Indian Railway Permanent Way Inspectors Association & Anr. Vs. The Union of India & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No.3370 of 1997
(From the Judgment and Order dated 13.09.1996 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras in O.A.No. 1369 of 1993)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 13.09.1996 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras in O.A.No. 1369 of 1993)
Petitioner: Indian Railway Permanent Way Inspectors Association & Anr.
Respondent: The Union of India & Ors.
Apeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No.3370 of 1997
(From the Judgment and Order dated 13.09.1996 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras in O.A.No. 1369 of 1993)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 13.09.1996 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras in O.A.No. 1369 of 1993)
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 24, 1997
Appearances:
P.S. Poti, Senior Advocate Manoj Pillai and Ms. Malini Poduval, Advocates with him for the Petitioners.
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Scale of Pay – Claim for higher scale due to better duties performed – Govt.’s decisions After evaluating nature of duties and responsibilities of different set of officers Govt. did not find any reason to revise pay scale in its decision – A representation seem to have been made before V Pay Commission and report given to Govt. – Petitioner’s pay scale to be looked into by Govt. – Held Tribunal’s order consistent with law and no interference required.
Scale of Pay – Claim for higher scale due to better duties performed – Govt.’s decisions After evaluating nature of duties and responsibilities of different set of officers Govt. did not find any reason to revise pay scale in its decision – A representation seem to have been made before V Pay Commission and report given to Govt. – Petitioner’s pay scale to be looked into by Govt. – Held Tribunal’s order consistent with law and no interference required.
Held:
It is seen that the Government after evaluating the nature of the duties and responsibilities of the different sets of officers, as mentioned in the order, came to the conclusion that they perform substantially the same and similar duties and responsibilities and that, therefore, they did not find any reason to revise the pay scales of Permanent Way Inspectors, Gr. III to the scale of pay higher than one fixed by the Railway Department in the Railway Services (revised pay) Rules, 1986 as recommended by the IVth Pay Commission. A representation seems to have been made before the Vth Pay Commission and the Vth Pay Commission has given the report to the Government. Therefore, based on the submission of the report of the Vth Pay Commission and acceptance by the Government, the petitioners’ pay would be looked into. The Tribunal’s order is consistent with law. Therefore, it does not warrant any interference. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. This special leave petition arises from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras, made on 13.9.96 in O.A. No.1369/93. The petitioners are the Permanent Way Inspectors in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300/-. They had sought the pay scale of Rs.1600-2660/- and when that was not given, they approached the Tribunal which has rejected their claim. Thus, this special leave petition.
2. It is their contention that the Permanent Way Inspectors, Gr.III, Permanent Way Mistries and Direct Track Maintenance Mistries are separate cadres and are subordinate to the Petitioners. Therefore, they are entitled to higher scales of pay. It is true that, in an earlier batch of four applications by similarly situated employees, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench has given direction to grant the pay scales claimed by them. After the special leave petition was disposed of by this Court and an order was made in a contempt petition by the Tribunal, the Government considered the matter in the light of the decision given by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore. On consideration thereof, by proceedings dated July 12, 1991, the Government have stated as under:
“In obedience duty directions issued by the Honourable Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in the order dated 27.7.89 passed in application Nos.2029 & 2039 to 2041/1988, is advised the Ministry of Railway (Railway Board) in consultation with the Ministry of Finance, which is the nodal ministry for deciding and on issuance pertaining to pay scale and relative aspect of Central Government employees have made due evaluation of the nature of duty and responsibility of the PW1’s Grade III with that of PWM & DTM on such evaluation of all aspect it has been observed that Kholder of the post of PWI Grade III performs substantially the same or similar duties and responsibilities and therefore there are no circumstances to revise the scale of pay of PWI Grade III to the scale of pay higher than the one fixed in the Railway Services (revised pay) rule 1986 issued by the President pursuant to the recommendation made by the IVth Pay Commission.”
3. This was accepted by the Bangalore Tribunal in the contempt proceedings. When the petitioners raised the similar contention, the Tribunal did not accept their contention. It is seen that the Government after evaluating the nature of the duties and responsibilities of the different sets of officers, as mentioned in the order, came to the conclusion that they perform substantially the same and similar duties and responsibilities and that, therefore, they did not find any reason to revise the pay scales of Permanent Way Inspectors, Gr. III to the scale of pay higher than one fixed by the Railway Department in the Railway Services (revised pay) Rules, 1986 as recommended by the IVth Pay Commission. A representation seems to have been made before the Vth Pay Commission and the Vth Pay Commission has given the report to the Government. Therefore, based on the submission of the report of the Vth Pay Commission and acceptance by the Government, the petitioners’ pay would be looked into. The Tribunal’s order is consistent with law. Therefore, it does not warrant any interference.
4. The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.
1. This special leave petition arises from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras, made on 13.9.96 in O.A. No.1369/93. The petitioners are the Permanent Way Inspectors in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300/-. They had sought the pay scale of Rs.1600-2660/- and when that was not given, they approached the Tribunal which has rejected their claim. Thus, this special leave petition.
2. It is their contention that the Permanent Way Inspectors, Gr.III, Permanent Way Mistries and Direct Track Maintenance Mistries are separate cadres and are subordinate to the Petitioners. Therefore, they are entitled to higher scales of pay. It is true that, in an earlier batch of four applications by similarly situated employees, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench has given direction to grant the pay scales claimed by them. After the special leave petition was disposed of by this Court and an order was made in a contempt petition by the Tribunal, the Government considered the matter in the light of the decision given by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore. On consideration thereof, by proceedings dated July 12, 1991, the Government have stated as under:
“In obedience duty directions issued by the Honourable Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in the order dated 27.7.89 passed in application Nos.2029 & 2039 to 2041/1988, is advised the Ministry of Railway (Railway Board) in consultation with the Ministry of Finance, which is the nodal ministry for deciding and on issuance pertaining to pay scale and relative aspect of Central Government employees have made due evaluation of the nature of duty and responsibility of the PW1’s Grade III with that of PWM & DTM on such evaluation of all aspect it has been observed that Kholder of the post of PWI Grade III performs substantially the same or similar duties and responsibilities and therefore there are no circumstances to revise the scale of pay of PWI Grade III to the scale of pay higher than the one fixed in the Railway Services (revised pay) rule 1986 issued by the President pursuant to the recommendation made by the IVth Pay Commission.”
3. This was accepted by the Bangalore Tribunal in the contempt proceedings. When the petitioners raised the similar contention, the Tribunal did not accept their contention. It is seen that the Government after evaluating the nature of the duties and responsibilities of the different sets of officers, as mentioned in the order, came to the conclusion that they perform substantially the same and similar duties and responsibilities and that, therefore, they did not find any reason to revise the pay scales of Permanent Way Inspectors, Gr. III to the scale of pay higher than one fixed by the Railway Department in the Railway Services (revised pay) Rules, 1986 as recommended by the IVth Pay Commission. A representation seems to have been made before the Vth Pay Commission and the Vth Pay Commission has given the report to the Government. Therefore, based on the submission of the report of the Vth Pay Commission and acceptance by the Government, the petitioners’ pay would be looked into. The Tribunal’s order is consistent with law. Therefore, it does not warrant any interference.
4. The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.
