Union of India (UOI) and Others vs Habib-Ur-Rehman Khan and Others

Anil Kumar, J.—The petitioners, Chairman of Railway Board and others challenge the order dated 6th August, 2009 in O.A. No. 77/2009, "Sh. Habib-Ur-Rehman Khan and Ors. v. The Chairman, Railway Board" directing petitioners to refix the pay of the respondents after adding the element of running allowance and to re-compute the pension relying on the case of Krishan Lall Sharma and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. O.A. No. 1273/2005 decided on 2nd January, 2007 which order was confirmed by the High Court, and against the order of the High Court though a SLP has been filed, however, the orders of the High Court and the Tribunal have not been stayed.

The respondents who are the retirees after 1st January, 1993 had sought reckoning of running allowance as part of pay and refixation of pay and recomputation of pensions with arrear relying on the decision in a writ petition being W.P(C) No. 2937/2007 decided on 18th September, 2008, "Union of India and Ors. v. Sh. Ganesh Das and Ors.".

The respondents at the time of retirement had held the post of Senior Loco Inspectors/Loco Inspectors and according to them as per decision dated 7th July, 1960 in respect of Clause G(i), the running allowance paid to them had to be treated as part of their emoluments.

The respondents relied on G. C. Agarwal v. CIT contending that since some of the Loco Inspectors have been held to be entitled for treating the allowance paid to them as part of their emoluments, they are also entitled for same treatment. In G.C. Ghosh (supra) the Supreme Court had held as under:

The petitioners who are employees of Eastern Railway have contended that they are entitled to the same treatment as is being accorded to their counterparts in the Northern Railway in pursuance to the aforesaid decision rendered by the Allahabad High Court which has become final as between the Railway Administration on the one hand and the employees of the Northern Railway on the other. In the light of the command of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India the same treatment is required to be accorded to the petitioners regardless of the fact that they are serving in Eastern Railway unless it is shown that there is some distinguishing feature, for according a different treatment. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Railway Administration is not in a position to contend that there is any such special distinguishing feature to justify denying of uniformity in treatment. The prayer of the writ petitioners must accordingly be granted to the aforesaid extent.

Relying on Krishan Lall Sharma and Ors. (Supra) the respondents thus claimed consideration of the running allowance as part of their emoluments and for fixing of their pension on the basis of the same.

The claim of the respondents was contested by the petitioners on the ground that Loco Inspectors holds a stationary post and, therefore, they are not entitled for running allowances. The petitioners also challenged the jurisdiction of the Tribunal at Delhi on the ground that the respondents had worked at Uttar Pradesh.

The plea of the petitioners that the Central Administrative Tribunal lacked the jurisdiction was declined on the ground that the respondents had been residing after retirement for considerable period within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and have sought recomputation of their pension after taking into consideration the running allowances which were paid to them. Relying on Promotee Telecom Engineers Forum and Others Vs. D.S. Mathur, Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, the Tribunal held that in case of loco inspectors the running allowance has been considered as part of emoluments, and granted which order has been confirmed in the High Court, therefore, there is no ground not to grant similar relief to the respondents in the present facts and circumstances.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners have not been able to make out any grounds as to why the running allowance which was paid to Loco Inspectors is not to be treated as part of their emoluments and if the running allowance paid to them is to be included in their emoluments. Therefore, the respondents are entitled for refixation of their pension after considering running allowance as part of their emoluments. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has also not been able to contend successfully as to why the similar relief which have been granted to similarly placed Loco inspectors should be denied to the respondents.

In the circumstances, no grounds have been made out by the petitioners which would have entitled them for an interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the order of the Tribunal dated 6th August, 2009.

The writ petition in the facts and circumstances is without any merit and it is, therefore, dismissed.