Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
S Ganesan vs M/O Railways on 20 October, 2023
1 OA 851/2018 af/w batch
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00851/2018, OA/310/00693/2018, OA/310/00694/2018,
QA/310/00695/2018, OA/310/00706/2018, OA/310/00707/2018,
OA/310/00708/2018, OA/310/00709/2018, OA/310/00720/2018 &
0A/310/00852/2018
Dated the Jothday of Detyber Two Thousarid Twenty Three
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, Member (J)
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, Member (A)
OA $51/2018 :-
K.Pappathi, W/o. Late G. Kamalanathan,
Retd. Technician I, --
No. 6/12A, Thulukkanathamman Koil Street,
Periya Milagupparai,
Trichy 1.
By Advocate M/s. Ratio Legis
Vs
1.The Union of India rep by,
The General Manager,
Southern Railway,
Park Town, Chennai 600003.
2.The Chief Workshop Manager,
Central Workshop, S.Rly,
Ponmalai.
By Advocate Ms. Meera Gnanasekar
OA 693/2018 :-
S.Kasinathan,
.- Applicant
... Respondents
{)
Retd. Technician I,
No. 1/1282B, Vasenveli,
7* Cross, Right Hand Side,
Eretta Vaikkkal, Trichy 620102.
By Advocaie M/s. Ratio Legis
Vs
The Union of India rep by,
The General Manager,
Southern Railway,
Park Town, Chennai 600003.
By Advocate Ms. Meera Gnanasekar
OA 694/2018 :-
K.Loganathan,
Retd. Senior Technician,
No. 2/71, Koothur Post,
Mannachanaliur Taluk,
Trichy.
By Advocate M/s. Ratio Legis
Vs
The Union of India rep by,
The General Manager,
Southern Railway,
Park Town, Chennai 600003.
By Advocate Ms. Meera Gnanasekar
OA, 695/2018 :-
R.Govindarajan,
Retd. Senior Technician.
No. 17, 2™ Street,
OA $51/2018 a/w batch
.-. Applicant
....Respondents
.... Applicant
... Respondents
Moogambigai Nagar, M.Kk.Kottai,
Trichy 621011.
By Advocate M/s. Ratio Legis
Vs
The Union of India rep by,
The General Manager,
Southern Railway,
Park Town, Chennai 600003.
OA 706/2018 :-
S.Subramanian,
Retd. Senior Technician (Diesel Fitter),
No. 144, 11" Street,
Ex-servicemen Colony,
Ponmalai, Trichy 620004
By Advocate M/s. Ratio Legis
Vs
The Union of India rep by,
The General Manager,
Southern Railway,
Park Town, Chennai 600003.
By Advocate Mr. A.Abdul Ajees
OA 707/2018 :-
V.Gowthaman,
Retd. Senior Technician,
No, 1A, Sangeethapuram,
Tennur, Trichy 17.
By Advocate M/s. Ratio Legis
OA 851/2018 afw batch
... Applicant
.. Respondents
.. Applicant
... Respondents
....Applicant
i)
Vs
The Union of India rep by,
The General Manager,
Southern Railway. .
Park Town, Chennai 600003.
By Advocate Mr. A.Abdul Ajees
OA 708/2018 :-
P.Tamiiselvan,
Retd. Junior Engineer U,
Plot No. La-A/New No. 2/134,
ARN Avenue, Ponneripuram,
Trichy 620004.
By Advocate M/s. Ratio Legis
Ys
The Union of Indiacrep by,
The General Manager,
Southern Railway,
Park Town, Chennai 600003.
By Advocate Mr. A.Abdul Ajees
OA 709/2018 :-
P.Ravi,
Retd. Senior Technician,
No. 133B, Pillai Manager Savaria,
EDA Street, Trichy 620008.
By Advocate M/s. Ratio Legis
Vs
The Union of India rep by,
OA 851/2018 a/w batch
.... Respondents
... Applicant |
.... Respondents
...Applicant
The General Manager,
Southern Railway,
Park Town, Chennai 600003.
By Advocate Mr. A.Abdul Ajees
OA 720/2018 :-
S.Ganesan,
Retd. Technician I,
No. 4, Simon Colony,
Sundaram Pillai Thottam,
Edamalaipattipudur, Trichy.
By Advocaze M/s. Ratio Legis
Vs
The Union of India rep by,
The General Manager,
Southern Railway,
Park Town, Chennai 600003.
By Advacate Ms. Meera Gnanasekar
OA 852/2018 :-
N.Anbalagan, .
Retd. Senior Section Engineer,
No. 2/313, Sri Rajappa Nagar,
Eilakkudi, Kattur PO,
Trichy 620019.
