Union Of India & Ors vs U.S. Meena & Ors

Siddharth Mridul, J

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 2nd June, 2016 in O.A. No. 1802/2014 titled as “U.S.

Meena & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.â€; and order dated 7th September, 2016 in Review Application No. 186/2016 titled as “Union of India &

Ors. vs. U.S. Meena & Ors.â€​ in O.A. No. 1802/2014, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.

The facts, which are relevant for the adjudication of the present petition are adumbrated in brief as follows:-

(a) The respondents (the petitioners therein) were working at the relevant time on various posts in Cash and Pay Department of the Northern

Railways and were entitled to payment of honorarium for performing extra duties beyond the regular working hours, in accordance with the Rules and

Regulations of the Government of India; governing the Railway Department.

(b) The respondents were aggrieved by a Circular dated 25th July, 2013, whereby, the Railway Board instead of revising and enhancing the rates of

honorarium, fixed the maximum ceiling limit for payment of the same to the staff of Cash and Pay Department, with retrospective effect i.e. from

01.01.2010 onwards.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/Railways has invited our attention to an understanding ostensibly arrived at between the

parties, which is recorded as a Note of Discussions dated 14th June, 2013, wherein it has been recorded as follows:

“2. After detailed discussion it was decided in the meeting held today that a maximum ceiling limit for payment of honorarium to individual staff of

Cash and Pay department viz. cashiers and other cash and pay staff in a financial year from 01.01.2010 onwards, who disburse salaries and

allowances, productivity linked bonus, all arrears including Pay commission arrears etc. to staff, shall not exceed 25% of his/her annual basic pay plus

grade pay. This ceiling limit would be reviewed for a downward revisions after one year.

Henceforth, sanction of honorarium would be accorded by the GM with the concurrence of FA&CAO subject to this ceiling of 25%. No case of

sanction of honorarium need to be sent to Railway Board for sanction.â€​

It would be submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the applications of respondents for honorarium, pending disposal

before issuance of the said Circular dated 25th July, 2013, would not be covered by the submission made on their behalf before the learned Central

Administrative Tribunal; to the effect that honorarium “sanctioned†by the Railway Board prior to the issue of the said Circular need not be

reopened.

It would be further submitted that the ceiling stipulated in the said Circular dated 25th July, 2013 is applicable to all Cash and Pay Department

Office staff including Shroffs.

In other words, the solitary submission made on behalf of the Railways is that where bills claiming honorarium had been presented by the concerned

respondents but had not been “sanctioned†prior to the issuance of the said Circular dated 25th July, 2013, the said bills will be subject to revised

honorarium rates, with ceiling.

In this behalf, the learned Central Administrative Tribunal observed in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment in OA No. 1802/2014 dated 2nd June,

2016, as follows:

“7. We have heard the counsel for the both sides. Through letter dated 07.09.2013 the Railway Board has now clarified that cases of honorarium

relating to period prior to 25.07.2013 are not to be reopened and, therefore, this takes care of the grievance of the applicant in OA No. 1157/15.

However, letter dated 07.09.2013 uses the word “sanctionedâ€. Therefore, the applicants case in OA No. 1802/2014 does not get covered by this

circular because though the bills claiming honorarium presented by the applicants they had not been “sanctioned†prior to 25.07.2013. Therefore,

the honorarium not being “sanctioned†is result of failure on behalf of the respondents but because of this the respondents are depriving them of

the higher rates and applying letter dated 25.07.2013.â€​

Resultantly, the learned Central Administrative Tribunal issued the following directions:

“We are, therefore, of the opinion that claim of these applicants for period prior to 25.07.2013 also be disposed of in accordance with the rate

applicable w.e.f. 01.07.2009 and to that extent circular dated 07.09.2013 will stand modified i.e. honorarium due prior to 25.07.2013 will be sanctioned

as per rates effective from 01.07.2009.â€​

However, the matter did not rest there and Railways filed a Review Application being RA No.186/2016 in OA No.1802/2014, against the said order

dated 2nd June, 2016. The Review Application came to be disposed off by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal by an order dated 7th

September, 2016, in the following terms:

“1.This Review Application (RA) has been filed against the order dated 2.06.2016 passed by us in OA 1802/2014.

The only error apparent in the order is that the date 7.09.2013 occurring in para 7 and 8 of the order should actually be 9.10.2013 as the Circular is

dated 9.10.2013, as rightly mentioned in para 2 of the order. Therefore, the date of 7.09.2013 occurring in para 7 and 8 of the Tribunal’s order be

corrected as 9.10.2013.

On other aspects, we find that the RA is nothing but an attempt to reargue the matter, which cannot be entertained.

The RA is disposed of with the above direction, in circulation.

MA Nos. 2686/2016 and 2692/2016 also stand disposed of.â€​

In relation to the subject dispute before us, it would be pertinent to refer to a subsequent clarification dated 09.10.2013 issued by the Railway

Board, Ministry of Railways, Government of India, to the subject Circular dated 25th July, 2013. The said clarification is extracted hereinbelow:

“(i) Honorarium sanctioned by the Board prior to the issue of the letter dated 25.7.2013 need not be reopened, and

(ii) The ceiling stipulated in the letter ibid is applicable to all Cash and Pay Office staff including Shroffs.â€​

Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the case record, we are of the view that the submission made on

behalf of the petitioners is a self-serving one. The applicants entitled to honorarium at higher rates; prior to the said Circular dated 25th July, 2013,

cannot be visited with the consequence of delay and failure on part of the Railways to sanction the pending bills claiming honorarium and, resultantly,

cannot be deprived of the said reimbursement of honorarium without ceiling.

In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that the impugned orders dated 2nd June, 2016 and 7th September, 2016, do not

suffer from any infirmity so as to warrant any interference by this Court in the exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In the result, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

No order as to costs.