Allahabad High Court
Vijendra Kumar Verma And 2 Others vs Union Of India And 2 Others on 8 August, 2024
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:128311 Reserved on 22.07.2024 Delivered on 08.08.2024 Court No. - 83 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 134 of 2024 Applicant :- Vijendra Kumar Verma And 2 Others Opposite Party :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amardeo Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.S.G.I.,Arvind Kumar Goswami Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Amardeo Singh, learned counsel for applicants/petitioners and Sri Arvind Kumar Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India.
2. The instant review application has been preferred with specific prayer for seeking review of the judgment and order dated 04.07.2023 passed in Writ C No. 19474 of 2017 (Vijendra Kumar Verma and 2 Others vs. Union of India and 2 Others) with a direction to the respondents to make payment of salary to the applicants for the period from 06.03.2002 till the working of Assistant Loco Pilot on 31.04.2019, 30.09.2019 and 31.10.2019.
3. The grounds for seeking review of the judgment and order dated 04.07.2023 having facts that all the applicants/petitioners rendered their services over the post of Assistant Loco Pilot w.e.f. 06.03.2002 till 30.10.2019 and 30.11.2019 but the payment of salary has not been paid to them for which they are legally entitled, direction for payment of allowances has also been sought through the prayer made in the petition also but the same has not been considered by this Court while passing the judgment and order dated 04.07.2023.
4. Learned counsel for applicants/petitioners contended that once the prayer has been sought then the same has to be considered on settled proposition of law of equal pay for equal work.
5. One fact has been taken up as a ground that while passing the award dated 02.07.1997 in I.D. No. 30 of 1996 (Deenanath Tiwari vs. Divisional Railway Manager), learned Labour Court granted the similar benefit to similar situated person but the same has not been considered by this Court.
6. It is also submitted through the grounds of the instant review application that by bare perusal of the documents and judgments of learned Labour Court, learned Central Administrative Tribunal and judgment passed by this Court prima facie admitted that all the applicants worked as Assistant Loco Pilot and as such, all are entitled for the salary.
7. Precisely, in view of the above grounds, judgment and order dated 04.07.2023 has been sought to be reviewed by way of giving opportunity of fresh hearing.
8. Upon hearing learned counsel for parties over the review application, both were granted time for filing their written submissions vide order dated 22.07.2024 through which above mentioned grounds have been reiterated by way of filing written arguments on behalf of learned counsel for applicants/petitioners.
9. Per contra, Sri Arvind Kumar Goswami, learned counsel for Union of India vehemently opposed all the grounds taken up while preferring the instant review application and rebutted the stands taken up by learned counsel for applicants/petitioners. It is submitted by learned counsel for Union of India that in Writ C No. 19474 of 2017, the petitioners challenged the Award dated 03.09.2015 passed by learned Labour Court with the following reliefs:-
"(a) For quashing the impugned Award dated 03.09.2015 passed by learned Labour Court below.
(b) For direction to treat the petitioner as regular Assistant Loco Pilot w.e.f. 06.03.2002 and pay its pre-revised scale of pay Rs. 3,050/- - 4,590/- with its allowances with further revision of pay from time to time along with 18% interest."
10. In view thereof, the review preferred only for challenging the Award passed by learned Labour Court which was subject to reference and the same was only for considering regularization of services of the applicants/petitioners in pay scale of Rs 3050/-4590/- of Assistant Loco Pilot w.e.f. 06.03.2002 and the same has been adjudicated in negative against the applicants/petitioners by the learned Labour Court and the same has been upheld by this Court.
11. Learned counsel for Union of India also submitted that during pendency of the adjudication of reference before learned Labour Court, all the applicants/petitioners travelled from learned Central Administrative Tribunal to Division Bench of this Court, wherein no such relief has ever been sought, moreover the adjudication of subject referred before learned Labour Court also decided in due consideration with the judgment passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 301 of 2007 and 386 of 2007 decided on 09.12.2010 and Writ A No. 15088 of 2011 decided on 21.02.2014 and as such, the grounds for seeking review, are not maintainable in the eye of law since the precise question available before this Court is to only decide the Award dated 03.09.2015 passed in I.D. No. 43 of 2008 (Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari vs. the Division Railway Manager) through which it has been upheld that the workers are not entitled for regularization in the pay scale of Rs 3050/- 4590/- of Assistant Loco Pilot w.e.f. 06.03.2002.
12. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for Union of India that once the Award dated 03.09.2015 has already been upheld while adjudicating Writ C No. 19474 of 2017, no specific new prayer can be entertained in shape of preferring instant review application on behalf of applicants/petitioners.
13. After having rival submissions extended by learned counsel for parties and perusal of the records along with written arguments/submissions, the Court notes that the subject matter which was writ in large for deciding by this Court, was the veracity, sanctity, legality and genuineness of the Award dated 03.09.2015, once the same has been decided as having no infirmity in the eye of law by way of upholding the same, no further ancillary prayers were required to be extended in favour of review- applicants/petitioners.
14. Otherwise also, if looking back to the Award dated 03.09.2015 which was also decided on the basis of observations made by learned Tribunal and Division Bench of this Court, no specific prayer has ever been made by the applicants/petitioners for payment of their salary, even at the time of filing Writ C No. 19474 of 2017, mandamus has been sought for treating the petitioners as regular Assistant Loco Pilit w.e.f. 06.03.2002 and pay its pre-revised pay scale with its allowances.
15. Once subject matter of reference adjudicated by learned Labour Court for seeking regularization over the post of Assistant Loco Pilot has already been rejected and the same has been upheld while passing the judgment and order dated 04.07.2023, there is hardly any case for review only on the ground of seeking direction for payment of salary of the specific period for which the applicants/petitioners rendered their services as Assistant Loco Pilot.
16. The specific prayer for seeking salary if not paid by the responding authorities and once the services of the applicants/petitioners have not been regularized, this specific prayer was not subject matter of adjudication either before learned Labour Court or before this Court and as such, in light of the judgment pronounced by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilina Mandal and Another [AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1103], the High Court cannot decide/direct beyond the prayers made in the petition, moreover, seeking prayer for grant of pay-scale under the covered prayer of regularization and once the prayer of regularization has been rejected, fresh prayer for seeking payment of salary for the period in which applicants/petitioners if rendered services as Assistant Loco Pilot through review application is not maintainable, since prayer made at the time of filing writ petition for seeking direction to extend pay-scale and allowances, will not dwell any right in favour of the applicants/petitioners for seeking direction in favour of responding authorities for payment of salary for specific period through review application, prayer sought in the instant application was not available in the writ petition, prayer for pay-scale along with allowance and prayer for payment of salary are different.
17. In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances, the review application preferred for seeking review of the judgment and order dated 04.07.2023 passed in Writ C No. 19474 of 2017 is having no force and lacking merits.
18. Accordingly, the review application stands rejected.
Order Date :- 8.8.2024 Vivek Kr.
(Saurabh Srivastava, J.)