Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Umashankar R Tripathi vs M/O Railways on 3 August, 2023
---- OA No.324/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.324 OF 2018
_ Dated this Thursday, the 03" day of August, 2023
-GORAN : HON ELE MR. SHR: KRISHNA, MEMBER {A}
Umashankar R. Tripathi, (son of Ram Naresh Trigathh,
+.
Date of birth: 15.06.1954, Age: 62 years,
Worked as: Chief Loce Inspector OC" post},
Under Sr. DEE TRS (0) Mumbai Division, Central Raliway,
_ Mumbai and residing al: Mohan Regency, B-1/102,.
Aachar Wadi, Jail Road, Kalyan (West),
District | Thane, Stste Maharashtra, Pin Code 424 304.
2. Dattatray Baburao Howale, (son of Baburac Mallayaopa
_ Howale), Dale of Birth: 63.01.1952. Age : 64 years.
Worked as : Chief Loco Inspector (°C" past),
_ , Under Sr OME FR & OPTG. CSTM, Annex Building,
psi negininnaniaecse --. Und Floor, Mumbai CSTM, Murnbal 400 O04, and
7 | Residing at'87/601, "A° Wing, 6° Floor, Madhukuni,
Nehru Nagar, Kurla {East}, Kurla, Mumbai 400 024,
Maharashira,
¢, . Ramprakash Sharma (Son of Ramnath Sharma),
Dake of birth: 20.17.1955, Age: 50 years, |
Worked as.: Chief Loco Inspector UC" post),
_ Under Sr Crew Controller, US-Yard Kalyan, Central Railway,
_ ANG residing at:B-16, 8" Floor, Angel CHS Godrej Hill
Kalyan, Barave Road, District Thane, Maharashtra 424 307.
ws
Gopal Shankarrao Sawale (Son of Shankarrao A. Sawale),
Date of Birth: 02.04.1949, Age : 87 years,
' Worked as : redred Chief Sr. Loco Inspector (C" post),
Under Sr DEE(O), Centra! Rallway, DRM Annex Bldg,
2" Floor, CSTM, Mumbai 406 004 and rasiding atB-001,
Ground Floor, Prafulia Apariment, Khadakpada, Kalyan (West),
State Maharashtra, Pin Code 404 301.
S. Mervyn Andrew Desa, {son of Mark Anthony Desa),
___. Date of birth: 05.10.1955, Age 60 years, |
Worked as': Chief Loco inspector CC" post},
Under Sr. DEE TRS(O} 8B Mumbai Division, Central Railway,
Annex Bullding, lind Floor CSTM. Mumbai and
obey eke A ft ge Py ;
Residing at : 304, 2 Foor, Quadros Park, Cross Road No.3,
"J
Q,
10.
Wo
ee eae
Bev
2 OA No.324/2016
| 1C. Colony, Borival (West), Mumbai 400 103.
Jagdish Motial Sindhi, (son of Motilal Narayandas Sindhi}
Date of Birth: 03.01.1953, Age: 62 years, |
Worked as: Chief Loca Inspector PO" Post),
Under Office of Sr. DEE (0) Annex Building, 2° Floar,
Central Railway, OCSTM, Mumbal 400 607 and
_ Residing at G/6-302, ar Floor, Mohan Regency,
Aadharwadi Road, Kallan, District-Thane,
State of Maharashira 421 301.
Satish N. Gothwal, S/o. Nathma! Girdharilal Gothwal,
Date of birth: 26. a 7252, Age: 63 years,
Worked as Sr. Loco inspector UMC" pest, and
Residing at B-401, 4" Floor, Devdarshan, Adheshwar Park,
Near Forjis Hospital, Bail Bazar, Kalyan (WwW), _
Thane 427 301, Mahasrashira.
Sushil Kumar Kanchan, S/o Late Shri Madan Mohan Kanchan,
Date of birth: 02.07.1952. Age: 63 years,
Worked as (C" pash, under office of Sr. DLEE(O) TRS, CSTM,
CSTM, Mumbai Division, Central Railway and .
- pasiding at :102, An napuma CHS, Naine Wadi,
Haldooni, Kalyan, Thane 424 304, Meharashira.
Dwarika Prasad Yadav, S/o late Shri Pancham Singh Yadav, -
Date of birth: 01.07.1982, Age: 64 years, worked as (C™ post),
Under office of Sr. D-EECO), TRS, CSTM, Mumbai Division, |
_ Central Railway and residing at Behind Block No. A451,
_ Sane Guru Nagar, Near Ayyappa Temple, Lal Chakki,
Wihasnagar 421 004, Maharashtra.
K.K. George, S/o Shri Kurlan, Date of Birth: 07.12.7952,
Age: 63 years, worked as Sr DEE (C" past,
Under office Sr. DEE(O}, TRS, Murnbal Division,
Central Railway arid residing al: C/502, Anant Regency,
Ph-l, Rambaug 4, Kalyan (WV) 427 301, Maharashtra.
