Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Arun Dahia vs M/O Railways on 28 May, 2024
1
O.A. No. 671/2021
Item No. 20 (C-4)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 671/2021
Reserved on: 20.05.2024
Pronounced on: 28.05.2024
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Arun @ Arun Dahia (age about 35 years), Group 'D',
S/o Sh. Raj Singh,
Working as Pointsmen,
Under Station Superintendent,
Northern Railway, Holambi Kalan Railway Station,
Narela, Delhi; and Zonal Secretary, All IND's Pointsmen,
Association, Northern Railway, New Delhi,
R/o Indian Colony, Gali No. 3, Gohana Road,
Bye Pass, Sonepat (Haryana).
....Applicant
(By Advocates: Ms. Shipra Shukla and Mr. J. P. Shukla)
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through,
General Manager,
Northern Railway,
Baroda House, New Delhi.
2. Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway, Delhi Division,
State Entry Road, New Delhi.
3. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
Northern Railway, DRM Office,
State Entry Road, New Delhi.
.... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Subhash Gosai)
2
O.A. No. 671/2021
Item No. 20 (C-4)
ORDER
1. In the present OA the applicants seek the following reliefs:-
"(i) To allow the OA and direct the respondents to put the applicants and his counterparts Pointsmen of Delhi Division on work for 08 hrs. duty every day in every shift.
(ii) To direct the Respondents to pay the risk allowance to the Pointsmen of Delhi Division handling risky jobs.
(iii) To grant cost against the Respondents and in favour of the applicant; and
(iv) To pass any other or further order as may be deemed for and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Learned counsel for the applicants would highlight that the impugned order dated 18.01.2021 itself is self contradictory in nature.
2.1 On the one hand the respondents have stated that the applicants are mandated to work for 12 hours as theirs' is a highly technical job and requires a refresher course every three years and on the other hand it has been defined that their post is defined and categorized as essentially intermittent.
2.2 He would contend that wrong comparison has been given by the respondents in the impugned order that the services of the applicant have been equated with that of Gateman/Gatekeeper (Traffic).
3O.A. No. 671/2021 Item No. 20 (C-4) 2.3 He relies upon the decision rendered in Paley Ram and Ors. v. UOI and Ors. in OA No.3285/2001 decided on 26.03.2004 and the same was upheld up to the level of Hon'ble High Court and holds good as on date. 2.4 He would highlight that in Bhopal Division the duty roster of the Pointsmen at different stations is being changed from the Essential Intermittent to Continuous as is evident from letter dated 11.12.2019 and all the concerned stations are being sent to implement the changed duty roster of the Pointsmen. The duty roster should be made available at the station to ensure duty from the contenders according to the new duty roster.
2.5 The main relief sought in the present OA is either the applicants should be allowed to work for eight hours or proportionately they should get overtime allowance for 12 hours.
3. In the counter affidavit the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the applicants' Association is not a recognized union and, therefore, they are not entitled to the relief in the present OA and the present OA itself is not maintainable.
4O.A. No. 671/2021 Item No. 20 (C-4) 3.1 Even otherwise the present applicants have not been duly authorized by a resolution in favour of the association. 3.2 He further states that the OA itself is barred by law of limitation. He states that even though this is the second round of litigation, however, the delay cannot be condoned in the present matter.
3.3 Learned counsel for the respondents makes an endeavour to distinguish the judgment relied upon by the applicants i.e. Paley Ram (supra) stating that no categorization has been done qua the applicants herein and therefore, the decision rendered in Paley Ram's case is of no relevance.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants states that as per letter dated 23.02.2021 passed by the respondents themselves none of the safety category staff have been defined as intermittent.
4.1 Learned counsel for both the parties rely upon the fixation of hours of work mentioned in the Recruitment Rules wherein it has been categorically stated as under:-
"8. Fixation of hours of work The hours of work of a Railway servant as per roster (hereinafter referred to as the rostered hours of work) may be 5 O.A. No. 671/2021 Item No. 20 (C-4) continuous or may have short interval for rest, or breaks due to exigencies of service or deployment.
