Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
K Venkatarmani vs South Western Railway on 27 March, 2025
1
OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NOS.170/00626/2023,
170/00350/2024, 170/00600/2024 & 170/00602/2024
ORDER RESERVED : 19.03.2025
DATE OF ORDER : 27.03.2025
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA ...MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE DR.SANJIV KUMAR ...MEMBER(A)
OA No.626/2023
Shri Gangaram Khuba,
Aged 67 years,
S/o Shri Khuba Chavan,
Retired Senior Goods Guard,
Group 'C', Central Railway,
Solapur Division,
Flat No.42, Uday Nagar,
New Jawargi Road,
Kalaburgi -585102,
Karnataka State. ....Applicant
(By Advocate, Shri S.Srinivasa Rao)
Vs.
2
OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
1. Union of India,
Represented by General Manager,
Central Railway, Maharastra,
MUMBAI (CSTM)-400001,
Maharastra.
2. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
Central Railway,
Solapur Division,
SOLAPUR-430001,
Maharastra. ...Respondents
(By Advocate, Shri S.Sugumaran for Respondents No.1 & 2)
OA No.350/2024
1. Shri Sripada Raju A.,
Aged 62 years,
S/o Shri Aswathachar K.,
Retried Traffic Inspector, Group 'C',
South Western Raiwlay, Hubli Division,
H.No.152, Earthwall Pratham,
F 1, First Floor, 5th Cross, HMT Layout,
Gidada Konenahalli,
Bengaluru-560056,
Karnataka State.
2. Shri A.Naga Raju,
Aged 67 years,
S/o Shri A.Nallappa,
3
OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Retired Station Superintendent, Group 'C',
South Western Railway, Hubli Division,
H.No.4, Gangavathi Garden Layout,
Beside: Manoj Park,
Sulla Road, Bengeri Extension,
Hubballi -580023, Karnataka State.
3. Shri Aravind Veerappa Hosamani,
Aged 65 years,
S/o Shri Veerappa
Retired Station Superintendent, Group 'C',
South Western Railway, Hubli Division,
H.No. 138, Vasant Nagar, 4th Cross,
Kusugal Road, Keshwapur,
Hubballi-580023, Dharwad, Karnataka State.
4. Shri B.N.Gurumurthy,
Aged 64 years,
S/o Shri H.N.Nagappa,
Retired Station Superintendent, Group 'C',
H.No.301, B Block, Sai Siri Heritage,
Uttarhalli Main Road, Kengeri,
Bengaluru-560060, Karnataka State.
5. Shri C.D.Balaji Prasad,
Aged 65 years,
S/o Shri C.R.Devarajulu Naidu,
Retired Station Superintendent, Group 'C',
South Western Railway, Hubli Division,
H.No.17, Sri Laxmi Prasanna Nilayam,
4
OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
J.C.Layhout, Behind: BBMP Office,
Horamavu,
Bengaluru -560013,
Karnataka State.
6. Shri H.R.Shivappa,
Aged 64 years,
S/o Shri Rudrappa
Retired Station Superintendent, Group 'C',
South Western Railway, Hubli Division,
H.No.592, Kamala Nilaya,
Industrial Road, VTC, Siramagondana Halli,
Davangere-577005, Karnataka State.
7. Shri Illal Mukund Tirumalrao,
Aged 63 years,
S/o Shri Illal Tirumalrao
Retired Station Superintendent, Group 'C',
South Western Railway, Hubli Division,
Anugraha, Plot No.371, Parameswar Nagar,
Behind: Joti Pife Factory, Indi Road,
Vijayapur-586101, Karnataka State.
8. Shri K.S.Mallikarjuna Gupta,
Aged 64 years,
S/o Shri K.S.Satyanarayana Setty,
Retired Station Superintendent, Group 'C',
South Western Railway, Hubli Division,
H.No.238/58 A, Adarsh Nagar, Main Road,
Arasina Kunte, Nelamangala Tq.,
Bengaluru Rural-562123, Karnataka State.
5
OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
9. Shri Manohar Balaram Patil,
Aged 66 years,
S/o Shri Balaram V Patil,
Retired Station Superintendent, Group 'C',
South Western Railway, Hubli Division,
Plot No.4842/B 23, Flat No.1,
Above Lokamanya Society,
2nd Main, 2nd Cross, Sadashiv Nagar,
Belgaum-590010, Karnataka State.
10.Shri M.Hanmanth,
Aged 65 years,
S/o Shri Manikappa,
Retired Station Superintendent, Group 'C',
South Western Railway, Hubli Division,
H.No.106, Akshay Colony,
4th Phase, Behind: Chetana College,
Shirur Park Road,
Hubbali-580021,
Dharwad, Karnataka State.