Ramesh singh Thakur S/o late Durgasingh Ballusingh Thaku,
Nate of Birth : 01.08.1949, Age: G7 years,
worked as Sr DEE CC* Post}, under office Sr. DEE(O), TRS,
Mumbai Division, Central Railway, and residing at: 205,
Lard Sumathinath CHS Lid., In front of Tulst Pocia, |
Wayle - Nagar, Kalyan Khadak Pada, Kalyan (WW), Maharashtra,
Ashok Devdutt Nangia, Date of Birth: 03.05.7955,
-- Age 60 years, Retired; and residing at 4, 2° * Floor,
eg
aN 4
$ .
18.
18
3 OA Nea diel
Durveng! Judi, Ambernath, Dist. Thane 421 501, Maharashtra.
Vidyadhar Varnan Bhagwat, Sia Vaman Vishwanath Bhagwat,
Date of Birth: 19.05.1954, Age: 62 years,
werked under Sr. DEECTRS. iO), Mumbai and
residing al 446 B/(A, Shaniwar Seth, Hasabanis, Bakhal,
Pune ~ 437 030, Maharashtra.
Suresh Aess, S/o Shri Jaiman Kees, Date of Birth: 1002.4 954
t
_ Age: 65 years, worked as Sr. Loco Inspector,
Under Sr DEE (TRS/Q} CSTM, Mumbai 400 001, Mumbai
And residing al C1-101, Charms Herlage, Behind Water Filte
Tawi Pada, Kalyan 'ON, Maharashtra.
Oster Marquis, Sio Lovett Marquis, Date of Birth: 18.02.7950,
Age: 05 years, VVorked as Sr. Loca Inspector .
under Sr. DEE(TRS), CSTM, Murnbal 400 004, Mumbai
and residing at 20, Albion Palace, Opp. Hote! Heritage,
Sant S Savata M arg, Byculla, Mumbai 400 O27, Maharashtra.
Niraj Shankar Gunial, SoS ohankar Yeshwant Gunjal,
_ Date of birth: 09,04 1943 Age: #2 years,
Worked under Sr DEE (7 RS}, Mumbal and
residing al Nixanih/Rameshwar, 4-303, Datta Chauk,
' Bolvall, Badlap pur (WW) 421 503, Maharashtra.
_ Satnam Singh Senay, S/o Ram singh,
_ Date of Birth: 25.17.1850, Age: 85 years,
worked as Sr. 'ooo Jnspector, wider Sr DEECTRS/Q)
CSTM, Mumbai and residing at 4-502, Madhusudan Tower,
Near Shahad Bridge, Mohane. Road, Kalyan (WV),
"Olst Thane 421 103, Maharas! ira,
Ronald Patrick Lillywhite, Date of Birth: 26.03.1940,
Age: 78 years, worked as Sr. Loco Inspector, Central Raliway,
_ Ard residing at: Flat No. 303, Swastk Apariment Wing,
Khopat, Thane 400 60%, Manat rashtya.
'Brajesh Ru mar Pande, Date of Birth: 25.08.1949.
» Age: 67 years, worked as Sr Loco Inspector, Central Railway,
And residing af: 16A, Orolt Co-co Housing Society,
Fawarni Ohe Pada, Beturkar Pa ada, Kalyan, Kalyan (WV).
Dist, Thane 424 403, Maharashtra. | - Applicants
_ (By Advocate Shri R.G. Walia} - |
4 OA No 3242016
. . Versus
4, Union of India, Through : Secretary, Railway Board,
Chairman, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi 170 001:
nN.
_ General Manager, Central Railway, Headquarters Office,
CSTM, Mumbai 400 004.
3. Divisional Raliway Ma anager (ORM), ORs Office,
Central Railway, C CST, Mumbai 400 004, - Respondanis
(By Advocate Shri Shei RR, Shetty) .
Reserved on 08.08. 2023
Pronounced on 03.08.2023
ORDER
The applicant has approached this Tribunal on 13.04.2016 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 7985 and seek ing the following rellefs :
"Gah This Horble Tribunal will be pleased to Ahold and declare that the Applicants are entitled to get 55% of the pay to be added for arriving at the amount of pension and other retiral dues ADD-ON Element and accordingly revise their persion instead of 30% as already paid with full confidential benefits of arrears. of pension and other retral dues (differential amount) with 18% interest thereon.
8(b). This Hon'ble Tribunal will be pleased to order and direct the Respandenis to revise Me payment of PPO (Pension Payment Order) of the' Applicants by adding 58% -- ADD-ON-ELEMENT and. accordingly pay the difference _fawards DCRG, Commutation, Leave Ene sashiment monthly pension ete from the date of their retirement with 18% interest per annum on such arrears.
Sic}. - Any other and further orders as this Hon'ble Thbunal fay deem hay proper and necessary in the fects and circumstances of the case.
