Ram Shanker & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors.

Present Original Application (O.A.) has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following main relief(s):-

The facts, in brief, are that the applicant is an employee of the operating department and posted on the post of Cabinman at Patara Railway Station from January 2012 to April 2016, and after attaining the age of superannuation, he retired on 30.04.2016.

The grievance of the applicant is that the respondents are taking 12 hours working in a day and not granting any extra rest and overtime allowances to the applicant when he raised the objection and filed an application to the authorities, the Station Master obtained his signature on papers with pressure for the purpose and stated he is refusing allotment of the quarter. In this regard, the applicant has also filed a representation dated 06.08.2026 (Annexure A-4) to the respondents, and when no action was taken by the respondents he filed the Original Application No. 920/2017 which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 12.010.2017 directing the respondents to decide the representation of the applicant by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

In compliance of the aforesaid order, respondent No.3, Sr. Divisional Operating Manager, Jhansi has passed the order dated 04.12.2017, which is impugned in the present case and rejected the claim of the applicant for the reasons stated in the impugned order.

Against the impugned order, the applicant has moved a representation dated 04.01.2018 (Annexure A-6) and stated that in an identical matter in OA No.1392/2016 (Rana Pratap Singh vs. Union of India & Ors) a direction was issued to the respondents to decide the claim of the applicant for granting overtime allowance and 2 rest in a week to the applicant in that OA, and in compliance of the same, the the respondents has paid the overtime allowance and one extra rest in a week to the applicant in that OA. However, the order passed by the respondents for granting the relief is not enclosed by the applicant in this case.

On notice, the respondents have filed counter reply and submitted that the quarter was allotted to the applicant, but he refused it in writing. Due to this refusal, the employee became eligible for HRA (House Rent Allowance) but not for double rest. The Railway Authority has paid the HRA. Furthermore, according to the E.I. (Essentially Intermittent) Roster, if the quarter is not available, the working hours are 60 hours per week. If the quarter is available and refused, the working hours are 72 hours per week.

The employee is well-versed in the rules and regulations of the service, so there was no reason for him to sign the refusal of the quarter. If the applicant had not signed the refusal, he would have been eligible for double rest instead of HRA. The applicant's claim that the Station Master pressured him into refusing the quarter is false. The applicant refused to take the quarter because his village was just 8 km from the station.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that at Patara Railway Station, there are no quarters available for employees in the categories of Cabinman and Pointsman. Despite this, the respondents are neither providing one extra rest day per week nor granting any overtime allowances for the extra work, as stipulated by the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM). According to Para 4023 of IREM, employees in the operating (running) department are prescribed to work 54 hours per week. If employees work up to 72 hours per week, they are entitled to one extra rest day and overtime payment.

On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents stated that the quarter was allotted to the applicant, but he refused it in writing. According to the E.I. (Essentially Intermittent) Roster, if the quarter is not available, the working hours are 60 hours per week, and if the quarter is available and refused, the working hours are 72 hours per week. The applicant worked only for the prescribed period as his duty, so there is no reason to grant him overtime allowances.

The applicant has not filed a rejoinder affidavit to rebut the submissions made by the respondents in their counter affidavit.

Heard the arguments advanced by Shri S.M. Ali, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri Saurabh, learned counsel for the respondents, and perused the pleadings available on record.

I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both learned counsel and perused the submissions and records on file. The applicant, an employee of the operating department at Patara Railway Station, raised grievances regarding working conditions, overtime allowances, and refusal of quarter allotment. The respondent No.3, Sr. Divisional Operating Manager, Jhansi, issued an order rejecting the applicant's claims after due consideration of the representation and previous Tribunal order. The applicant subsequently moved a representation citing a similar case for comparison but did not provide the specific order granting relief.

In response, the respondents contended that despite quarter allotment being offered and refused by the applicant, which entitled him to House Rent Allowance (HRA) but not double rest, the Railway Authority fulfilled its obligations under the E.I. Roster guidelines. As per Policy EI Roster, the rules to give the double rest are as under:-

The applicant's assertion of undue pressure from the Station Master to refuse quarter allotment was disputed by the respondents, stating the applicant's familiarity with service regulations and if he had any grievance against his officer, he could have filed a complaint or informed a higher authority. However, he did not take any action until his superannuation.

Under these circumstances, the Tribunal finds no merit in the applicant's claims for overtime allowances and additional rest days, considering the operational guidelines outlined in the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) and the specific circumstances regarding quarter allotment and refusal. Therefore, the Original Applicant is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.

There shall be no order as to costs.

All pending Miscellaneous Applications (M.As), if any, shall be considered disposed of. The registry is directed to take appropriate action to remove the M.As accordingly.