11.Shri M.Rajashekar,
Aged 67 years,
S/o Shri M.Basaiah,
Retired Station Superintendent, Group 'C',
South Western Railway, Hubli Division,
C/o Shri Veerabhadrappa,
Veerabhadreshwara Nilaya,
PWD Quarters, Near: Alam Darga ,
6
OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Bellary Road,
Hospet-583201, Bellary,
Karnataka State.
12.Shri Sandeep Chickerur,
Aged 62 years,
S/o Shri Bandachar Chickerur,
Retired Station Superintendent, Group 'C',
South Western Railway, Hubli Division,
H.No. 305, Shri Vishnubliss Apartment,
Shanbognagappa Layout, Bilekahalli,
Bengaluru-560076, Karnataka State.
13.Shri Shiddalingappa Kalyanappa Koti,
Aged 66 years,
S/o Shri Kalyanappa,
Retired Station Superintendent, Group 'C',
South Western Railway, Hubli Division,
V N T Road, Kalyan Ganga Nilaya,
Gadag-582101, Karnataka State.
14.Shri Shailendra L Malagatti,
Aged 62 years,
S/o Shri Laxman,
Retired Station Superintendent, Group 'C',
South Western Railway, Hubli Division,
No. D 28, Almatti Dam Site, Almatti Taluq,
Nidagundi District,
Vijayapura-586201, Karnataka State.
7
OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
15.Shri Surendra Prakash,
Aged 64 years,
S/o Shri Muniswamy Rao Shinde,
Retired Station Superintendent, Group 'C',
South Western Railway, Hubli Division,
Plot No.190, Shrivaari,
Shivaji Colony, Tilakwadi,
Belagavi-590006, Karnataka State.
16.Shri Swamy Gouda,
Aged 66 years,
S/o Shri Subbe Gowda G.,
Retired Station Superintendent, Group 'C',
South Western Railway, Hubli Division,
H.No.144, Hari Priya Nilaya,
2nd Cross, Netaji Nagar,
Allanahally-570028, Mysore,
Karnataka State.
17.Shri Somashekaraiah,
Aged 64 years,
S/o Shri Annayappa,
Retired Traffic Inspector, Group 'C',
South Western Railway, Hubli Division,
H.No.65, Viswakarma Nagar,
Byrasandra Agara, Kengeri,
Thataguni Post, Bengaluru South Taluk,
Bengaluru-560082, Karnataka State.
8
OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
18.Shri Shaik Suraj,
Aged 65 years,
S/o Shri S.C.Mahaboob,
Retired Station Superintendent, Group 'C',
South Western Railway, Hubli Division,
H.No.38/103, Brundavan Colony,
Near Chalukya Hall, Behind: KV 2 School,
Hubli-580020, Dharwad,
Karnataka State.
19.Shri Vinod Shankar Muchandi,
Aged 62 years,
S/o Shri Shankar R Muchandi,
Retired Station Superintendent, Group 'C',
South Western Railway, Hubli Division,
H.No.1363, 4th Cross, Tabib Land,
Hubli-580020, Dharwad,
Karnataka State.
20.Shri Veerabhadragouda M Patil,
Aged 65 years,
S/o Shri Marigouda Patil,
Retired Station Master, Group 'C',
South Western Railway, Hubli Division,
Flat No.206, OM Paradise Apartments,
Tenginakal Layout,
Akshaya Colony, Vidya Nagar,
Hubballi-580021,
Karnataka State. ... Applicants
(By Advocate, Shri S.Srinivasa Rao)
9
OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Vs
1. Union of India,
Represented by General Manager,
Rail Soudha, South Western Railway,
Gadag Road,
Hubli-580020, Karnataka State.
2. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
DRM Office Complex,
South Western Railway,
Keshwapur,
Hubli-580020,
Karnataka State. ...Respondents
(By Advocate, Shri S.Sugumaran for Respondents No.1 & 2)
OA No.600/2024
1. Shri Rafi Ahmed Ghouri,
Aged 63 years,
S/o Shri Abdul Basheer Ghouri,
Retired Station Superintendent, Group 'C',
South Western Railway,
Hubli Division,
H.No.52, 3rd C Cross, Lingarajapuram,
Bengaluru-560084,
Karnataka State.
10
OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
2. Shri C.Lakshmi Narasimhaiah,
Aged 64 years,
S/o Shri Chinna Narasimhappa,
Retired Station Superintendent, Group 'C',
South Western Railway,
Hubli Division,
H.No.152, EKYA, 3rd Main Road,
8th Cross, Maruthi Nagar,
Yelahanka, Bengaluru-560064,
Karnataka State.