By Advocate M/s. Ratio Legis
Vs
1.The Union of India rep by,
The General Manager,
Southern Railway,
OA 851/2018 a/w batch
.... Respondents
.... Applicant
.. Respondents
.... Applicant
©
6 OA 851/2018 a/w batch
Park Town, Chennai 600003.
2.The Chief Workshop Manager,
Central Workshop, Ponmaiai, Southern Railway. ....Respondents ,
By Advocate Ms. Meera Gnanasekar
7 OA 8351/2018 a/w batch
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Member(A)) Since the issue involved and the subject matter as well as the relief prayed for are similar, a common order is being passed in these ten OAs.
2. The prayers for relief to the applicants are exactly similar as those in OAs No. 1671/2017 and 968/2018, wherein orders have been pronounced by this Tribunal on 19.10.2023.
3. While the applicants have themselves made prayer in nine of the ten OAs, in the remaining OA ie., OA 851/2018, the wife of the deceased railway employee has submitted the representation, dt. 11.01.2017. In OA No. 707/2018, the applicant, Mr. V. Gowthaman, is shown to have filed representation. However, it is not known whether it has actually been submitted since there is no acknowledgement, nor any orders disposing of his representation, dt.
03.08.2017. All the-other representations are dated 11.01.2017.
4, Smt. K. Pappathi, wife of the deceased employee, late G. Kamalanathan has filed OA No. 851/2018, wherein she has prayed for the following relief:-
No. 1804/2017 of 24.03.2018 and to quash the same, and further to direct the respondents to arrange to pay retirement gratuity as determined in para 4.6 of the OA in terms of Gratuity Act, 1972 in place of that paid under Railway Pension Rules with other attendant benefits with admissible interest....."
5. The representations have been duly dealt with by the concerned 8 OA 851/2018 a/w batch authorities and have been given identical disposal by rejecting them through communication, dt. 24.03.2018, which have been annexed with the OAs. The following table gives the details of representations and their impugned rejection orders:-
Case No. 'Date ofjDate of impugned 'representation order OA851/2018 11/01/17 24.03.2018 OA 693/2018 ----AI/01/17 24.03.2018 .
OA 694/2018 | LL/OL/17 24.03.2018 OA 695/2018 11/01/17 24.03.2018 ~ OA 706/2018 | 11/01/17 24.03.2018 OA 707/2018 ----:103/08/17 Nil OA 708/2018 11/0/17 24.03.2018 7 OA 709/2018° |11/0717 ° «(24.03.2018 OA 720/2018 {11/01/17 24.03.2018 OA 52/2018 11/01/17 28.11.2017
6. In OA No. 852/2018 filed by Shri. N. Anbalagan, Retd. Senior Section Engineer, his representation, dt. 11.01.2017, has been disposed of by the Chief Works Manager, Central Workshop, Ponmalai, vide order, dt. 28.11.2017, wherein it has been mentioned as follows:-
"s..YOu ave hereby informed that as per the extant instructions, your request for calculating the gratuity in terms of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is not acceded to sirice you are governed under Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 and thus disposes 2f your representation dated 11.01.2017, in compliance with the orders of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench passed in O.A. No. 1443/2017." .
9 OA 851/2018 a/w batch It is worth mentioning that this Tribunal, vide its order, dt. 08.09.2017, in OA No. 1443/2017 filed by the applicant herein in OA 852/2018, viz., N. Anbalagan had ordered, as follows:-
a keeping in view of the limited relief sought by the Jearned counsel for applicant, the respondent is directed to consider the representation of the applicant at Annexure A-2 dt. 11.01.2017 in accordance with law and the relevant rules and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,"
7. The respondents have filed a reply to ali the OAs in this batch, except OA 6953/2018 and 720/2018. They have opposed the relief claimed by the applicants and prayed for dismissal of the OAs.
8. In the case of OA No. 707/2018, we find that there is no acknowledgement of the representation, dt. 03.08.2017, purportedly sent by the applicant, Shri. V. Gowthaman, to the General Manager, Souther Railway, Chennai, There is also no order by any authority which has been impugned in the OA. Even if it is assumed to be a bonafide representation, the issue therein remains identical along with the relief sought as in the other OAs.
9. Since the entire claim of the applicants before this Tribunal now is akin to similarly placed applicants in OA No. 1671/2017 and OA No. 968/2018, which were dismissed vide order, dt. 19.10.2023, which reads thus, 10 OA §51/2018 a'w batch
9. Heard both sides and perused the records.
10. Under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, ""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 iniplied, 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." (emphasis added). Further, the respondent is not a Railway Company as defined under the Indian Railways Act, 1890. Therefore, the applicants are not employees as per Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, The applicants were holding civil posts in the Union of India, under the Ministry of Railways, and, hence. they are not governed by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. They are clearly governed by the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. Section 2(e) of the Gratuity Act, 1972 would not become applicable when a person ix eligible for Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.
