Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ajit Singh vs M/O Railways on 6 March, 2024
1
Item No.11 (C-4) O.A. No.1013/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No.1013/2016
This the 06th day of March, 2024
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
1. Ajit Singh S/o Sh. Haraam Singh (aged about 71 years)
Retd. Loco Inspector N. Rly. Firozpur Divn.
R/o 95-XE, X-Block Haibowal Khurd,
Maharishi Balmik Nagar, Ludhiana.
2. Subash Chandra S/o Sh. Bihari Lal Anand aged 76 yrs
Retd. Loco Inspector Ambala Divn Ambala,
R/o 152 Housing Board Colony Ambala Cantt.
... Applicants
(By Advocate:- Mr. S. P. Sethi)
Versus
Union of India through
1. General Manager, Northern Railway,
Baroda House, New Delhi.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway Firozpur Division,
Firozpur Cantt.
3. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway Ambala Division,
Ambala Cantt.
... Respondents
(By Advocate:- Mr. S. N. Verma)
2
Item No.11 (C-4) O.A. No.1013/2016
O R D E R (ORAL)
In the instant OA, the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:-
"i. direct the respondents to extend the benefits granted to similarly situated retired employees by virtue of judgments and orders passed by Hon'ble Tribunal as well as orders passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court and other orders passed by various courts annexed with this O.A. including the orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, annexed herewith, as cited below:
CW 960/2000 decided on 22.9.2003 Union of India vs. Krishan Lal re-affirmed and approved by Supreme Court on 06.7.2004. Allahabad High Courts judgement dated 12.3.1979 in Afsar Jahan Begum vs. Union of India which has also been reaffirmed and put a seal of approval by the Supreme Court on 20.7.1988. Janaranjan Basu & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. In OA No. 1007/1993 decided on 19.6.2000 as also R.D. Dixit Vs. Union of India in OA No. 396/2006 decided on 05.6.2007.
ii. direct the respondents to recomputed the pension and other ancillary retirement benefits of the applicants after so refixing the pay as aforesaid.
iii. make payment of the resultant consequential arrears both on account of refixation of pay as also re-computation of pension and other ancillary retirement benefits from the due date to the date of actual payment with 24% p.a. compound interest."
2. The applicants who retired from the post of Chief Loco Inspector (Group C) in the Railways, are aggrieved by non- grant of the benefit of reckoning of 55-75% element of Running Allowance in their basic pay for the purpose of computation of pension and other related benefits on the basis of certain judgments/orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble High Courts and this Tribunal, despite the representations preferred by them in this regard. 3
Item No.11 (C-4) O.A. No.1013/2016
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that earlier vide Order dated 24.07.2017, the captioned OA was dismissed by this Tribunal with liberty to the applicants to revive it after the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the SLP (C) (CC No.4758/2016 in which the Judgment dated 22.09.2002 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the matter of Union of India & Ors. vs. Krishan Lal & another in C.W. No.960/2002 filed against the Decision dated 16.10.2001 of this Tribunal in OA No.229/2000 titled Krishan Lal & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., preferred by the similarly placed persons to the applicants herein, was stayed vide Order dated 18.04.2016. However, vide Order dated 21.09.2023 passed in MA No.2287/2023 seeking revival of the captioned OA, this Tribunal revived this OA, as the Hon'ble Apex Court on 22.03.2023 affirmed the Decision dated 16.10.2001 of this Tribunal passed in the matter of Krishan Lal' s Case (supra).
4. To strengthen his arguments, the learned counsel for the applicants draws attention to the grounds taken in the present OA, wherein it is stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar, 1971-2-SCC-330, in Para No.31, has held that pension is not to be treated as bounty payable on the sweet 4 Item No.11 (C-4) O.A. No.1013/2016 will and pleasure of the Government and that the right to superannuation pension including its amount is a valuable right vesting in a government servant. In this case, the right to receive pension was treated as property under Article 1(1) and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India. It is further stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court taking note of the decision in Deokinandan Prasad's Case, held in D.S. Nakara vs. Union of India, 1983-1-SCC-305, in paras 28 & 29 that:
"28. Pension to civil employees of the Government and the defence personnel as administered in India appear to be a compensation for service rendered in the past. However, as held in Douge v. Board of Education(1) a pension is closely akin to wages in that it consists of payment provided by an employer, is paid in consideration of past service and serves the purpose of helping the recipient meet the expenses of living.......