3. Shri Govinda Rao G.,
Aged 64 years,
S/o Shri Gopala Rao,
Retired Station Superintendent, Group 'C',
South Western Railway,
Hubli Division,
H.No.33, 1st Main, 1st Cross,
Kesava Nagar, Patel Badavane,
Harihar, Davangere-577601,
Karnataka State.
4. Shri Ganjigatti J.P.,
Aged 65 years,
S/o Shri Parsuram Ganjigatti,,
Retired Station Superintendent, Group 'C',
South Western Railway,
Hubli Division,
H.No.1721/A, 100 Bed Hospital Road,
M.J.Nagar, Bellary District,
Hospet-583201, Karnataka State.
11
OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
5. Shri Jayanta Prasad Samal,
Aged 60 years,
S/o Shri K.C.Samal,
Retired Commercial Inspector, Group 'C',
South Western Railway,
Hubli Division,
H.No.110, 1st Stage, R.C.Nagar,
Belgaum District,
VTC Tilakwadi-590006,
Karnataka State.
6. Shri Krishna Pada Mistry,
Aged 62 years,
S/o Sri Adhir Mistry,
Retired Station Superintendent,
Group 'C', South Western Railway,
Hubli Division, Rehabilitation Colony-2,
Dist: Raichur, Sindhanur-584128,
Karnataka State.
7. Shri Narayana Naik M.,
Aged 62 years,
S/o Shri Venkappa Naik M.,
Retired Station Superintendent, Group 'C',
South Western Railway,
Hubli Division,
H.No.224/3, Kodyalbail,
Ubaradka, Mithur, Dakshina Kannada,
Sullia-574248, Karnataka State.
12
OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
8. Shri N.Manjunatha,
Aged 62 years,
S/o Shri V.Nagaraja,
Retired Station Superintendent, Group 'C',
South Western Railway,
Hubli Division,
H.No.17, Sri Sai Nilaya,
1st Cross, Gurudev Nagar,
KMF Dharwad, Vidya Nagar,
Dharwad-580004, Karnataka State.
9. Shri Pugazhendi Nambi Rajan,
Aged 65 years,
S/o Shri L.Doraiswamy,
Retired Station Superintendent, Group 'C',
South Western Railway,
Hubli Division,
C/o L.Dorai Swamy,
Plot No.12, 13th Ward,
Geetharajan Illam, Tungabhadra HLC Area,
Indira Nagar, T B Dam,
Vijayanagara -583225,
Karnataka State.
10.Shri Prakash Yellappa Paatil,
Aged 60 years,
S/o Shri Yellappa Bharama, Group 'C',
Retired Senior Technician (Telecom Maintainer),
Group 'C', South Western Railway,
Hubli Division,
Plot No.47, RS No.48/B,
13
OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Samved Building, Sai Hall Road,
Belgavi-590010, Karnataka State.
11.Shri P.Nagaraj,
Aged 62 years,
S/o Shri V.Parathasarathy Naidu,
Retired Station Superintendent, Group 'C',
South Western Railway,
Hubli Division,
Flat No.201, Durga Apartment,
Behind: Sarvodaya Colony,
Hindwadi, Belgavi-590011,
Karnataka State. .....Applicants
(By Advocate, Shri S.Srinivasa Rao)
Vs
1. Union of India,
Represented by General Manager,
Rail Soudha, South Western Railway,
Gadag Road,
Hubli-580020, Karnataka State.
2. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
DRM Office Complex,
Hubli Division, South Western Railway,
Keshwapur, Hubli-580020,
Karnataka State. ...Respondents
(By Advocate, Shri S.Sugumaran for Respondents No.1 & 2)
14
OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
OA 602/2024
1. Shri K.Venkataramani,
Aged 61 years,
S/o Shri V.Krishna Murthy,
Retired Commercial Supervisor,
Group 'C', South Western Railway,
Hubli Division,
H.No.102, Sai Aradhana, 4th Cross,
Vikas Nagar, R.K.Township Road,
Yerandahalli, Bommasandra,
Bengaluru-560099,
Karnataka State.
2. Shri Anil Kumar D.,
Aged 60 years,
S/o Shri C.K.Divakaran,,
Retired Station Superintendent,
Group 'C', South Western Railway,
Hubli Division,
H.No.142/1, Karthika, Chatamala,
District: Pathanamthitta,
Thiruvalla, PO., Kerala-689101.
3. Shri A.G.Deshpande,
Aged 65 years,
S/o Shri Gopalrao H Deshpande,
Retired Station Superintendent,
Group 'C', South Western Railway,
Hubli Division,
K.S.Pavvati House, Killa,
15
OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Bhagalkot-587101,
Karnataka State.
4. Shri D.S.Harish,
Aged 62 years,
S/o Shri D.H.Sharma Rao,
Retired Traffic Inspector,
Group 'C', South Western Railway,
Hubli Division,
C/o Shri Shardha Kulkarni,
H.No.12, Reddi Colony, Vidhya Nagar,
Dharwad -580031,
Karnataka State.