Sf}. Costs af this Onginal Apnileation may be provided for"
3. CHA No 3242018
2. "Aerie have also filed a Miscellaneous Application 'No.3 58K: 2016 see g perm igsion To fhe the present OA jo indy which has been allowed by thi s Tribunal vide order dated 48.04.2018 as the applicants were similarly situated and also seeks the same relief, | ¢. Brief facts oF the case. at re that all the applicants were - retired from the post of Se snior Loco InspectoriChief Lone Inspector and they all are working in the Runsing Supervisory Cadre of the Central Rallway. They submits that the post of Loco inspector, Power Controller. Crew Control er sic filed up from the Running Category/Cadire._ y he app cants state that prior to their appointment/promotion to the post of Loco Inspector, they were working as Drivers/Loce Plots in the Running Cadre of Central. raliway. | fter due Sele sction process, they all came to be paver to the post of Loco inspector. All the applicants are post 4 992 retirees except applicant No.18 who got retired on 31.03.1998. They submits that at the time of their retirement, ine responde ems have fixed their pension and ather reuiral dues:
by adding only 20% to their Basic Pay instead of 55%. Applicants have a é inexed a "copy of one of the applicants:
Fens ion Payment Order (Po) as Annexure A-7 on which it is clear that only 30% has been added while fixation of the pension other retire ai dues. |
34. a The applicants further submits that the matters related to fixation in other zones have been challenged from time to time and the Tribunals, Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court haves clearly held that the Loco inspectors working in-the Supervisory Cadre like the applicants are entitled | to get their pension and other retiral dues fixed by adding 55% of the Basic Pay at the time of their retirement. Despite the | law laid down, the Railway Board has failed to ouSsue common guidelines OO for the payment af pensionary dues. | By adding only 30% to their Basic Pay, all the applicants have suffered a inaricial loss and the legitimate pension and other retiral dues are ning denied to them to ihe extent of 25% which is quite substantiate whieh would affect the applicants in their monthly pension an nd other rati Hal dues and thereafter i in the family pension. 3.2. The only prayer of the appli joants are that the law which has been laid dawn by various Courts cannot be ignored in their case and their pension dues and other pensionary benefits rave:
to be fixed by adding 8% | and not 30% at the time oF fixation of " their pensi en and other rétiral due es, They only pray that their "pension and other retiral dues may be revised by adding total 55% 304k OTG .
wood ey Se as ADD- ON ELEM ENT to their Basic Pay and pes revise their Pension Payment Orders. They submits that the duty of the respondents to recaleulated the applicant's Basic ina at the efhané ed rate by adding S arrears (differential amount) . towards revised _ Commutation, Leave Encashment ete and revised Pension Payment Order should be issued to them, 2.3. The applicanis submits thal they are also entiied to get ances of pension along with} interest as they are unnecessarily | Jarsed by the respondents ¢ to approach {his Tebunat: as the Unio various Occasions. "He nas annexed venous copies of judgments -
in the present OA as Anne exure A- 2 such as * G} Kishan Lal Vs. Union of India dated 16.70.2004, a2.08:2003 (High Court of Del ethi), 06.07 2004 (Supreme. Court of India).
(8) Kishal Lal Sha arma dated 02.01.2007 ete.
Applicants have also annexed a copy of order date ch.
19.03. 2018 in CP No. 435/205 5 as Annexure A-3. They further states that Review Petition nas been fled by the respondents in various peltions before the Dethi Figh Court and the said petit! on. | Mave been dismissed vide order dated: 09.10.2075 (Annexure 8 . OA No 3242018 The applibarits subrnits that the respondents nave not been fair to thern as the respondents have not been paid to them | as per the law. it is absolutely arbitrary on part of the respondents to have included only 30% additional instead of 55% which has affected their retiral dues and they have received and are received much lesser monthly pension than to which they are - otherwise entitled to. The respondents have implemented all the "jadgivients and in reply to an RT} Application under the RT] Act, 2006, the Railway Administration has implemented and granted 55% 5 to the colleagues of the applicants working i North Central "ee Railway. The copy of RTL rep ply dated 15.03.2016 is annexed as | Annexure A-5. This letter specifically refers to OA No. 4022/2011, the devision of which was implemented and similarly placed _ persons were granted the benefit of 55%. Aggrieved by this, the "applicant has approached this Tribunal by way of filing this : present On ginal Appl: ication.
35. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the . 'impugned action of the res ponders is wrong, legal, arOrary and uncanstitutional: The applicants are also entitled to get 55% af Running Allowance towards the Basic Pay as on ADD-ON- ELEMENT for fixing of the retiral dues and other pensionary _ benefits ta.the applicants.
The fe armed counsel for the applicants submits that only. 30% of the RUNNING Mlowanes has been added as a pay alerment for fixing the retirement dues which action is wrong and on sttutional, The appl sticants are entitled to fix the retirement dues. by fol flowing the judge ments in case of Smit. Afsar Jahan Begam of the Horn ble SUDTEMES Cot urt of India, Kishan Lal Vs. Union of india & ors., issued by CAT, Principal Bench and other. Vanious judgments as mentioned in this OA. s.?. Vhe learned counsel further states that the applicants have been working on ne sost of Loco inspector and their basic | vie wee is to teach the Di vers to drive the trains, counseling, guide sentedanttejng to ihe DriversiLo oco Fiots. All ihe appl cants are entited to get 55% df Running Allowance to be counted as pay ement for the ourpese af pension and retire ament benefits.
