AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
The Review Applicants are the Original Applicants in the O.A.982/2018. That O.A., along with six connected cases were disposed of by a common order on 04.11.2025. The common thread of claim was non-granting of overtime allowance to Senior Technicians, Technicians, A/C Coach Attendants, Helpers etc. attached to A/C coaches, when they performed duties beyond 96 hours in two weeks. The applicants contend that they are working in the category of 'continuous' cadre. When they perform duties beyond 96 hours in a fortnight, they are entitled to get overtime allowance in accordance with the provisions of Railway Servants (Hours of Work and Period of Rest) Rules, 2005. When that was denied, they approached the Tribunal seeking grant of overtime allowance.
The respondents denied the claim. After looking into the precedents and the Rule position, this Tribunal found that they are entitled to get overtime allowance. However, it was found, on the basis of the decision in Union of India and another v. Tarsem Singh [(2008) 8 SCC 648], that they are entitled to claim overtime allowance only during the period of three years immediately prior to the institution of the O.A. The O.A. was disposed of on the following lines:
“22.As mentioned earlier, the applications are lacking in particulars. The applicants have not stated the details of over time duty performed by them for three years immediately prior to the filing of the applications. Moreover, it is also patent that many of the applicants have already been paid atleast some amounts towards OTA, which is liable to be adjusted/set off. In such an eventuality, I notice that in Annexure-A3 order this Tribunal had made a direction on the following lines:
“13.In the result, the OAs are allowed in terms of Annexure Al order, subject to a verification by the respondents regarding the quantum of OTA already obtained by the applicants in respect of the period mentioned in these OAs and deducting those amounts from the quantum of OTA payable to them. For this purpose the applicants (some of them have already retired) are directed to submit the due drawn statement in respect of the period during which they have worked overtime, to the Divisional Personnel Officer, Trivandrum Division of the Southern Railway. Such statements shall contain the name, post held by the applicants and period during which the over time is claimed, the OTA if any already received and also the trains in which they were engaged for work. Such statements filed shall reach the office of the Divisional Personnel Officer within three months from the date of receipt of a copy this order. The Divisional Personnel Officer shall then examine the claims with reference to the records available with the respondents and shall make arrangements to pay the OTA less already paid. The aforesaid official shall furnish the details of the OTA so calculated with reference to the statements made by the applicants, to each of them. This exercise, including payment of OTA in terms of Annexure Central Administrative TribunalA/1 order, shall be completed by the Divisional Personnel Officer within two months from the last date prescribed for receiving the statements as directed above.“
23.On the same lines, therefore, the applicants are directed to furnish the details of the over time duty performed by them beyond 96 hours a fortnight during three years immediately prior to the institution of the O.A. giving all details to the Divisional Personnel Officer within two months from today, who shall then process the same and release the benefits to the applicants within two months thereafter.
The Original Applications are allowed to the above extent. No costs.“
That order is produced as Annexure-RA1. Now, the applicants submit that they had made claim for the period from 01.01.2012 till the date of filing the O.A. When they were working as Technician / A/C Coach Attendant, their duties were classified as 'continuous'. They wanted benefits in terms of Annexures-A1 to A3, which were granted to similarly situated employees.
Further, it is submitted that the overtime allowance being wages, it is the statutory duty of the employer to pay the same as stipulated in the Rules. Such a view has been upheld by this Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court.
According to the applicants, the claim for overtime allowance from 01.01.2012 give them recurring cause of action, the ratio in Tarsem Singh, quoted supra, has no effect. It being a continuous cause of action, bar under limitation is not applicable. Moreover, Muster Roll is a permanent record. Details of hours of work, duty time, overtime duty performed by the employees etc. must be available with the respondents. Entries in the overtime register have to be made up-to-date as per the standing instructions and Railway Board orders. In the light of the decision of this Tribunal in O.A.988/2018, which stands upheld in OP(CAT) No.40/2025, finding of the Tribunal that, the claim for overtime allowance beyond three years prior to the institution of the O.A. cannot be processed, is an error apparent on the face of the records. Denying the entire benefit to the applicants in the light of the earlier decision is highly discriminatory.
Similarly, based on the decisions in Sarva Shramik Sanghatana (K.V) Mumbai v. State of Maharashtra and others [(2008) 1 SCC 494] and Safia Cholakkal v. State of Kerala [2023 (6) KLT 814], it is submitted that decision has to be taken only by the authority. Basing on the decision in Sasikumar v. Pathanamthitta District Co-operative Bank Ltd [2019(1) KLT SN 35], it is stated that, overtime allowance being part of wages, denial of it is a continuing wrong and denial of arrears of overtime allowance is an error apparent on the face of the records.
