Chandra Dey & Ors Vs. UOI and Ora  INSC 431 (27 August 1998)
Nanavati, S.Rajendra Babu Nanavati. J.
appellants were employed as Volunteers by the Eastern Railway to help the staff
to check ticketless travel. They were paid Rs. 8/- per day. They had worked as
such for a long time without break. By an order dated 31.1.86, the D.R.M., Sealldah
withdrew the scheme of utilising services of Volunteers. The appellants,
therefore, challenged that order before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The said order was set aside and the Railway Administration was directed to
treat all of them as casual employees with temporary status.
of that order, the Railway Administration did not treat them as temporary
employees and extend the benifits available to temporary emplloyees. Therefore,
they filed O.A.No. 439/88 before the Tribunal. That application was heard alongwith
O.A.Nos. 139 and 420/88. All the three applications were disposed of by the
Tribunal by a common order dated 31.7.90. The relevant part of the order is
quoted below : -
After giving our anxious consideration to the facts of these three cases, the
materials on record and the submissions of the learned counsel for both the
parties, we find merit in the contention of the applicants that the respondents
have sought to avoid implementing the judgment in Samir Kumar Mukherjee's case
by denying all the benefits specified in that judgment to the applicants.
Since, in view of the special circumstances of the cases, the applicants were
held to be casual employees with temporary status, entitled to the same service
conditions as other temporary railway employees, there cannot be any question
of absorbing them as casual labourers as 'fresh facts' as that would be contrary
to the judgments in Samir Kumar Das(supra). Hence, the impugned Annexure -F
dated 30.10.87 to CA 139 of 87 has to be quashed.
view of our discussion above, we allow these applications and give the
following direction : - (i)Annexure - F dt. 30.10.87 to OA 139 88 is hereby
the applicants in OA 139 of 88, OA 439 of 88 and OA 420 of 88 shall be treated
as casual employees with temporary status w.e.f. 25.3.86, 3.10.86 and 25.8.87
respectively and their service conditions will be governed by the relevant
rules of the Railways.
fitment as such casual employees against appropriate posts shall be done by the
respondents on the basis of their qualifications and experience from the
aforesaid dates within four months from the date of communication of this
regards pay and allowances, they will get the said benefits from the date of
this judgment as the Tribunal has earlier held while ordering reinstatement of
the applicants that they would be paid daily wage of Rs. 8/- as was being paid
before their dis-engagement. However, those of the applicants who have already
got any benefit in respect of pay and allowances before the passing of this
judgment shall continue to enjoy the same.
appears that pursuant to this order of the Tribunal, the Railway Administration
of Asansol division fixed pay of the applicants in one of those applications
notionally, with effect from the date on which they were granted temporary
status by the Tribunal. As that benefit was not extended by the Sealdah
Division to the appellants, they approached the Tribunal by way of O .A. No.
1197, 1240 and 1243/93 and prayed for a direction to the Union of India and the
railway authorities to extend similar benefit to them. The Tribunal dismissed
those applications and therefore the applicants are now before this court.
contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that once the Tribunal by
its order dated 31.7.90 declared that the appellants were to be treated as
casual employees with temporary status, w.e.f. 25.3.86, 3.10.86 & 25.8.87,
as the case may be and that their service conditions shall be governed by the
relevant rules of the Railways, it became the duty of the Railways to grant
them all the benefits available to temporary employees, right from the date
they acquired the temporary status under the order of the Tribunal. It was
submitted that what was denied to them by the Tribunal was payment of arrears
of wages from the date they acquired the status of temporary employees till the
date of the order of the Tribunal; but they are entitled to get their pay fixed
notionally in appropriate pay scales right from the date they acquired
temporary status, and from the date of the order of the Tribunal they should be
paid their wages as per the pay fixed notionally in that manner. This
contention was raised before the tribunal also and it was rejected on the
ground that benefit of pay and allowances was to be five only from the date of
the order and till then they were to be paid daily wage of Rs. 8/-. In our
opinion, the Tribunal was right in taking that view of its earlier order dated
view of the special facts and circumstances of these and other cases which were
decided together, the appellants and other applicants though casual employees
were ordered to be given temporary status. Their services were already
terminated. Not as a recognition of their right that they were ordered to be
reinstated but it was by way of solving a human problem that the Tribunal
wanted them to be taken back in service not as fresh employees but as casual
employees with temporary status. A middle course was chosen by the Tribunal and
therefore it ordered that benefit of pay and allowances as an employee with
temporary status will begin from the date of its order. They were ordered to be
treated as casual employees with temporary status with effect from earlier
dates in order to preserve their seniority for other purposes.
because one Member of the Tribunal on a subsequent occasion interpreted that
order in a different manner and because of that some persons working under the Asansol
Division got a wrong benefit, it would not be proper to extend it to persons
working in other Divisions. The Division Bench of the tribunal was right in
observing that the view taken by the Single Member was wrong as it was not
consistent with the decision of 31.7.9o. The Division Bench judgment dated
31.7.90 was not challenged and it has thus acquired finality. The view taken by
the Tribunal in these cases is correct and does not deserve interefered with.
The appeals are therefore dismissed.