38. The learned counse! for the applicant submis that the :
respondents has not applied proper application of mind by not fixing their retiral dues and giher pens sionary benelits by adding SO% of the Basic Pay: as ane ADD- "ON-ELEMENT. they have | | eq gally and against the law adde '< only 8 30% ADD- 'ON-ELEMENT at the time of fixing the rau rement dues. As all the applicants are ge senior diizens and they Jeff with no other remedy to .
~ approach this Tribunal for saaibed of their grievance by allowing:
payment oF PPO. by adding 55% ADD-ON-ELEMENT and.
accordingly the differential amount to be paid towards DCRG, Commutation, Leave Encashment, Menthly pension etc from 'their retirement date with 18% interest per annum on such arrears, 4 On notice, the respondents resisted the OA by @ reply dated 28.06.2017 and denied all the adverse allegations and, averments raised therein and submits that the applicants who -
are post 1992 retirees filed this OA by seeking their pension and pensionary benefits may be revised by adding 55% of their Basic | Pay in fea of Running: Allowance instead of 30% of add on element. They submit that the benefit of adding of 55% of Running Allowance is only applicable to running staff only. The word of Running staff and Running duty has been clearly defined in Chapter IX OFIREM Vol- which are reproduced here for ready 'reference ¢ _ "Running duties" means duties directly connected with the movement of trains and performed by running staff while employed on moving trains or engines including shunting _ BHQUIBS.
"Running staff' performing 'running duties" shall refer to Railway servants of the cafegaries mentioned below:
Laco | . Traffic fa) Orivers, including Motormen | (a) Guards il " OA No Aas2018 |& Rail Motor Drvers but) excluding Bae mers, 4b) Shunter (b) Assis siant Guards {co} Eremen, including ins sinicling 'Firemen, Electric Assist ani on tr Electric Locos and Diesel Assisianv/Drivers, Agsisianis. on | -
| Diese! Loces.
The posits of Loco Inspector have not been included in the category of r running staff. Therefore, the apolican nts are not ented: for the benefit of addition of 65% in flew of running alle wan ce.
44. The respondents -- further submits that the Horble scsi naanenrenanpe gga Supreme Court in the case of Union of india Vs. a. Banerjee, | repotied | in 2014 (1) SLI 15 has held that Drivers later on.
promoted /posted as Crew Controllers is not a member of the 'yunning staff hence not entitled for allowance in lieu of ki lometrage. in this case, the applicants are similar to Crew Cont roller and perfor ming the duties of Running Staff, h hence they cpannot be treated as Running Staff The se lectic on to the post of Crew Control er and. Loco Inspec clos governed by the same policy of Railway Boards dated 25.11.1992. The respondents states that a selection "policy Yor the post of Loco Inspector, | 'Power Controller, Crew Controller, ALF and LF was frarned by Ralway Board in the year 1992 and the same was circulated to pee fot QANs, 34S Bhs all the concerned vide letter RBE No. 198/92 dated 25.11.1992. In para No.3.4 of the said policy; MIE Driver in grade of Rs. 1,640-2,900/- Passenger Driver in grade of Rs.1,600-2, 860/- and Goods Driver in the grade of Rs. 1,950-2,200/- with miniviun ; five years of service are entitied to appear in selection fo the post of Loce irispector, Power Controtie Crew Gontraller, Assistant Loading Foreman (ALFY'& LF. Para 4 of the said scheme also provides that on being selected as Loco Inspector, their basic pay will be fixed by adding an element of 30% of their basic pay. Therefore, the applicants' pay were fixed accordingly after "Joining the post of Loco Inspectors.
: 4.2. Respondents further submits that in the said policy, the 'para 2.5 held that al the time of retirement, the pension and _ pensionary benefits for the 68 ast af Loco Inspector will be paid by | adding 30% of their basic pay as add-on element which is ver y EIB, cle ear that Lace Inspector are bsing granted benefit, of addition of 20% of their basic pay iwice in their service career, | firstly at the time of their promot ion and second! y, at the time of | 'their retirement. | Their dut ves have been c clearly ¢ descri ibed in para No.3.2 of the said' scheme. As per the said scheme, the Loco Inspectors are required to perform, infer-alla duties directly connected with the training and monitoring of Loco Running Staff pees:
Cad OA NoSeq2016 on foot plate of the locomotive cab of the moving trains. From ae é above facts of the applicants: case, it is clear that they were ot per form ing thelr dutie S$ 8s similar to the Running Stal. They are only giving training and supervising the Drivers, therefore, they are not entitled for benefit especially applicable fo Running:
'Stall. The said scheme is : : annexed by the respondents as.
Exhik bE R-2.