5. Shri Dattatray Ghanashama Rao,
Aged 61 years,
S/o Shri Ghanashama Rao,
Retired Chief Commercial Clerk,
Group 'C', South Western Railway,
Hubli Division,
Flat No.S/4, Annapurna Krupa Apartment,
Khanapur Road, Goaves,
Belagavi-590006,
Karnataka State.
6. Shri Francis K.Lonappan,
Aged 63 years,
S/o Shri Lonappan K. Ouseph,
Retired Station Superintendent,
Group 'C', South Western Railway,
16
OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Hubli Division,
Flat No.208, Hemmady Regency,
Op: SBI Malbhat Branch,
Margao, South Goa,
GOA-403601,
Union Territory of India.
7. Shri G.Srinivasa Murthy,
Aged 64 years,
S/o Shri M.Gopalaiah,
Retired Station Superintendent,
Group 'C', South Western Railway,
Hubli Division,
H.No.38, Ward No.18, KHB Colony,
Near: Railway Station,
Vijayanagar District,
Kottur Post -583134,
Karnataka State.
8. Shri Hanamanthraya Dhareppa Mosalagi,
Aged 63 years,
S/o Shri Dhareppa Mosalagi,
Retired Commercial Supervisor,
Group 'C', South Western Railway,
Hubli Division,
Residing at Near: Mallikarjun Ashram,
At Post Vijayapura-586103,
Karnataka.
17
OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
9. Shri Muralidhar Adhyapak,
Aged 62 years,
S/o Shri V.V.Adhyapak,
Retired Chief Commercial Clerk,
Group 'C', South Western Railway,
Hubli Division,
H.No.S/8, Sai Raj Phase One Apartment,
Nehru Road, Near: Lele Ground,
Tilakwadi,
Belagavi-590006,
Karnataka State.
10.Shri Mohan Krishna Honnavar,
Aged 66 years,
S/o Sri Krishna Group 'C',
Retired Station Superintendent,
South Western Railway,
Hubli Division,
H.No.Ameya I/A-504,
Convent Township,
VTC Dandeli (Rural)-581325,
Karnataka.
11.Shri M.Thamarai Selvan,
Aged 66 years,
S/o Shri P.Muthiah,
Retired Station Superintendent,
Group 'C', South Western Railway,
Hubli Division,
H.No.202, Venugram Gajra,
18
OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Godse Nagar,
Belagavi-590006,
Karnataka State.
12.Shri O.Pampapathi,
Aged 66 years,
S/o Shri Obulumma,
Retired Commercial Supervisor (Booking),
Group 'C', South Western Railway,
Hubli Division,
Plot No.20, Ward No.22,
Bondihatti Road,
Gold Smith Colony,
Cowl Bazaar,
Bellary-583102,
Karnataka State.
13.Shri Prema Kumar C.P.,
Aged 69 years,
S/o Shri Prabhakaran C.T.,
Retired Traffic Inspector,
Group 'C', South Western Railway,
Hubli Division,
Hridyam (Chungath),
Varikkamkunnu,
Vadakara Post - 688605,
Vadayar, Kottayam,
Kerala State.
19
OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
14. Shri P.C. Punnoose,
Aged 65 years,
S/o Shri P.J.Chako,
Retired Station Master,
Group 'C', South Western Railway,
Hubli Division,
R/at: Arackal House,
Kuthirapanthy, Thiruvampady Post,
Alleppey - 688002,
Kerala State.
15.Shri Prince Varghese,
Aged 60 years,
S/o Shri P.P.Varghese,
Retired Senior Section Engineer,
Group 'C', South Western Railway,
Hubli Division,
H.No.B-06, Sainik School Campus,
Bijapur-586102,
Karnataka.
16.Shri Sarangapani Chandra Sekhar,
Aged 60 years,
S/o Sri M.V.Sarangapani,
Retired Station Superintendent, Group 'C',
South Western Railway,
Hubli Division,
H.No.47, Pacific Park,
Stage 2, Gadag Road,
Hubballi-580020,
Karnataka State.
20
OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
17.Shri Samuel Abnejar Abnes,
Aged 62 years,
S/o Abnejar Group 'C',
Retired Chief Commericial Clerk,
South Western Railway,
Hubli Division,
Plot No.5/7/9, Gangadhar Nagar,
Near: Jingouda School,
VTC Shindoli Post-591124,
Karnataka.
18.Shri Surendra Narayan Malabari,
Aged 64 years,
S/o Shri Narayan G.,
Retired Station Superintendent,
Group 'C', South Western Railway,
Hubli Division,
C/o Narayan G, Tharayil House,
Yamuna Nagar, Kizhakkemukkola,
VTC Periapuram,
Post Tanur MBR -676302,
Kerala State.
