K. Sundaran vs Union Of India & Ors.

Applicant is a former Deputy Station Manager retired from Palakkad Division of the Southern Railway. He had commenced service on 20.09.1983 as Assistant Station Master and had retired as Deputy Station Manager. During the period from 2002 to 2008, he had worked as Train Superintendent which required to perform duty beyond 54 hours a week, which made him entitled to get Over Time Allowance (OTA) for 3894 Hrs. Now, the grievance of the applicant is that even though part of OTA has already been paid, allowance for 2596 Hrs remain to be paid covering the period from 2004-2008.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that earlier he had moved Madras Bench of this Tribunal twice, along with others. In Annexure A-1 order in OA No.363/2012 dated 21.12.2012, the Applicant was No.5 . Then, the Standing Counsel for the Railways had submitted that orders had already been passed sanctioning OTA. Thus the OA was disposed of. Again the applicant along with 7 others moved the Madras Bench of the Tribunal with OA No.37/2015 and that OA was disposed on 05.07.2016 allowing to make a comprehensive representation and directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation within six weeks from the date of submitting the representation. Both the proceedings were conducted while he was working in Trivandrum Division.

Meanwhile, the applicant was transferred from Trivandrum Division to Palakkad Division. Citing Annexure A-5, it is submitted that the entire service records were forwarded to Palakkad Division along with Annexure A-6, which is an OTA summary of Train Superintendents for the period from 14.11.2004 to 21.06.2008. It is shown that the applicant had worked for 2596 Hrs overtime for that period and was entitled to get Rs.4,02,166/-.

The applicant, as already stated, retired from service. The grievance of the applicant is that he has not been paid OTA for 2596 Hrs. Thus, he has approached this Tribunal seeking a declaration that he is entitled to get OTA for the above period, as admitted in Annexure A-6 and for a direction to Respondent No.4 to sanction and disburse OTA for the above period with interest at GPF rates.

The period of payment claimed by the applicant covers 2004-2008. Annexure A-6 was issued on 10.03.2020. The applicant had retired on superannuation on 31.05.2020. But he moved the Tribunal only on 21.08.2024. The Original Application is not yet admitted; it has been moved along with MA No.857/2024 seeking to condone the delay of 1268 days in filing the OA. The applicant submits that he was suffering from Lumbar Disc Prolapse (L4-L5) since 06.06.2020 and has been undergoing continuous treatment at NSV Siddha Chikitsalaya,Coimbatore , that he had been suffering from excruciating pain that restrained him from prosecuting the proceedings. In support of his contention, he has produced Annexure MA-1 Medical Certificate dated 02.09.2024 as well.

Respondents have opposed their prayer. They have also opposed the application for condoning the delay. Referring to Bhoop Singh vs. Union of Inida {(1992) 3 SCC 136}, it is submitted that each days' delay has to be explained and delay remains to be not explained. Therefore, as preliminary objection of bar under limitation has been raised by the respondents.

However, it is stated that the claim of the applicant for OTA from 2004-2008 is still lying with them. They have already called for certain documents from the applicant and the matter is pending before Southern Railway Headquarters, that they have not taken a decision on the same.

After hearing counsel on both sides, it is very clear that the applicant has not tendered satisfactory and convincing reasons for condoning such huge delay in moving the Original Application. Even though Annexure A-5 and Annexure A-6 are relied on, those documents are of the year 2020. The applicant had also retired on superannuation in May 2020. Thereafter, nothing is available to show that he was prosecuting the matter. In the circumstance, in my view, on the the ground of delay alone, the OA is liable to be rejected.

If the applicant had raised the claim within time, the respondents would have to oblige the claim. From the contentions of the respondents, it is clear that they are still awaiting production of certain additional documents and orders from the headquarters. That means his right is not lost but cannot seek a remedy through the Tribunal. In the light of the delay, the matter cannot be considered by the Tribunal. MA No.857/2024 is rejected. Resultantly, the OA is also to be rejected.

However, I make it clear that this order will not stand on the way of the applicant making available documents called for by the respondents and it is open to the respondents to consider the claim, in accordance with law.

The OA is disposed of. No costs.