4.3. The applicants have relied upon the case of K.L. Sharma which is not at all applicable to them as in that case applicant WAS. promoted as ALF in the year 1984 much prior to the framing .
oF scheme dated 25.1 4992. The. Prine! pal Bench has observed in para § of the judgment dated 48, 10. 2001 in OA No.229) 2000 gS under < "The respondents have not been able fo prove their case and the impugned order only makes vague assertion. Therefore, he would be entitled to fixation of "pension with addition of 85% of Basie Pay. it is also interesting fo find that the x G | rebulled ° ihe Fact iat ae Ke a few of t fhe apo eant's allowed fa running sta aff while co pt ing th er retiral benefits and the same also goes in his favaur." | A, 4 it is ac mitted by the "respondents t that the « case 'of Kishan Lal Sharma &- sneak was decided against the
- Railway Administration by Principal Bench, New Delhi |e Hon' ble ia "oO. A Mo S24 2016 Delhi High Court, however, SLP (CA No.31 10/2016) challenging findings of Lower Court in case of Kishan Lal Sharma (supra) 's _ stil pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court. Vide letter dated ae 03. 2016 (Exhi bit R-2) of the Railway Board has given | their 'astrutaion' to the > General Manager of all Zonal Railway to point out the above facts in similar cases. Further, they submits that the Hon'ble Supreme 'Court has stayed the operation of the orders of Lower. Courts vide crs cas 18.03.2016 and the issue involved | in the above case if is still pending before the | Hon'ble Supreme Court.
45, It has al ready been discussed above that the Loco Inspectors are being granted benefit of 30% of add-on element twice, firstly at the time of selection and then at the time of their retire rant white calcul ating their pension and pensionary benefits. On the other 'hand, running staffs are being granted | 55% e only ¢ ence at ihe fime of their retirement. Therefore; | in the case at hand, the appli icants are > not entitled for the benefit Of additi on of 55% at t the ima. of their retirement as claimed or. ~ otherwise. As per the policy dated 25.11.1902 under para 3.2 the eaain daty of Loco Inspector is to teach / train ati, monitor the Loco Running Staff directly re relate dito operation of train. Para 92 24 of Establishment Manual Vol | provided that 30% of the basic pay under the said policy. {i has been steted above that all the of Running Staff shall be reckoned as pay at the time of fixation of thelr pay in stationery post and the applicants' pay were fixed:
by adding 30% of Heir basic pay at the time of posting ag Loco 'does net arise and they are 2 note enities for the boneli of addition of 5556 which is actually meant for Running Steff and not te the applicants, In fact, the Railway Administration has paid all the parision ary benefits to the applicants according to the rule {neluding policy letter dated 25.14.1992, which has been relied by the applicants. Therefore, on this point, this OA deserves 4.8. Respondent further submiis that the post of. Loco inspector nas been geeryyt under the policy dates 25. 14. 19882 whic oh has been framed by | ail way Board, All th apoli ficants owho were selec oted aS Love Inspector as per the provision policy dated 25.17.7992, hence ibe y are enitied for the benefit under the said policy but the apolicanis have not challenged the said. poll cy, hence are enti ded for the benefit extended to. them R23 Beat 3 Re benefits as applicable under the. said policy have been paid to-
the applicants but the applicants have failed to point out any rule 16 | A No.324/2016 or instruction In support of their claim that they are entitled for 55% of add on element as claimed by them.
AT. By the policy dated 25.11 4992, the Loco Inspectors were given 30% as add on siement " the retremnent beneliis which has been prepared on the recommendation of the Depariment Gounsil of Railway whi ch is a part of National Council under the Join if Consultative Machinery comprising of stalf side and official side at the Apex National Level. In the Departmental Council, the Trade Unions of the staff are represented through the Al 'India Rail Iwaymen's s Federation and the National Federation of indian Railwaymen, At the time « of formation of policy in 1992, 30% at on for the Loco Inspector was kept consciously as a Labour Federation who were very well aware about the nature of | duties: of Loco Inspector which are quite different from that of Lace Pilot The judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Smt, | _ Afsar Jahan Begam is not at all relevant since the subject of the.
judgment Is different from the case at hand.
48. The respondents further submits that there are. several SLPs i iled by Railway . Admini stration. involving similar. issues which are pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court and had been clubbed in the aforementioned Gil Appeal No.3110 of 2076 on ae pera.
& OA No d2e/2016 which Hon'ble Supreme Coun vide their interim order dated 8.03. 2016 has stayed the operation of impugned order passed | by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The duties of Running Staff and clors are nol sinter, Therefore, respondents 5 telied upen a chart which shows ine diference in the duties and responsibilities of Run ining gi and Loco Inspectors which are ys sproduced here for ready reference :
Sr.No... Running Staff (previously | Loce inspectors CO known as Loco Drivers | and presently Known as | (Stationary Pos) - LocoPHots .
y. A Loco Pilot has to remain | There are ono -- such ina state of constant high hardships and risks in the an alertness or the track | duty of Loco Inpector.. He "i cendiien oar any other (can board as well as leave untoward thing oon of | the loco. at. his | @found the tracks. so as.to | convenience
-caniroal ss the train immediately. in. any eventuality, Such is the demand.of his work that he cannot leave the Loco at _ fhe location oof. Als preference fe answer the call-of nature while Hels in| riotion: .
