Union of India vs M. Hussain

T.B. Radhakrishnan, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the Railways and the learned counsel for the respondents, who were the applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

The question that was raised before the Tribunal is as to whether the applicants were entitled to Post-Retirement First Class Complimentary Pass, as is evident from paragraph No. 11 of the order of the Tribunal, that is challenged in this original petition.

The learned Tribunal thought that it is not necessary to go into the disputed position raised by the parties in view of the decision in O.A. No. 799 of 2012-P.T. Sasidharan v. Union of India and another. We think that the said approach is insufficient to finally speak on the rival contentions. We say so because, what the Tribunal had borrowed from P.T. Sasidharan''s case to do so, is the fact that by adding 30% element to the basic pay, the applicant in that case had a total amount, which was above the eligibility criteria of Rs. 5,375/-. The issue in hand is not one that could be answered merely on the reasoning that the applicants in the case from which this original petition arises had also a total pay component, which is above the eligibility criteria of Rs. 5,375/-. The question to be determined is whether the employees involved in this litigation are entitled to First Class Post-Retirement Complimentary Pass on the basis of the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, which has found expression through Government decisions leading to proposal for amendment of the Railway Servants (Pass) Rules, 1986. The Railways, in their pleadings before the Tribunal, had also raised the issue that the said revision operates only from the date on which that order is issued or given effect to. While it would not be proper for us to speak on that finally, this being a matter under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, we are clear in our mind that the Tribunal ought to have addressed the rival contentions and answered the issues raised by the parties.

We may also record that the learned counsel appearing for the respondents (applicants before the Tribunal) points out that even without the amendment, his clients would be entitled to benefits as claimed in the original application. We leave that issue also open for consideration at the hands of the learned Tribunal.

For the aforesaid reasons, this original petition is entitled to succeed, though we do not express anything on the merits of the rival contentions.

In the result, this original petition is allowed setting aside Ext. P4 order of the Tribunal with the request to the Tribunal to give expeditious consideration of O.A. No. 581 of 2012. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 24.03.2014. No costs.