19.Shri V.Vasantha Rao,
Aged 64 years,
S/o Shri A.Venkata Rao,
Retired Commerical Supervisor,
Group 'C', South Western Railway,
Hubli Division,
H.No.26, 5th Cross, 'A' Block,
21
OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Sharavathi Nagara,
Shivamogga-577201,
Karnataka State.
20.Shri V.Vijayan,
Aged 63 years,
S/o Shri P.Venkatachalam,
Retired Station Superintendent,
Group 'C', South Western Railway,
Hubli Division,
H.No.150, 4th Cross, 7th Main,
Bhavani Nagar, 2nd Stage, Railway HBCS,
Mallathahalli, Bengaluru-560056,
Karnataka State.
(By Advocate, Shri S.Srinivasa Rao)
Vs
1. Union of India,
Represented by General Manager,
Rail Soudha, South Western Railway,
Gadag Road,
Hubli-580020, Karnataka State.
2. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
DRM Office Complex,
Hubli Division,South Western Railway,
Keshwapur, Hubli-580020,
Karnataka State. ...Respondents
(By Advocate, Shri S.Sugumaran for Respondents No.1 & 2)
22
OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
ORDER
Per: Justice S.Sujatha ...........Member(J)
Since common and akin issues are involved in these OAs, the same (OA Nos.170/626/2023, 170/350/2024, 170/600/2024 & 170/602/2024) are clubbed, heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. The applicants are retired employees of South Western Railway (SWR). While computing the gratuity benefits, the provisions of Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993 ('Rules' for short) as per in vogue were followed. The applicants after receiving their retiral benefits including gratuity in terms of the Rules, approached the respondent authorities for computation of their gratuity as per the formulae prescribed in Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ('Act' for short), which has been rejected. Being aggrieved, the applicants have approached this Tribunal.
23
OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
3. Learned Counsel Shri S.Srinivasa Rao representing the applicants submitted that they are covered under the Act and the provisions of the Act are applicable to them. Inviting the attention of this Tribunal to Section 1(3)(b) & (c) as well as Section 2(e) of the Act, learned Counsel submitted that the Railways being an Establishment comes with the purview of the Act. Strong reliance was placed on Section 14 of the Act to emphasize that the provisions of the Act or any Rule made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than the said Act. This Act being more beneficial to the Railway employees, the same requires to be applied. Learned Counsel pointed out the following inconsistencies in the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993.
1) Truncation of continuous service:
As per the Rules, the service is truncated to 33 years, whereas, as per the Act, the entire continuous service shall be considered for computation of gratuity.24
OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
2) Formulae for Computation:
As per Rules, Emoluments + DA x 15/30 x Qualifying Service As per the Act, Emoluments+DA x 15/26 x Continuous Service Thus argued that the Rules being inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, the provisions of Act will prevail as per Section 14. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments:
1) Y.K.Singla vs. Punjab National Bank & Others in Civil Appeal No.9087/2012, DD:14.12.2012
2) The Senior Divisional Personal Officer vs. M.A.A.Lakshmi in OP No.14722/2000 in High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.
3) Union of India and Another vs. Manik Lal Banerjee reported in AIR 2006 SC 2844
4) Shri Basavegowda vs. State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.10872 of 2023, DD: 20.12.2023.
4. Learned Counsel Shri S.Sugumaran representing the respondents submitted that the applicants are not governed by the provisions of the Act. Section 2(e) of the Act excludes a person 25 OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH who holds inter-alia post under the Central Government and whose terms and conditions of the service are governed by an Act or Rules for payment of gratuity. Rule 70 of the Rules provides for payment of gratuity. Learned Counsel further submitted that the applications are time barred and deserves to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches as well. Justifying the impugned orders, learned Counsel placed reliance on the following citations:
1) Qaisar Ahmed Khan vs. South Central Railway in OA No.021/323/2021 and connected matters, DD: 13.07.2023 -
CAT, Hyderabad Bench.
2) The General Manager, South Central Railway and another vs. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) and Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and another. [Writ Appeal No.1130/2016 and connected matters, DD: 31.01.2025.]
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
26
OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
6. The moot question that arises for our consideration is, whether the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, are applicable to the applicants-Railway employees for reckoning the payment of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity?