cn Even while The 'ain is | There. are ono ominin num running smootily, the pilot | mandatory penalties for a has to continuously use his | Loco Inspector even He Is reflexes to ensure that the [in the same Loco that iirain does not overshoot a | passes a signal at danger... signal al danger Le. @ red | Thus, on passing a signal signal. ifa signals passed | at danger while the ollot a danger, the pilot has to (wil lose His job, the face minimum prescribed. inspector may get awa penalties ie. Campulsary | with @ rnuch lesser penalty Retirement or removal .of | or no penalty. dismissal fram service under the Railway Servants 18 OANo.324/2016 (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, a
3. A pilot will seldom perform | As the designation . stationary dulles as his duty | suggests, a -- significant is to run the loco/trains. gortion of the duties of a cares, inspector are stationary aus, nke oreparation of trains links and crew links, management of the crew booking lobby, planning, scheduling and organizing the running of trains taking part in meetings, briefing officers and imparting training ico the running slaff. One can say that-
aimost half of the ime, a Loca jinspector can have 'the cornfort of stationary a duties.
tee Apiotis a workman as per | A Loco Inspectcr, as the 'the nature of dues |name suggests is a performed by him and is | supervisor and not a also. covered under the (workman. . He is not definition of "Weorkrnan" | covered in the definition of (under the Industral Dispute |"Workman' under the Act, 1947, Industrial Dispute Act, 1 TAF.
5. As per Rule 902 G1) of |The Loco Inspectors are running-allawance, rules.in not charged with the. e indian Establishment | responsibiliiy of movement Manual Voll, 'Running | of trains, "Their Duties' mean duties directly | responsibility is connected with movement | supervision of moving of trains and performed by | locos and of the staff, who | running staff (Le. Pilot/Asstt. are running the locas. Pilots/iGuards} while | Their dutles are not employed on moving trains [running duty. Therefore, ar engines: including | there are separate set of | shunting engines. rues for them for os reckoning the pay element in the running allowance paid io them.
§. AS per para "903 fiv} of JREM-L, only those The Loco Inspectors are_ not covered in the QA No Ses720l6 and .Diess! | Drivers are covered in the definition of running stall categories of staff fisted in this para like the Drivers, shuniers, Electric Assistant Agsistant definition of running staff.
They are supervisory staff whose. duties . include | supervision of running staff.
as well as other duties.
| 'for the As per Fara S02uv} of (RENEE ss "Running Allowance" means an running allowance ordinarily granted fo running staff...
performance of duties directly connected jwith charge of moving trains.
'running Loce inspeciors are not given the charge of moving the trains. They inspect the --
locos, they supervise the loco running staff, but they do not run the trains. They.
are mot in the driving seal.
The sanction of running allowance to-them for the actual KMs travelled while inside the Loco cabs doesn't imply that they are .
charged owith the mioverneni of ab running i trains. Sanction of running allowance to inspector for. --
ithe KMs travelled while .
inside the loco cab in an incentive «fo atiract competent olois ta the posis of Inspectors as well -
as a payment in lieu of TA as they are not paid of TA even while working beyond &@ KMs from thelr HO station, Mere sanction of a.
allowance does.
not make them categary of a staff and not the sanction of a pariicular allowance.
al | same The medical classification for the post of lors pflat is. of highest standard Le. Al and there is nol relaxation in the under oo any circumstances because of | safe movement of trains.
The medical classification 'for a Loce Inspector is AS and most of the tmes medically decategorised Loco Pilots, wha do not remain Th in At bul are fit in AS, are absorbed as Loco inspectors. Thus, the demands of medical ifitmess are much more higher for a loco pilot-in.
2G OA No Sse 2015 comparisan to a Loco inspectors. . | The respondents submitted that as per the chart stated above, if has been cleared that the duties and responsibilities of Running Staff and Local inspect avs are not similar in nature. Therefore, .
the Loco Inspectors are not at all entiied for the benefits eapecia lly applic ble to the Running Staff.
4,9. The respondent further submits that the present OA is highly belated and barred by the law of Imitation as the applicant in its para 4.5 of the OA has admitted the fact that applicant No.18 has been stiperannuated from Railway service with effect fram 31.03.1998 Le. about 18 years prior to the filing of this OA and he Is seeking relief of refixation of his pension and pensinaery benefit from the date of his retiterient in the OA which was filed in the yéar 2016. They submits that the Hon'ble - . Supreme Court i in the case of E. Parmsivan Vs. Union of india and others reported in 2002 (S$) ) SLR (SC) 307 has held that the law of limitation will apply in the matter of pension also. Respondents have relled upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. S.M.Katrayya and others reported in 1996 SCC (L&S) 1488 and held that grant of rélief in favour of one of the employee cannot be a cause of a OA No SBva0l8 gction for other employes. ff is the settled principle of law that. this Tnbunal cannot coridone the delay, as the applicants have het filed any application for condonation of delay, AS wy = . $ & 3 x8 di stey sete: Sera ie AAG, The TESCOMOaMisS, HY SLIDROM OF MSU COPS, WIBY Nave relied upon the following judgments:
na: pe &. Sadasivaswamy Vs. oY oTam H Na adu, AIR 1974SC 2271.
