied strictly. The OA, therefore, needs to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
13. In view of all above, I find no merit in the OA and the same is also barred by limitation. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed as admission stage itself. There is no order as to costs.
(Ajanta Dayalan) Member - A /pc/