7. Before adverting to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, it is apt to refer to the Scheme of the Act. Section 2(e) defines 'employee' as under:
"2(e) "employee" means any person (other than an apprentice) who is employed for wages, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of a factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company, shop or other establishment to which this Act applies, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity;"27
OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Section 4 deals with Payment of Gratuity and the same reads thus:
"4. Payment of gratuity.--(1) Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years,--
(a) on his superannuation, or
(b) on his retirement or resignation, or
(c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease:"
Section 5 deals with Power to exempt:
"5. Power to exempt.-- (1) The appropriate Government may, by notification, and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, exempt any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop to which this Act applies from the operation of the provisions of this Act if, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, the employees in such establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop are in receipt of gratuity or pensionary benefits not less favourable than the benefits conferred under this Act.
(2) The appropriate Government may, by notification and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the 28 OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH notification, exempt any employee or class of employees employed in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop to which this Act applies from the operation of the provisions of this Act, if, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, such employee or class of employees are in receipt of gratuity or pensionary benefits not less favourable than the benefits conferred under this Act.
(3) A notification issued under sub-section (1) or sub-
section (2) may be issued retrospectively a date not earlier than the date of commencement of this Act, but no such notification shall be issued so as to prejudicially, affect the interests of any person."
Section 7 provides for determination of the amount of gratuity.
"7. Determination of the amount of gratuity.--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed, for payment of such gratuity."29
OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Section 14 envisages that the provisions of the Act to override other enactments, etc., and the said provision is extracted hereunder for ready reference.
"The provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act."
8. It is not in dispute that the applicants are retired employees of the Railways. Section 2(e) was amended retrospectively with effect from 03.04.1997 by Act No. 47 of 2009. Statement of objects and reasons relating to the said amendment reads thus:
"STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 provides for payment of gratuity to employees engaged in factories, mines, oilfields, plantations, ports, railway companies, shops or other establishment and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Clause (c) of subsection (3) of section 1 of the said Act empowers the Central Government to apply the provisions of the said Act by 30 OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH notification in the Official Gazette to such other establishments or class of establishments in which ten or more employees are employed, or were employed, on any day preceding twelve months. Accordingly, the Central Government had extended the provisions of the said Act to the educational institutions employing ten or more persons by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour and Employment vide number S.O. 1080, dated the 3rd April, 1997.
2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in Civil Appeal No. 6369 of 2001, dated the 13th January, 2004, in Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers' Association vs. Administrative Officer and others [AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1426] had held that if it was extended to cover in the definition of 'employee', all kind of employees, it could have as well used such wide language as is contained in clause
(f) of section 2 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 which defines 'employee' to mean any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of an establishment. It had been held that non-use of such wide language in the definition of 'employee' under clause (e) of section 2 of the Payment of 31 OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Gratuity Act, 1972 reinforces the conclusion that teachers are clearly not covered in the said definition.
3. Keeping in view the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is proposed to widen the definition of 'employee' under the said Act in order to extend the benefit of gratuity to the teachers. Accordingly, the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Bill, 2007 was introduced in Lok Sabha on the 26th November, 2007 and same was referred to the Standing Committee on Labour which made certain recommendations. After examining those recommendations, it was decided to give effect to the amendment retrospectively with effect from the 3rd April, 1997, the date on which the provisions of the said Act were made applicable to educational institutions.
4. Accordingly, the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Bill, 2007 was withdrawn and a new Bill, namely, this Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Bill, 2009 having retrospective effect was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 24th February, 2009. However, due to dissolution of the Fourteenth Lok Sabha, the said Bill lapsed. In view of the above, it is considered necessary to bring the present Bill.
5. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objectives."32
OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
9. Before the said amendment, Section 2(e) of the Act, stood as under:
"(e) "employee" means any person (other than an apprentice) employed on wages, in any establishment, factory, mine oilfield, plantation, port railway company or shop to do any skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, and whether or not such person is employed in a managerial or administrative capacity, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity;"
10. Thus, it is clear that the Central Government extended the provisions of the Act to the Educational Institutions, employing ten or more persons by notification of Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment vide number S.O. 1080 dated 03.04.1997 exercising the power under section 1(3)(c) of the Act. It is in order to extend the benefit of gratuity to the Teachers under Clause (e) of Section 2 of the Act, pursuant to the law declared by the Hon'ble 33 OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Apex Court in Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers' Association vs. Administrative Officer and others reported in (2004) 1 SCC 755, where teachers were held to be not included in the expression 'skilled', 'semi-skilled' 'unskilled' employed under Section 2(e) of the Act, the amendment was carried out giving retrospective effect from 03.04.1997, the date on which the provisions of the Act are made applicable to the Educational Institutions, omitting the said expression. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment reads as under:
"25. The legislature was alive to various kinds of definitions of word "employee" contained in various previous labour enactments when the Act was passed in 1972. If it intended to cover in the definition of "employee"
all kinds of employees, it could have as well used such wide language as is contained in section 2(f) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 which defines "employee" to mean "any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of an establishment....". Non-use of such wide language in the definition of "employee" in Section 2(e) of 34 OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH the Act of 1972 reinforces our conclusion that teachers are clearly not covered in the definition.
