Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Smt.Ram Shakhi Bai vs Union Of India on 10 May, 2013
RESERVED
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH,
JABALPUR
Original Application No.150 of 2009
Jabalpur, this Friday, the 10th day of May, 2013
Honble Mr. Justice Dhirendra Mishra, Judicial Member
Honble Mr. G.P.Singhal, Administrative Member
Prem Narayan, S/o Gore Lal,(Retired)-M.C.M., S.S.E., (C & W), Bhopal (MP),
(Deceased) Through Legal Heirs-
1. Smt.Ram Shakhi Bai, W/o (late) Prem Narayan,
Aged about 53 years,
2. Rajesh Kumar, son of (Late) Prem Narayan,
Aged about 22 years, un-married son
3. Ku. Seema, D/o (Late) Prem Narayan,
Aged about 19 years, un-married daughter
All are resident of L.I.C., 128, Housing Board Colony,
Bina, (District-Sagar), M.P. - Applicants
(By Advocate Smt. Anchala Gupta proxy counsel
for Shri H.R.Bharti)
V e r s u s
1. Union of India, Through the General Manager,
West Central Railway, Jabalpur (MP)
2. The Divisional Railway Manager,
West Central Railway, Bhopal (MP)
3. Chief Wagon Superintendent (C & W),
West Central Railway, Bhopal (MP) -Respondents
(By Advocate Shri A.S.Raizada)
(Date of reserving the order: 08.05.2013)
ORDER
By Dhirendra Mishra, JM.-
Original applicant Prem Narayan has filed this Original Application and prayed for following reliefs:
8 In view of the above facts stated, it is therefore, prayed before this Honble Tribunal, directions may kindly be given to the respondents to pay the entire over time dues Rs. 7,92,908/- along with interest as per current rate and penalty to the applicant, which will be much appropriate justice in favour of the applicant.
(ii) May kindly quash the Annexure A-13 accordingly.
(ii)Grant any other writ/direction as deems fit and proper.
2. After the death of the original applicant, applicants herein have been substituted as his legal representatives vide order dated 22.2.2012.
3. The grievance of the applicants in nut shell is that Prem Narayan was working as Master Craftsman in the Carriage & Wagon Department (Depot) and retired on 01.07.2006. His claim for overtime allowance towards his Over-Dimension Consignment (for brevity ODC) movement, out of the headquarters, for the period between 06.06.1999 to 03.09.2005, amounting to Rs.7,92,908/- has been wrongly rejected whereas the employees of the Commercial Department and working at BHEL, Bhopal were regularly extended the benefit of overtime payment, as the aforesaid payment was duly received by the Railway from BHEL, Bhopal.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants vehemently argued that deceased Prem Narayan claimed travelling allowances for the period from 5.6.1999 to 24.8.2005 cumulatively filed as Annexure A-1. He also submitted overtime vouchers for the aforesaid period cumulatively filed as Annexure A-2. He submitted representations for settlement of his claim towards overtime dues vide Annexure A-3 dated 18.7.2007. However, vide order dated 28.9.2006 (Annexure A-6) he was informed that he did not submit his claim, while he was in service and the claim was not duly certified by the supervisors. Said Prem Narayan submitted yet another representation on 14.9.2006 (Annexure A-7) and requested for payment of Rs.7,92,908/-, as overtime allowance for the aforesaid period duly annexing 16 numbers of Over Time allowance forms, and addressed reminders of Annexures A-8 and A-9, however, when the respondents failed to decide his representations, he filed Original Application No.903/2007, which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 18.12.2007 (Annexure A-12), with a direction to the respondents to decide his representation within a time frame, with liberty to him, if he is still aggrieved by any decision, he may approach this Tribunal. In compliance of the aforesaid order the respondents vide order dated 13.03.2008 (Annexure A-13) have rejected his claim for overtime allowance, whereas similarly placed other employees of the Commercial Department were extended the benefit of overtime allowance for performing their duties beyond headquarters.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents argues that deceased Prem Narayans representation has been considered and decided by the competent authority by a reasoned and speaking order, by answering each and every plea raised by him in his representation. After his retirement his claim towards retiral dues were settled to his full satisfaction. He did not claim any overtime allowance while he was in service and has racked up this issue only after retirement. The overtime claim forms, annexed by him have not been verified by his supervisors. He is claiming payment towards overtime allowance for the period from 06.06.1999 to 03.09.2005 whereas the earlier Original Application was filed by him in the year 2007, which was hopelessly time barred. Deceased Prem Narayan remained silent during the relevant period when he allegedly performed his overtime duties, which clearly indicates that salary/remuneration paid to him during that period were just and proper and he was satisfied with the payment. Deceaed Prem Narayan was employed by BHEL administration for carriage of ODC from BHEL Bhopal to outstations for which he was paid travelling allowance as per IREM, however, he was not employed by the BHEL administration to work for extra hours and, therefore, he is not entitled for overtime allowance under the IREC. Since he was on travelling duty and out of headquarters, he was entitled for travelling allowance, which was regularly paid to him. He can not claim parity with the commercial staff, as the employees working in the Commercial Department are called upon to work for extra hours, prescribed under HOER at BHEL Workshop, Bhopal and they are not engaged in the work of carriage of ODC from Bhopal to outstation. The commercial staffs are paid overtime allowance for excess work in their working place and they are not paid travelling allowance.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of the respective parties and the documents annexed therewith.
7. Applicants are claiming overtime allowance for the period when deceased Prem Narayan remained out of headquarters in connection with ODC movement from BHEL Bhopal to outstations. Indisputably, he has claimed travelling allowance for the period when he remained out of headquarters. As per TA rules for journeys on tour dearness allowance is paid, whereas overtime allowance is paid to the railway servants for actual time worked in excess of the hours of employment prescribed by any law or rule under Rule 1502 of Chapter 15 of Indian Railway Establishment Code,(for brevity IREC) Vol.II, 1990 Edition, filed as Annexure R-1. Whereas travelling allowances for journeys on tour are governed by Rules 1619 and 1620 of IREC, which provide that where a railway servant is not in receipt of permanent travelling allowance, he is entitled for travelling allowance for journey on tour in the shape of daily allowance for the period of absence from headquarters. That apart from perusal of the documents filed by the applicants as Annexure A-1 and Annexure A-2 we find that the proforma for claim towards overtime allowance is to be duly countersigned by the official-in-charge, whereas none of the proforma annexed by the applicants in this Original Application, as overtime vouchers bears the signature of the official-in-charge. We also find substance in the contention of the respondents that deceased Prem Narayan did not raise any dispute with regard to non-payment of overtime allowance while he was in service before retirement and he racked up this issue only after his retirement from service
8. The respondents have categorically stated in their reply which has not been controverted by the applicant that the staff of the Commercial Department working in BHEL workshop were required to work for extra hours than their normal duty hours and, therefore, they were held to be entitled for overtime allowance as per rules and deceased Prem Narayan, who was engaged in carrying ODC from Bhopal to outstations was not called upon to work for any extra hours and he was entitled for travelling allowance as per rules and he cannot claim parity with the employees of the commercial department.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we do not find any merit in this Original Application. The same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.
(G.P.Singhal) (Dhirendra Mishra) Administrative Member Judicial Member rkv ??
??
??
??
1Sub: overtime allowance OA 150/2009
Page 1 of 4