Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY:

D.P.MOHAPATRA, J MOHAPATRA, J.
Leave granted.
The appellants who were appointed as Traffic Apprentices in Southern Railway prior to May 15, 1987, have filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short the CAT) dated October 4, 1996 in OA No. 1096 of 1996 dismissing the case with the observation that it would be appropriate for the applicants to approach the Supreme Court for any clarification/review of the judgment in the case titled Union of India and others vs. M. Bhaskar and others 1996 (4) SCC 416. The controversy which arose in that case was regarding the claim of Traffic Apprentices appointed prior to 15-5-1987 that they should be given the scale of pay of Rs.1600-2660, benefit of which was available to Traffic Apprentices recruited after 15-5-1987. Similar claims were raised before different benches of the CAT.

There had been divergence of opinion between the different benches, some accepting the claim of pre 1987 Traffic Apprentices for the higher scale of pay, some other benches taking a contrary view. The Ernakulam bench of CAT had quashed the memorandum dated 15-5-1987 issued by the Railway Board in which it was provided that the higher scale of pay would be admissible only to the Traffic Apprentices recruited after the date of the memorandum. These conflicting views taken by different benches of the CAT came up for consideration by this Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. M. Bhaskar and others (supra), in which a Bench of three learned Judges held inter alia (i) that Rule I-A of the Indian Railway Establishment Code which had come to be made pursuant to the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution permitted the Railway Board to issue necessary instructions regarding recruitment in the lowest grade and the memorandum dated 15-5-1987 having been issued in exercise of that power, the Board had valid authority to issue the memorandum; ii) that since the recruitment of apprentices under the impugned memorandum was to man the posts, not of Assistant Station Masters, Assistant Yard Masters etc. as before, but of Station Masters and Yard Masters and the standard of examination for the apprentices to be recruited after 15-5-1987 was required to be higher than that which was prevailing, giving them higher pay scales or reducing the period of their training, could not be said to be d iscriminatory, arbitrary or unreasonable. iii) That the cut off date 15-5-1987 is not arbitrary since the court felt satisfied that the date is of relevance and the memorandum as given came to be issued in the circumstances noticed in the judgment. This Court upheld the validity of the memorandum. The conclusions arrived at by this Court were summed up in paragraph 17 of the judgment which reads as follows:

In the meanwhile, it is directed that the Status quo with regard to reversion in rank and reduction in pay scales shall be maintained, as it exists today."

The main thrust of the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the appellants was that the observations and directions given by this Court in M. Bhaskar's case (supra) particularly in paragraph 18 thereof are unsustainable since it was passed without giving any notice to the appellants and/or other similarly placed employees who were seriously prejudiced by such directions. Elucidating the contentions, the learned counsel submitted that the appellants who had been given fitment in the higher scale of pay, Rs.1600-2660 and on that basis some of them had got further promotions should not have been subjected to the directions in the judgment of this Court particularly when the special leave petition filed by the Union of India and the Railways against the judgment of CAT (Madras Bench) dated 4th of December, 1989 in OA No. 322 of 1988 and 488 of 1987 (the appellants were applicants in OA 322 of 1988) accepting their claim for the higher scale of pay had been dismissed in limine by this Court. In any view of the case, submitted the learned counsel, the principle of natural justice required that the appellants should have been given notice and afforded an opportunity of hearing before the order prejudicially effecting their interest was passed. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents on the other hand contended that in the context of the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the controversy raised, this Court rightly passed the order, issuing the directions in paragraph 18 of M. Bhakar's case (supra) for the purpose of bringing about uniformity amongst all the employees similarly placed, that is, those who were recruited as Traffic Apprentices prior to 15-5-1987. The further submission of the learned Addl. Solicitor General was that this Court taking note of the hardship which may be caused to the appellants and other similarly placed employees issued the further direction that no recovery shall be made of the amount which they might have received in the higher scale of pay. In the submission of the learned Addl. Solicitor General, the directions in paragraph 18 of the judgment were issued with a view to do complete justice between all pre-1987 Traffic Apprentices and therefore calls for no interference.

From the conspectus of the views expressed in the decided cases noted above it is clear that this Court has invoked the power vested under Section 142 of the Constitution in different types of cases involving different fact situations for doing complete justice between the parties.

In the case on hand the controversy relates to the scale of pay admissible for Traffic Apprentices in the Railways appointed prior to the cut-off date. The controversy in its very nature is one which applies to all such employees of the Railways; it is not a controversy which is confined to some individual employees or a section of the employees. If the judgment of the tribunal which had taken a view contrary to the ratio laid down by judgment of this Court in M. Bhaskar's case (supra) was allowed to stand then the resultant position would have been that some Traffic Apprentices who were parties in those cases would have gained an unfair and undeserved advantage over other employees who are or were holding the same post. Such enviable position would not only have been per se discriminatory but could have resulted in a situation which is undesirable for a cadre of large number of employees in a big establishment like that of the Indian Railways. To avoid such a situation this Court made the observations in paragraph 17 of the judgment. At the cost of repetition we may reiterate that since the main plank of argument of the appellants was that since they were not parties in the case they had no opportunity to place their case before this Court made the observations in paragraph 17 of the judgment as aforementioned we specifically asked learned counsel appearing for the parties to place the argument in support of their challenge to the observations made by this Court on merits. No point of substance assailing the observations on merits could be placed by them. The only contention made in that regard was some of the employees who were given benefit in the judgments of the CAT have got further promotions and they may lose the benefit of such promotion in case the observations made in paragraph 17 of the judgment are allowed to stand as it is. We are not impressed by the contention raised. If some employees were unjustly and improperly granted a higher scale of pay and on that basis were given promotion to a higher post then the basis of such promotion been on a non-existent; the superstructure built on such foundation should not be allowed to stand; This is absolutely necessary for the sake of maintaining equality and fair play with the other similarly placed employees. However, in our considered view, it will be just and fair to clarify that any amount drawn by such employees either in the basic post (Traffic Apprentice) or in a promotional post will not be required to be refunded by the employee concerned as a consequence of this judgment. This position also follows as a necessary corolary from the observations made by this Court in paragraph 18 of the judgment in M.Bhaskar's case (supra).