26. Our conclusion should not be misunderstood that teachers although engaged in very noble profession of educating our young generation should not be given any gratuity benefit. There are already in several States separate statutes, rules and regulations granting gratuity benefits to teachers in educational institutions which are more or less beneficial than the gratuity benefits provided under the Act. It is for the legislature to take cognizance of situation of such teachers in various establishments where gratuity benefits are not available and think of a separate legislation for them in this regard. That is the subject matter solely of the legislature to consider and decide."
11. A bare reading of Section 2(e) makes it clear that the employee should be any person (other than an apprentice) employed for wages in or in connection with the work of a factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company, shop or other establishment to which the Act applies. But an exception is carved out in employing the words, "but does not include any such 35 OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity".
12. Section 5 of the Act relating to exemption would attract only in the cases where the Act applies. As such, whether the Act is applicable to the subject cases gains significance. As already discussed, Section 2(e) of the Act excludes any such person who holds a post under Central Government or State Government and is governed by any other Act or by Rules providing for payment of gratuity. Reliance placed on Clause-
(c) of 1(3) of the Act, by the learned Counsel for the applicant to bring the subject cases under the purview of the Act is misconceived.
13. It is well settled that the Statute has to be read as a whole. The basic principle of the construction of Statute is that the same should be read as whole, then chapter by chapter, section by section and word by word. An effort must be made to give effect to all parts of the Statute, no part thereof shall be rendered surplus or redundant (vide Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mill Private Limited (AIR 2003 SC 511). 36
OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Section 14 of the Act has to be read harmoniously with Section 2(e) of the Act. Section 14 cannot be read in isolation. A conjoint reading of these two provisions would make it clear that Section 14 would be of no assistance to the applicants in view of the exclusion clause carved out in Section 2(e), both the provisions being part of the same Statute.
14. The issue involved herein is squarely covered by the order of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana in W.P.No.1130/2016 and connected matters, supra. Having considered Sections 2(e), 5 and 14 of the Act, as well as the judgments holding the field, the Hon'ble High Court has ruled thus:
"19. It is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Manicklal Banerjee, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the interpretation clause contained in Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, takes out from the purview of the said Act, a person who holds inter alia post under the Central Government and whose terms and conditions of service are governed by an Act or the Rules providing for payment of gratuity. The applicant is holding a post under Central Government and governed by Railway Service 37 OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH (Pension) Rules, 1993 for payment of Death Cum Retirement Gratuity is therefore not covered under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
20. It is also relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Senior Superintendent of Post Offices v. Gursewak Singh and others, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"9.3. Section 4 of the 1972 Act states that "Gratuity shall be payable to an employee". The term "employee" is defined by Section 2(e) of the 1972 Act, as under: "2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires,-- ....
(e) "employee" means any person (other than an apprentice) who is employed for wages, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of a factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company, shop or other establishment to which this Act applies, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is 38 OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity;"
Section 2(e) of the 1972 Act, however specifically excludes persons who are governed by any Act, or Rules providing for payment of gratuity.
9.4. Section 2(e) of the 1972 Act excludes persons who hold a post with the Central or State Government and are governed by any other Act or rules providing for payment of gratuity. Gramin Dak Sewaks are engaged as extra- departmental agents, a post governed by the 2011 Rules. [Supt. of Post Offices v. P.K. Rajamma, (1977) 3 SCC 94 :
1977 SCC (L&S) 374. See also Union of India v. Kameshwar Prasad, (1997) 11 SCC 650 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 447] These Rules have a separate provision for payment of gratuity to the extra-departmental agents. A Gramin Dak Sewak is not an "employee" under the 1972 Act. The first issue is answered accordingly."
21. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, employees of Railways are not covered under the definition of employee under Section 2(e) of the Act, 1972 after amendment and thus, they are exempted from the provisions of the Act, 1972.
Therefore, in view of amendment to Section 2(e) of the Act, 1972, 39 OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH the respondents are not covered under the Act, 1972, but are covered by the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993.
22. Since the employees of Railways are exempted from the provisions of the Act, 1972 in view of amendment w.e.f. 03.04.1977 (Amendment Act 47/2009), the Controlling Authority under the Act, 1972 has no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the employees. In the present case, the Controlling Authority has entertained the application filed by the employees and allowed the application of the employees with an observation that employees are entitled to the gratuity as per the Act, 1972."