1i. Learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the order in WP No. 46017/2017 and connected Writ Petitions. The overriding effect of Section 14 of the Gratuity Act, 1972, is that payment of gratuity is in the interest of employees and that gratuity would be payable to the employees, But, the exclusion made in the latter part of Section 2(e) of the same Act cannot be ignored in this case.
12. The applicants cannot enjoy terminal benefits under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as well as the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. The respondents have contended that, even assuming (but not admitting) that the applicant is covered under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, he will get Gratuity under the provisions contained in Section 4(2). However, we need not go into that calculation at all.
13. 'It is admitted fact that the applicants have joined railway service in the year 1981 and 1978, and they retired in the years 2016 and 2014, respectively. As per their representations, dt. 11.01.2017 and 11.01.2017 (same date for both), "pension and retirement gyatuity, etc., were arranged in terms of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993." Now, both have represented for splitting the benefits under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, and the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Such a request'is absurd, as one can be a beneficiary under only one set of rules, under the extant provisions. The applicants cannot enjoy one portion of the benefits under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 and the remaining part as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, There is no such provision as per law and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court is quite clear in this respect.
14. By orders. dt. 22.09.2017, of the Chief Personnel Officer, Southern 1] OA 851/2618 afw batch Railways, and; dt. 24.03.2018, of the Chief Workshop Manager, Southern Railways, the representations of the applicants were disposed of, on the orders of this Tribunal in OA Nos. 1167/2017 and 1809/2017.
15. The Headquarters Office, Personnel Branch, Chennai of the Southern Railways, in the communication, dt. 22.09.2017, to Shri. N. Shanmugasundaram {applicant in OA 1167/2017), while turning down his request, has clearly mentioned, :
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India Vs Manicklal Banerjee [2006 SCC [L&S] 1959] has held that interpretation clause contained in Sec 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 Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 for payment of Death Cum Retirement Gratuity is therefore not covered under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
The applicant having got all the benefits under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, cannot now contend that he is governed by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
In the light of all the above it is clear that the applicant is excluded from the purview of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and hence his request cannot be accepted."
16. The Central Workshop, Personnel Branch, Ponmalai, of the Southern Railways, in the communication, dt. 24.03.2018, to Shri. W. Doraikkannu (applicant in OA No. 1809/2017), while rejecting his representation, has explained as follows:-
* saensaees you do not come under the purview of "payment of Gratuity Act 1972" as you are employed in Railways (a Central Government Organisation) and are governed by the Railway Pension Rules 1993 which provide for payment of gratuity.
In a similar case Hon'ble Supreme Court {UOT vs Manicklal Banerjee -- 2006 SCC {L&S] 1959} has observed as under:-
"\.eLhe definition, thus, excludes an employee holding civil post under the Central Government and governed by another © 12 OA 851/2018 afw batch Act or Rules providing for gratuity......... * The Railways Act, 1989 defines "Government railway" as 'a railway owned by the Central Government'. Further the Railway Act defines "railway administration" in relation to a Government Railway as 'the General Manager of a Zonal Railway and "railway servant" as 'any person employed by the Central Government or by a railway administration in connection with the service of a railway'.
As per the above definition of Railways Act a railway servant is an employee of Central Government and therefore the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 is not applicable to him.
Further as per Chapter | -- Rule 2(4) of Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1993, the said rules shail apply to any person entering a railway service on or after the 16" November 1957. Further under the head Definitions under Rule 3 of the said Rules, sub-rule 19 defines "pension" as including gratuity except when the terms pension is used in contra distinction to gratuity but does not include dearness relief.
Thus, even assuming as correct, your contention that you are eligible for Gratuity under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, then you would not be eligible for Pension under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1993, as it has been laid down under Rule 3 (19) of ihe RS (Pension) Rules 1993 that pension includes Gratuity. The same view has been taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajkot Municipal Corporation vs. Aniruddh Fulshankar Shukla decided on 19.04.1999.
in view of the above you are not eligible for Gratuity under the payment of Gratuity Act 1972 as the same is not applicable to n you.
17, The above orders, rejecting the claims of the applicants are found to be well reasoned and based on the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court. As far as the ratio of the judgment relied upon by the applicants is concemed, it is not applicable to the facts of the applicants' case. Hence, we find ne grounds for interference with the impugned rejection orders. The OAs are, accordingly, dismissed.
3 OA 851/2018 a/w batch
18. No order as to costs."
10. Hence, no need is felt to repeat the issues and our observations thereon, once again, in the present matters. In view of our above order, the issue involved in the present OAs is no more res integra and is squarely covered already. The concerned authorities have cited the rule position and have already disposed of the representations, except one as pointed out above, through well-reasoned and speaking orders, which do not call for any interference.
ll. Accordingly, OAs are dismissed. No order as to costs. .