On behalf of the respondents, Senior Divisional Personnel Officer filed an objection. According to him, the applicants, under the guise of the Review Application, are seeking re-consideration of the finding rendered by the Tribunal, which is an attempt to re-argue the matter and is beyond the scope of jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Its jurisdiction can be exercised only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record or any new evidence which could not be produced earlier despite due diligence. Applicants could not point out any such error or discovery of new material, warranting review. Finding regarding restriction of arrears to a period of three years prior to the institution of the O.A. is based on the settled legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh, quoted supra. The applicants had moved this Tribunal after considerable delay and hence cannot claim arrears for the entire period from 2012 onwards.
Respondents have submitted that reliance placed on the order in O.A.988/2018 is misconceived. Relief granted in another O.A. cannot automatically entitle the applicants to seek similar reliefs particularly when the facts, pleadings and issues were independently considered in the present case. So, according to them, the R.A. is liable to be dismissed.
Heard Sri.P.K.Madhusoodanan, learned counsel for the Review Applicants and Sri.N.Sreejith, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel on both sides elaborately argued based on the above stated averments in the respective pleadings. It is not necessary for the Tribunal to reiterate the scope of reviewing the order in the backdrop of the grounds specified in Rule 1 of Order 47 CPC. I have already extracted the penultimate paragraphs of the order. The applicants had sought to grant them overtime allowance for the period starting from 2012 onwards whereas the O.A. was filed in 2018. After considering the rival contentions and materials and also in the light of the dictum in Tarsem Singh's case, it was held that they can claim overtime allowance only for the period of three years starting immediately prior to the institution of the O.A. Merely for the reason that the applicants are aggrieved by the decision, the same cannot be considered as a ground for review. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, even assuming that such a conclusion was erroneous, that will not give rise to an application for reviewing the order.
Relying on the decision in Sasikumar, quoted supra, it was urged that denial of arrears of overtime allowance, being wages, is a continuing wrong. I have my own doubt as to how far that dictum would advance the case of the applicants. Here, the applicants wanted to say that they were denied overtime allowance from 2012 onwards. The immediate question raised for consideration is whether it is a continuing wrong giving rise to recurring cause of action. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balkrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare and others v. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan and others [AIR 1959 SC 798] has explained the concept of continuing wrong in the backdrop of Section 23 of the Limitation Act thus:
“31.........It is the very essence of a continuing wrong that it is an act which creates a continuing source of injury and renders the doer of the act responsible and liable for the continuance of the said injury. If the wrongful act causes an injury which is complete, there is no continuing wrong even though the damage resulting from the act may continue. If, however, a wrongful act is of such a character that the injury caused by it itself continues, then the act constitutes a continuing wrong. In this connection it is necessary to draw a distinction between the injury caused by the wrongful act and what may be described as the effect of the said injury. …..........”
Here, as noticed earlier, the grievance of the applicants is that they were denied overtime allowance from 2012 onwards. However, they moved this Tribunal only in 2018. The non-payment of overtime allowance forCentral Administrative Tribunal a particular month is a wrongful act causing injury, which is complete during that month itself. Similarly, denial of overtime allowance for the months of 2013, 2014 etc. also have become complete when the respective months end. On the other hand, if the grievance of the applicants was that they were denied the benefits of MACP or fixation of pay, the effect of the same must be held recurring. In the former case, cause of action had arisen on the last date of the month when the overtime allowance was denied. It does not have any effect on the pay and allowance in the subsequent months despite it caused injury to them. On the other hand, in the latter case if fixation of pay was not done or MACP was not given on a particular date illegally, it will have recurring effect on every month they draw their salary.
In that way, non-payment of overtime allowance in 2012 or three years beyond the institution of the O.A. has no recurring effect in the pay and allowances of the applicant. It cannot be held that non-payment of overtime allowance gave rise to recurring cause of action.
The fact that the applicants are working in cadres classified as 'continuous' has no connection whatsoever with recurring or continuing cause of action. These are concepts distinct and different.
Even going by Articles 7 or 113 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation is three years. In the former case, time from which period begins to run when the wages accrue due. In the latter case also, the period is three years when the right to sue acrues.
It is always said that limitation is a statute of repose and bar of cause of action in a Court of law, which is otherwise lawful and valid because of undesirable lapse of time has been made on a well accepted principle of jurisprudence and public policy. The object of law of limitation is that there should be an end to litigation.
I do not know whether in the earlier O.A. such a question had cropped up for consideration. Whatever it may be, such a restriction was imposed based on the dictum in Tarsem Singh, quoted supra.
As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, the applicants could not make out any error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new facts, which could not be considered by the Tribunal. If an erroneous view was taken by the Tribunal, it is open to the applicants to resort to appropriate legal remedies and not by seeking review.
It has also come out that the respondents in O.A.130/2019, which was disposed of along with the instant O.A. have challenged the vires of the order before the Hon'ble High Court in OP(CAT)121/2026, which is pending. On that premise also, the R.A. is not maintainable.
Resultantly, the Review Application is dismissed. No costs.
List of Annexures
Annexure-RA1: True copy of the final order dated 04.11.2025 in O.A.No.180/00982/2018, on the file of this Hon'ble Tribunal