Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Naveen Kumar vs M/O Railways on 23 November, 2023
1
Item No. 17 O.A. No. 2334/2018
Court No. 4
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 2334/2018
This the 23rd day of November, 2023
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K Gupta, Member (J)
1. Naveen Kumar
Aged-27 Yrs
S/o Sh. Satbir Singh,
R/o Ward No. 6
Kath Mandi Meham,
Distt. Rohtak, Haryana
2. Anand
Aged-39 Yrs.
S/o Sh. Ram Mehar,
VPO-Madina Gindhran
Teh-Meham, Distt. Rohtak,
Haryana
3. Vijay Kumar
Aged-28 Yrs.
S/o Sh. Jai Kishan,
R/o VPO-Girwar Teh-Meham,
Distt. Rohtak,
Haryana
4. Sunil Kumar
Aged-27 Yrs
S/o Sh. Rajal,
R/o VPO-Gharawathi Teh-Rohtak,
Distt. Rohtak,
Haryana
5. Hari Kishan
Aged-60 Yrs.
S/o Sh. Mal chand,
VPO-Kila Zafargarh Teh-Julana,
Distt. Haryana
2
Item No. 17 O.A. No. 2334/2018
Court No. 4
6. Bijender Singh
Aged-32 Yrs.
S/o Sh. Randhir Singh,
VPO-Bahahl Chander Pal,
Teh-Maham, Distt. Rohtak
....Applicants
(Through Advocate: Mr. U Srivastava with Mr. Anoop Kumar)
Versus
1. Union of India
through the General Manager
Northern Railway,
Baroda House,
New Delhi.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway
Estate Entry Road,
New Delhi
...Respondents
(Through Advocate: Dr. Ch. Shamsuddin Khan)
ORDER (Oral)
The applicants are aggrieved by non grant of their over time allowance for the period they have worked beyond 8 hours per day as the respondents prepared 12 hours duty roaster for the applicants. Applicants have preferred a representation before the respondents, which has not been decided till date. They ventilate their grievance by filing instant Original Application seeking following relief:- 3 Item No. 17 O.A. No. 2334/2018 Court No. 4
"(a) Directing the respondents to place the relevant records pertaining to the present O.A. before their Lordships for the proper adjudication in the matter in the interest of justice.
(b) Directing the respondents to consider and finalize the case of the applicants for granting the overtime allowances for the working period of the applicants beyond 8 hours per day as the respondents prepared the 12 hours duty roaster of the applicants, which is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, against the rules and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 107/09 decided on 21.01.11 upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) 7164/11, OA No. 3054/12 decided on 27.08.13 and OA No. 3549/15 decided on 19.08.16 and thereafter;
(c) Directing the respondents to extend the benefits of the overtime allowance from the date of their posting/entitlement accordingly with all other consequential benefits i.e. the arrears of differences and interest etc.
(d) Allowing the O.A. of the applicants with all other consequential benefits and costs.
(e) Any other fit and proper relief may also be granted to the applicants."
2. Briefly stating the facts, applicants are working as Gatemen on different Road side Gates in the office of the respondents. They were made to perform 12 hours duties daily without any overtime allowance by treating them under essentially intermittent category employees as against the duty roaster of 8 hours. Some of the similarly situated persons approached this Tribunal in O.A. No. 3378/2011 decided on 16.09.2011 and O.A. No. 107/2009 decided by this Tribunal on 21.01.2011. The said order in O.A 107/2009 was assailed by the respondents before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. No. 7164/2011. The counsel for the applicant states in 4 Item No. 17 O.A. No. 2334/2018 Court No. 4 view of the issue at stake is conclusively decided by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 107/2009 and confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the instant O.A. could be allowed on the analogy of the said judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the O.A. and argued that the applicants essentially worked at "C" category gates, which would imply the lowest amount of traffic. The gate of "C" category and residential facility is not provided with in 0.5 KM to any of the applicants. The applicants were performing 12 hours daily as per the SWR and the duty roaster of H.O.E.R., therefore they were not entitled to the over time allowance. He adds that in view of the new rules of the year 2005 the standard hours of duty of essential intermittent employees were 48 hours + 24 additional hours per week and since the applicants spill within the gate C category they were also under the classification of the essential intimating category. The work hours were fixed for the applicants as per the roaster & classification of gates.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. For the sake of better appreciation, the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 107/2009 Om Prakash and 5 Item No. 17 O.A. No. 2334/2018 Court No. 4 Another Vs. Union of India and Others is reproduced herein below-
"11. Therefore, the OA is allowed. It is hereby declared that the 'A' class Gatemen are bound to work 8 hours duty and in case of additional working hours, they are to be paid the overtime allowance, as stipulated under the rules. It is pointed out that Rule 10 of the Rules ibid prescribes the method of calculating the overtime allowance. It shall be taken note of by the respondents as a methodology. It is made clear that within the three months next, the respondents shall calculate the overtime allowance payable to the applicants from the date of institution of the OA and make it available to the applicants. No costs."
And the operative portion of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. (C) No. 7164/2011 Union of India & Others Vs. Om Prakash and Another is also reproduced herein below:-
"15. We dismiss the writ petition highlighting that twice traffic volume was determined and the authorities categorically wrote that the level crossing(s) had to be manned by three gatemen with 8 hours shift and thus the Tribunal has reached the correct conclusion. Indeed, the respondents would be entitled to overtime wages directed to be paid."
6. These orders have been further relied upon by this Tribunal in a recent decision dated 24.12.2022 in O.A. No. 3531/2022. I have seen that the issue at stake has been fully decided by this Tribunal as well as confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Accordingly, I have no reason to take a contrary view as this judicial proprietary binds me to follow the said decision.
6Item No. 17 O.A. No. 2334/2018 Court No. 4
7. Accordingly, the present Original Application is allowed. The applicants would be entitled for overtime allowance, in case they have performed for more than 8 hours of duty in a day. The respondents are hereby directed to confirmed from their record and extend the overtime allowance as per Rules, in case they have worked beyond 8 hours within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
8. No order as to costs.
(Pratima K. Gupta) Member (J) /SG/KS/