Gi) Jacob A braham and 'others Vs-A T. Full Bench Jude omens, 1994-1996.
oy Ay. Ram Chandra Samania Vs. UOl, 1994 (26) ATC 228. ay} S. $. Rathore v8. State of NLP, +, 1889 (2) ATC 521. 'ovina eames © ne uo! Vs. MICS Sarkar reported in { (2010) 1 SCC C&S} 1128...
wh | . State of Karnataka Vs. SM. Katrayya & Ors., 199 SCC (L&S) 1488. | My Jagd ish Prasad Vis. UO 0} & Ors. 2003 (3 Al ake 406 (HO A . a eiieae Regional Manager AP SRTC Ves. NLS Satya Naryan.
Og. Jacob Vs. 'Director of Geology & Amp Mining, 20098 (10) ix. Bri Mohan Lal Vs. UOE 20 12 ¢ (2 2) SC © (L&S) 177. sit. Respondent further submits that a special policy has been framed and circulated by 'the eleay board vide letter RBE fiation and pens! ionary. benefits applicable to. the p osts af Loco 2 OA No. 324/201 6 Inspectors: The applicants are governed by the said policy. scheme and are entitled for the benefit extended to them under the said scheme. it has been pointed out by the respondents that the benefit of add on element of 30% of basic pay is being dtdnted fo Loco inspector twice first firstly at the time of their promotion while fixing pay on statio onary post and secondly at the:
'time of their retirement while caleulati ing pension and pensionary benefit which gives a cumulative benefit of 69% whereas the running staff who remain as drivers are given a benefit of 55%
-add on pay element at the time of their retirement. However, it is _ | ~ denied that they are: being paid less-pensian to the extent 25%e as alleged ar otherwise. The scheme also provides that ffa Loco | inspector retired before completing the period of 10 months, he shall be permitted to get the benefit of add on element to their | basic. pay on @ pro- data basis = depending on the actual peri lod of service under the scheme. T he benefit of add on element to "basic pay shall not be admissible for any purpose other than computation of pension and pensionary benefit.
4.12. Respondents : furl rer submits that the benefi tof addi ing Of.
30% on their basic pay both at the tirne of their promotion and retirement "which comes to 69% does they are being ¢ granted 149% fo extra benefit than running stat. in the above para, itis has ee OA Na bed olk ae) the applicant is nat appli cable io the facts of the presen si case as K.L.Sharma_ was. promoteds elect ed as ALF in the year 1264 * og -- we anh ow ' Ra AeA i § . ow ENA ie prior fo framing of the scheme data 25.77.1802 Rowever, in the present OA, all the applicants were selected as Loco Pilot under the scheme framec Jin the year | T882, hence they are enitied for the benef fit as. extended to them under the scheme . and they cannot be allotted to aim benefit which is beyond the S scope of the mien 'ft has also hee Ty palrited out that the | SLP (CA No.3110/2076) which has challenge the legality and yvadich iy of the order passed in K.L.Sharma's case Is still pending before the Hon'ble 'Supreme Court-and the operation of the orders of the Lower Court-has been stayed by the Hor'ble Supreme Court, 4 3. 'They further 'submits t that the applic ant has indirectly persuade this Tr buna to ay do wn policy by extending the benefit of 55% of basic eBay as add- on-elament tor Fx xing their pensionary bene in place of 30% @ $ provi ided under policy of Ra iIway Boards circular dated 29. "A. 1992 which is beyond the jurisdiction of this Tribunal in sons of | of power of jucicial - review. | it Hes also been ooin ed out in the above para that the Hon'ble S Supreme Court in the case of Union of india Vs. 8.
£2 aie Banerjee has held that Crew Controller are not a running stall as the post of Crew Controller and Loco Inspector are being file under the same policy dated 25.4 1.1992, hence, Loco inspectors cannot be treated as running staff. They further subroits that the cost of Loco inspectors are governed by a Special Policy, therefore, applicant "cannot claimed any benefit which is not specially extended to them under the sald scheme. "tt is. | undisputed that the posts held by the applicants are classified as. stationary staff. In fact, the applic icanis have themselves admitted this fact in para 4.4 of the ciroular dated 25.11.1992 under which they were given 30% add on in the fixation of their pay when they | | moved from the past of drivers to Loco inspectors, The said para 4 of the circular dated aa. 11.1992 is reproduced as under: | "The . extent provisions by adding « as elament af 30% of basic pay in nuinming cefegory would continue ta be applicable. However, a running slaff inittally posted _ applicable. However, a nunning siaif initially posted as _ power controller and later shifted as Loco inspector will ~ get this benelit only once."