15. Indeed similar view has been taken by the C.A.T., Hyderabad Bench in Qaisar Ahmed Khan and others supra, wherein it is observed thus:
12. Further, Hon‟ble Delhi High Court, in the matter of Union of India vs. Ramesh Chand [2022 (5) SLR 35 (Delhi)], placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Manik Lal Banerjee, observed as under:
"Thus, the Supreme Court held that a Railway employee would be governed by the specific Rules applicable to employees of Railways and not by the Payment of Gratuity 40 OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Act, 1972, in view of the express exclusion in Sec. 2(e) of the Act."
13. On a reading of the judgments cited supra, this Tribunal is of the view that the issue involved in the present is squarely covered by the judgment in Manik Lal Banerjee, which has been followed by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in Ramesh Chand (Supra). In Manik Lal Banerjee, the lis was between a regularly appointed Station Master and the Eastern Railways. All the applicants in this batch of OAs retired as regular employees from Railways. Therefore, as discussed above, the judgments cited by the applicants are distinguishable to the facts involved in the present cases.
14. Even on perusal of the material filed by the applicants viz., Railway Board, in its letter No.E(LL)85 AT/GRA/1-1 dated 26.02.1986, addressed to all the GMs/ All Indian Railways, made it clear that the provisions of Gratuity Act are applicable to all casual labour employed in Railways. In the instant case, the applicants were regularly selected Railway employee and retired on superannuation. It is not even the case of the applicants that, OA No.21/323/2021 & Batch during their service, they had ever agitated the issue of applicability of either Railway (Service) Pension Rules, 1993 or Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Having accepted the pensionary benefits including Gratuity under the 41 OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH specific rules applicable to the Railway servants i.e. Pension Rules, 1993, they cannot afterwards turn around after so many years and claim the benefit of Gratuity Act merely on the pretext that they would get higher amount of gratuity under the said enactment.
15. It is a rule now firmly established that the intention of the legislation must be found by reading the statute as a whole, but not selectively. The applicants relies on Section 14 of the Gratuity Act, beyond its context, in the teeth of the exclusion clause incorporated in Section 2(e) of the Act, which has been made crystal clear by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Manik Lal Banerjee."
16. In Manik Lal Banerjee supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically observed as under:
"21. The High Court noticed the definition of "employee"
contained in Section 2(e) of the 1972 Act but while deciding the issue it fell into an error in coming to the conclusion that there was nothing in the 1972 Act so as to exclude the benefit thereof to a railway employee. It failed to properly construe the said provision."
42
OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
17. In the present case, the applicants have not challenged the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. On the other hand, they have accepted the pensionary benefits including the gratuity under the said specific Rules applicable to the Railway servants i.e., Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. In the absence of such challenge, the plea of inconsistency raised by the applicants is untenable. As such the applicants cannot turn around and claim the benefit of the gratuity under the provisions of the Act merely for the reason that the same is more beneficial. The applicants are estopped from putting forth such a claim at this juncture.
18. In Shri Basave Gowda supra, the applicant, an employee of Government High School after serving for 42 years and getting retired on attaining the age of superannuation was not paid with the complete gratuity on the ground that he was initially appointed as daily wage employee and then his services came to be regularised. In that context, it has been held that the petitioner therein, was entitled for gratuity for his entire service and not restricting it to the period of regular service as the Act does not differentiate between a 43 OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH regular employee and a daily wage employee and it only reads as an employee and defines an employee. Indeed, the Central Government has extended the provisions of the Act to the educational institutions employing ten or more persons by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour and Employment vide number SO 1080, dated 3rd April, 1997. No such notification is issued under Section (1)(3)(c) of the Act, to bring the employees working in Railways under the provisions of the Act. The exclusion clause of Section 2(e) of the Act remains intact for Railway employees. The issue considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka for adjudication is in no way related to the applicability of the Act vis-a-vis exclusion clause. Hence the said judgment is of little assistance to the applicants.
19. In Y.K.Singla supra, the issue that fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court, was whether the provisions of the Gratuity Act, can be extended to the appellant therein, so as to award him interest under sub-Section (3A) of Section 7 of the Gratuity Act. This judgment would be of no relevancy to the issue on hand.
44
OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
20. In M.A.A.Lakshmi supra, the matter was considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the background of status of the casual labourers changed over to regular service. No such change of status of the services of the applicants is found herewith. All the applicants herein, were employed in the regular service and retired accordingly. As such, the said judgment is distinguishable. Thus the judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the applicants are not applicable to the subject cases on hand. The arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicants are bereft of merit and deserves to be negated.
21. For the reasons and discussions made herein above, it is declared that the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 are not applicable to the applicants-employees of the Railway and they are covered by the provisions of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 for reckoning their payment of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity. Accordingly, OAs lack merit.
45
OA 626/2023/ OA 350/2024/ 600/2024 & 602/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
22. Resultantly, OAs stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
sd/- sd/-
DR.SANJIV KUMAR (JUSTICE S.SUJATHA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
sd.