(1) Subject to the limit specified in section 132 and having regard to the requirement of the service and the nature of work, the Railway Administration shall fix the normal rostered hours of work for the various categories of railway servants in the manner indicated in these rules.
(2) The rostered hours of work of Railway servants shall consist of-
(i) standard hours of duty;
(ii) additional hours as may be prescribed in the case of certain categories classified as essentially intermittent; and
(iii) time required to do preparatory or complementary work or both for those who are required to do such work. (3) The standard hours of duty for different classes of employment of Railway servants shall be as under: -
(a) Intensive 42 hours a week;
(b) Continuous 48 hours a week; and
(c) Essentially Intermittent 48 hours a week; (4) (a) Railway servants having essentially intermittent class of employment shall be called upon to work as per rule 8(2)(ii) additional hours as indicated below :
(i) Gatemen 'C' Caretakers of Rest Houses and Reservoirs, etc., Chowkidars and Saloon Attendants
(ii) Railway servants posted to work in stations and provided with residential quarters with 24 additional hours per week 0.5 Kms. From their place of duty
(iii) Rest of the employees posted to work - 12 additional hours per week in Essentially Intermittent class of employment
(b) Such additional hours of work shall be reflected in the duty rosters of the Railway servants concerned." 6 O.A. No. 671/2021
Item No. 20 (C-4)
5.ANALYSIS 5.1 Having gone through the records of the case and submissions on behalf of the respective parties, firstly we are dealing with the objection of the respondents that the applicants' Association is not a recognized union and, therefore, they are not entitled to the relief in the present OA. To address this issue in favour of the applicants, we draw reference to a decision dated 25.5.2023 in W.P.(C) 11733/2019 titled CENTRAL PWD ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS. VS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observing as under :-
"25. The primary objective of the CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993 is of granting recognition to any Service Association in order to encourage legitimate union activities for enabling the negotiations by the representative body, if so required and maintenance of harmonious relationship between the government and employees. The government servants cannot be excluded from the protection of the rights guaranteed by part III of the Constitution though the duties which they may discharge as a public servant might involve restrictions of freedom in terms of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. By virtue of Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India, the right to form Association or Union or Cooperative Societies is a fundamental right even though the recognition of such Associations by the government may not be a fundamental right."
5.2 We also find that the other objections raised by the respondents are no longer res integra and have already been adjudicated by this Tribunal pertaining to Railways and its employees in OA. No. 2873/2013- titled as "Balwan Singh and ors decided on 11.12.2017. In order to establish close 7 O.A. No. 671/2021 Item No. 20 (C-4) and striking similarities, we herein re-produce the said decision in verbatim:-
8O.A. No. 671/2021
Item No. 20 (C-4) 9 O.A. No. 671/2021 Item No. 20 (C-4) 10 O.A. No. 671/2021 Item No. 20 (C-4) 11 O.A. No. 671/2021 Item No. 20 (C-4) 12 O.A. No. 671/2021 Item No. 20 (C-4) 5.3 Hence, we cannot take a divergent view than that of co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal.
6. CONCLUSION:-
6.1 Accordingly, we also allow the present OA as well as direct the Competent Authority amongst the respondents to issue appropriate directions to all concerned divisions/regions to uniformly follow the decision in Balwan Singh (supra) and present case so that poor Pointsmen are not compelled to knock doors of the Courts for seeking meager benefits of OTA which not only result in multiplicity of litigation but also would cause further burden on public ex-chequer.
6.2 Accordingly, the instant OA is allowed. The respondents are directed to classify the Pointsmen in 'continuous' category and grant them OTA for the extra duty hours over and above 13 O.A. No. 671/2021 Item No. 20 (C-4) their normal duty of 8 hours per day. The above exercise shall be complied by the respondents within a period of two months from date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Manish Garg) Member (J) /as/