4. 14, Respondents submits that the grant of allewances and cate gorizati on of post is a matter of poll icy as the applicants cannot be granted any benefit whi ch is not provided to them under policy data 25. Wn ee as the duties and responsibilities of 'the Loco Inspectors are not si imilar fo running staff and they are OA No. 32/2016 t entitled for the benefit available to the running stall. The re spondents further submit fs that the Loco inspectors are responsible for monitoring and coungeling the drivers and also they have been grantest bene' of 30% add on element at the time of their pay fixation on promotion of Loco Inspectors.
e 4.18. The learned counsel or the respondents in his written notes has submi ited that in view: af the Hon'ble Apex Count judgment in the case of Union al india Vs. Kishan Laf Sharma _and others dismissing the SLP No.20 647-20648 of 2017 against the judgment of Hon'ble Dethi High Court, the applicants are entitled for relief. However, ne a that the relief should be restricted from the period of three years prior to the date of Pfin xe) of this OA, Thus, he subrol ted that. the arrears al best ¢ can be . granted for a period of three years pricr to date of filing of this OA. | Le. from Aoril of 2013 and not'prior to that date. He placed rellance on the following --e :
6} 7 Ramesh Chand "Sharma Vs. Udham Singh 'Kamal, . (1989) 8 SCC 304, an Union of india Vs. Yarsem Singh, (2008) . SCC gag.
a) Shh Das Vs. Unian of india, i 2007) g scc aa. ay) S.S.Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1989) 4 SOC 482 2o OA No 3242016
(v) - State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Arvind Kumar Shrivastava and others, (2018) 1 SCC 347,
(vi) Chairman and Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Lid and Others Vs. Ram Gopal, (2020) SCC.
Online SC 107.
~ N { = Ny Faw easel oN. as © ang ge hy a ay < § Heard both the learned counsels for ine games ang perused the pleadings and documents filed on record.
BO That applicants in the present Original Application being 18 Ip number, are post 4992 retirees except fer the applicant No.18 who has retired on 31.03.1998. It is the contention of the applicants that the respondents al the time of the retirement fixed | thelr persian and other. retiral dues by adding only 30% to their basic pay instead of 55%, The applicants had contended that by resine cting addition to their basic pay ta 30% at the ime of fixation of their pension, they have been put to loss to the extent of 25% of their basic pay in terms of payment of pension and family pens sion and pensionary benefits. The entire issue in 'question was before the Hon'ble _ Supreme Coun for its consideration and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has finally decided ~ the case in favour of persons identically Rlaced ike the applicants by dismissing the SUP filed by the Union of india challenging the judgment rendered in favour of the persons 'identically placed tke the applicants peing Kishan Lal Sharma _ :
and others (supra) by the Hon'ble Dell hi High Court.
> . The applicants have retied many years ago Le. almost 3 quarter century age, the dema and of the appl jcants ha s been.
raised much beyond limitation period. In the Original A) oplication ery nb < 2% 7 ee ents of 3 ! ae ey fled oy the applicants, the applicants Have contended that ine Original Application-is within time and therefore, there [s no question of seeking sandonalion of delay. The applicants are at the! mpression that the issue in question is a continuing cause of action. in reply to this, the responder nts: have subruk ied that the law on the subject of granting condonation of delay Is well settled by Ths . Hon'ble St upreme Got at in ihe case of Ramesh Chand Sharma Vs. Uddhan Singh Kamal
8. a find that the Hon'ble Sup re eme Court in the case of Union of india Vs. Tarsem Singh (si upra} has held in para
-Nos.7 and 8 of the judgment ig reproduced as under:
"7 To summarise, normally, a belated service related. dain will be rajactad on the ground ¢ of delay and laches 'where remedy is sought by flag & wrt petition) or lmilation fwhere remedy is sought. by an 'applic ation fo the ra Administrative Tribunal). One of ihe e oeplic! as fo the said rule is cases relating to a cantinuing wend Where a Service _pelated claim is based on.e continuing wrong, relief can be ae _granted even if ihere ss a long delay # ) seeking ren needy, wilh m8 n "reference fo the dale on which ihe conics wrong com nenced, ff such continuing wrong crealés 8 ¢ Onn udg ource of injury. But there is an exc reption fo fhe exception. if. the grievance 18 1p pear ct of any order or administrative decision which related to or alfec fed several offie rg also, a and if the reopening of ihe issue would affect the settled rights of fired parties, than the claim will mo be entertal examme, if fhe issue relates to payment or refixation of "nay 2e OANoS 242016 ar pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as if does not affect the nights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc., affecting offiers, delay would render ihe claim stale and doctrine of lachesdimitation will be applied. in so far as the consequential ralief of recovery of arrears for @ past period, the principles relating fo recurring/successive wrongs will apply As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict ihe _cansequenti jal baad relating fo arrears narmailly to a period of "three years prior to the dale of filing of the writ petition.
8. In this case, fhe delay of sixfeen years would affect. fhe consequential claim for arrears, The High Court was nof justified in directing payme nt of arrears relating fo sixteen years, and that foo with interest NH ought to have restricted ihe relief relsting to arrears {to only three years before the date of writ petition, or from the date of demand to dale of writ petifian, 4+ whichev yer was fesser N ought not fo have granted interest on arrears in such circumstances."
a In view of the above, the claim of the applicants are admis sible, however, relief in respect of payment of arrears will be restricted from three years prior ta filing of this OA. Since the OA was filed on 13.04.2016, the arrears will be paid with effect from 13.04.2013. The respondents are directed to implement this order within a period of three months from the date of receipt - of a certified copy of this order.
40. in view of the above, the OA is allowed in terms of the above directions and order.
-Member (A)