Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
An Application Under Article 226 Of The vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 February, 2014
Author: Nishita Mhatre
Bench: Nishita Mhatre
1
19.02.14
Item No.22
Court No.17
K.Mitra
W.P.C.T. No. 71 of 2007
In the matter of: An application under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India filed on 19th January, 2007 ;
And
In the matter of: Union of India & Ors.
Petitioners
- Versus -
Amitava Pathak
Respondent
Mr. Saptarshi Roy For the Petitioners Mr. Asit Kumar Banerjee Mr. S.N. Chattopadhyay For the Respondent The petition has been filed by the Union of India and the Officers of South Eastern Railway against the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in O.A. No. 265 of 2004 dated 5th May, 2005.
The Respondent was employed by the South Eastern Railway as a Tower Wagon Driver. According to him, he was entitled to running allowance which was payable to the Goods Train Drivers. The Respondent retired from service on 31st December, 2001 after which he claimed the running allowance and higher pensionary benefits. The Respondent filed the Original Application on 15th February, 2004 and relied on several documents to substantiate his case that running allowance was payable to the Tower Wagon Drivers as well. An order was issued by the Joint Director, Establishment (P & A), Eastern Railway, on 7th May, 1991 regarding payment of running allowance to the Tower Wagon Drivers. It reads thus :
"The question of classifying Tower Wagon Drivers as Running staff has been carefully examined by the Board and it has been decided that whereover the Tower Wagon Drivers are not being treated as Running staff, they may be classified as Running Staff for all purposes prospectively with immediate effect. Such of the Tower Wagon Drivers reclassified as Running staff should be also paid the running allowance at the rates applicable for Goods Drivers category, prospectively. Past cases decided otherwise 2 shall not be reopened.
This has the approval of the President and issues with the concurrence of the Finance Directorate of the Ministry of Railways".
The Tower Wagon Drivers from the Eastern Railway had also filed an Original application before the Tribunal for the running allowance. In fact, they were paid the running allowance and after a certain period of time, it was sought to be recovered from their salary. Aggrieved by that, they had approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal had decided their Applications being O. A. Nos. 321 of 2001 and 1059 of 2001 by concluding that the Tower Wagon Drivers must be treated equivalent to the Goods Train Drivers for all purposes. The decision in the aforesaid Original Applications was challenged by the Railways in this Court by filing W.P.C.T. No. 97 of 2002. The judgments of the Tribunal in the aforesaid Original Applications have been upheld by this Court by its judgment dated 2nd March, 2005.
Aggrieved by that decision, the Petitioners preferred Civil Appeal No. 365 of 2007 before the Supreme Court of India. The judgment and order of the Tribunal and this Court have been confirmed by the Supreme Court. The Court has observed that there was no justification for affecting any recoveries from the salaries of the employees as they had already worked and received the salaries granted by the Union of India. While disposing of the Civil Appeal, the Supreme Court observed that its judgment would not affect the right of the Union of India to pass an appropriate order in relation to the pay scales applicable to any class of its employees, including the Respondents, in that case, afresh and in accordance with law. Mr. Roy, the learned Counsel appearing for the Railways/Petitioners, has submitted that what was applicable in the Eastern Railway was not applicable to the employees of the South Eastern Railway. He submits that the Eastern Railway had not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court that the duties performed by the Goods Train Drivers and the Tower Wagon Drivers were different. Their pay scales were different and, therefore, the Tower Wagon Drivers were not entitled to the running allowance which was payable to the Goods Train Drivers. This submission of Mr. Roy is unacceptable. An order was issued by the Railways on 7th May, 1991, which we 3 have reproduced above, indicating that with the approval of the President and the concurrence of the Finance Directorate of the Ministry of Railways, the question of classifying the Tower Wagon Drivers as Running Staff had been examined. It was decided that they would be re- classified as Running Staff prospectively with immediate effect and that they should be paid the running allowance at the rates applicable for the Goods Train Drivers. The past cases were not to be reopened. We are also unable to accept the submission of Mr. Roy that different conditions of service would be applicable to the Goods Train Drivers and the Tower Wagon Drivers employed in South Eastern Railway as compared to Eastern Railway. Both these Divisions of the Railways fall under the umbrella of the Indian Railways where one set of service conditions are applicable to all employees.
The Respondent was in service when this order of 7th May, 1991 was issued. Therefore, he is entitled to the running allowance, which was paid to the Goods Train Drivers.
We find no infirmity in the decision of the Tribunal. The petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates for the appearing parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
(Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Tapash Mookherjee, J.)