29. ......Thus the pension payable to a Government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation or for service rendered."
It is also stated therein that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Indian Ex-Services League Vs. Union of India, 1991-2-SCC-104, held that the reckonable emoluments, which are the basis for computation of pension, are to be taken on the basis of emoluments payable at the time of retirement.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants further states that the aforesaid issue is no more res integra having been laid down 5 Item No.11 (C-4) O.A. No.1013/2016 and attained finality in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in SLP Nos. 939 to 945 of 1983 in the case of Union of India and others vs. Smt. Afsar Jahan Begam and others, decided on 20.7.1988 as well as the decision of this Tribunal in OA 229/2000 in the case of Krishan Lal vs. Union of India and Anr., decided on 16.10.2001 which was upheld up to the level of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
6. During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the applicants draws attention to Decision dated 09.10.2015 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Review Pet.377/15, CM Appl.14276-14277/15 in W.P.(C) 2937/2007 & Batch. The relevant portion of the same reads as under:-
"6. It is apparent from the above that the posts of Loco Inspectors, Crew Controllers etc. have to be filled only from Loco Running Side and they are inter alia required to perform duties directly connected with the training and monitoring of loco running staff on foot-plate duties of the locomotive cab of the moving trains. Therefore, it established beyond doubt that Loco Inspectors' suitability on the basis of their performance and expertise as loco running staff. Paragraph 5.1 of the above guidelines is further explicit that Loco Inspectors would be credited with actual foot- plate duties and also entitled to Running Allowance at the rate notified from time to time. Apparently, it was in these circumstances that this Court affirmed the decision of the CAT, that concluded that creating a disparity between the Loco Inspectors and Loco Running staff at the time of their retirement in terms of addition of the element of running allowance (Loco Running Staff being entitled to 55% and Loco Inspectors being entitled to the reduced quantum of 30%) was discriminatory.6
Item No.11 (C-4) O.A. No.1013/2016
7. Having considered the instructions, we are of the opinion that the arguments of the Indian Railways are unmerited. So far as the reliance upon the decision in O.P. Saxena‟s case (supra) is concerned, we note that the Supreme Court was concerned with the issuing of stepping up of pay and had no occasion to deal with the question of discrimination at the stage of retirement in fixation of retirement benefits.
8. For the above reasons, the review petitions are dismissed as unmerited."
Learned counsel for the applicants adds that the Hon'ble Apex Court has finally decided the matter in Civil Appeal No.3110/2016 filed against the aforesaid Order dated 09.10.2015 on 22.02.2023 by dismissing the bunch of cases in which the respondents challenged the claim of all the similarly situated persons. Hence, the applicants being similarly situated are entitled for grant of similar relief as has been granted in the identical matters by this Tribunal, the Hon'ble High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8. After perusing the pleadings available on record and the aforesaid detailed arguments, I find considerable merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicants, taking note of the fact that all such cases have attained finality in the Hon'ble Apex Court, thereby affirming the decision of this Tribunal on the issue under reference. Thus, the respondents are directed to extend the benefit of 55% pay element for pensionary benefits granted to the similarly situated retired employees by virtue of the aforementioned 7 Item No.11 (C-4) O.A. No.1013/2016 judgments/decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble High Courts and this Tribunal and recompute the pension and other ancillary retirement benefits of the applicants after such re-fixation of the pay. They shall also make payment of the resultant consequential arrears from the due date of their retirement within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
9. The OA is allowed in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) Member (A) /yaksh/