REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2811 OF 2022

(Arising from S.L.P(Civil) No. 6526/2022 @

Diary No. 27620/2020

Union of India and others …Appellants

Versus

Munshi Ram …Respondent

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2812 OF 2022

(Arising from S.L.P(Civil) No.6530/2022 @

Diary No. 27618/2020

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2813 OF 2022

(Arising from S.L.P(Civil) No.6531/2022 @

Diary No. 27616/2020

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2814-2815 OF 2022

(Arising from S.L.P(Civil) Nos. 5043-5044/2022

J U D G M E N T

M.R. SHAH, J.

1.Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common

judgment and order dated 21.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi

at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4535/2019 and other allied writ

petitions, by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petitions

preferred by the respective private respondents herein and has set aside

the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and thereafter

1

directed the appellants – Northern Railway to count 50% of their service

as Commission Vendors, prior to their absorption, as “qualifying service”

for grant of pensionary benefits, the Union of India (Northern Railway)

and others have preferred the present appeals.

2.Catering service in Northern Railways prior to 1955 were being

managed through private contractors. Subsequently, the departmental

catering and vending services were started and the erstwhile staff of the

private contractors was taken as Commission Vendors. All Commission

Vendors were paid commission on sales turn over achieved by them

instead of paying regular salaries. Thereafter, a memorandum dated

13.12.1976 was issued by the Railway Board suggesting that the

Commission Vendors may be absorbed as Railway Employees. It was

stated therein that action would be taken to progressively absorb the

Commission Vendors/Bearers in regular vacancies.

2.1There have been a series of litigations on the issue of absorption

of the Commission Vendors in the Railways. On 13.12.1983, this Court

disposed of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6804-05/1982 (Saital Singh v.

Union of India) wherein a direction was issued for progressive

absorption of the Commission Bearers/Vendors in term of para 3 of

Memorandum dated 13.12.1976. Subsequently, in an order dated

8.9.1987 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1670/1987 in

Writ Petition No. 31364 of 1986 and other allied writ petitions in the case

2

of T.L Madhavan, General Secretary, AIRCS Workers Union v. Union

of India, reported in 1988 Supp SCC 437, a further direction was

issued regarding the progressive absorption of all persons working as

Commission Bearers/Vendors on various railway platforms belonging to

the Central Railway and South-Central Railway in terms of the same

memorandum dated 13.12.1976 “as and when vacancies to the posts of

bearers in the Railway Catering Service occur”. It was further reiterated

that as already directed the Railways would first absorb all the Bearers

registered in accordance with the aforesaid memorandum and thereafter

the Vendors who are registered and until all the Bearers and Vendors

are accordingly absorbed, the Railway Administration shall not recruit or

appoint any person either as a Bearer or Vendor on permanent basis in

the Railway Catering Service from any other source.

2.2Learned Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.

5175/1998 (Gurdas Ram & Others v. Union of India) was dealing with

a batch of writ petitions by Commission Vendors, who sought the relief of

regularization, and in the alternative, absorption in Group ‘C’ posts. By

judgment and order dated 5.11.2012, the learned Single Judge

negatived the plea of regularization, however, the other relief, viz.,

absorption against vacant Group ‘C’ posts was allowed, provided they

had not crossed the age of 59 years. The respective original writ

3

petitioners – respondents herein all were absorbed pursuant to the

above order of the learned Single Judge in Group ‘C’ posts in 2015.

2.3They then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal with

O.A. No. 219/2016 praying for further consequential relief of grant of

pensionary/retirement benefits. It was their case before the CAT that the

total service of each of the applicants rendered prior to their absorption

in the Railways should be counted towards “qualifying service” for the

purpose of such retirement/pensionary benefits. By judgment and order

dated 12.02.2016, the CAT dismissed the said OA by holding that since

the earlier judgment of the learned Single Judge declined the prayer of

regularization, it was not possible to entertain the plea for counting the

past service without questioning the absorption orders, even for

pensionary benefits.

2.4However, thereafter another Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No.

4079/2016 filed by one Munshi Ram (respondent in Civil Appeal No.

2811/2022), after following the decision of the Ernakulam Bench of the

CAT dated 4.6.2014 in OA No. 417/2013 and one other decision of the

same Bench, where identically situated applicants were granted the

relief of pensionary benefits, allowed the said OA 4079/2016. The

judgment and order passed by the CAT dismissing the OA and refusing

to grant any pensionary benefits to the Commission Vendors who were

subsequently absorbed by treating their earlier service rendered as

4

Commission Vendors, the original applicants filed the present Writ

Petition Nos. 12073/2016 and Writ Petition No. 3307/2017 before the

High Court.

2.5Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order

passed by the learned CAT passed in OA No. 4079/2016 granting the

relief of pensionary benefits by counting their service rendered as

Commission Vendors, prior to their absorption, the Union of India

preferred the present Writ Petition No. 4535/2019 before the High Court.

All the aforesaid three writ petitions came to be heard together by the

High Court. By the impugned common judgment and order, the High

Court has allowed the writ petitions preferred by the original writ petitions

– Commission Vendors who were subsequently absorbed and has

dismissed the writ petition preferred by the Northern Railways on the

ground that so far as in the other Railways, namely, Southern Railways

and Central Railways pursuant to the various orders passed by the

different High Courts/Tribunals, their past service rendered as

Commission Vendors have been counted for the purpose of pensionary

benefits, there is no reason to deny such relief to the Commission

Vendors/Bearers in the Northern Railways.

2.6Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common

judgment and order passed by the High Court holding that the services

rendered by the Commission Vendors/Bearers in the Northern Railways,

5

prior to their absorption, should be counted for the purposes of

pensionary benefits, the Union of India (Northern Railways) have

preferred the present appeals.

3.Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned Additional Solicitor General has

appeared on behalf of the appellants – Northern Railway and Shri

Sanjay Parikh, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the

original applicants – private respondents herein.

3.1Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned ASG has submitted that the short

issue in the present case is, whether Commission Vendors who were

absorbed into regular service are entitled to reckon 50% of the period of

service as Commission Vendors, prior to their absorption, as “qualifying

service” for grant of pensionary benefits. It is submitted, in other words,

whether Commission Vendors who are subsequently absorbed are

entitled to seek parity with regularised casual labourers, who by virtue of

Rule 2005 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Vol. II, 1991

(IREM) r/w Rule 31 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 (for

short, ‘1993 Rules’), are entitled to include 50% of their service as casual

labourers while computing qualifying service for grant of pensionary

benefits.

3.2It is submitted that as such the Commission Vendors have been

absorbed into regular service in the Indian Railways pursuant to (i)

Memorandum No. 76 dated 13.12.1976 issued by the Railway Board;

6

and (ii) the orders passed by this Court in various writ petitioners,

referred to hereinabove.

3.3It is submitted that it is an admitted position that the Commission

Vendors in the present case have not completed 10 years of service

after absorption and before retirement, which is mandatory for receiving

pensionary benefits. In the submitted that in fact in the case of one of

the appellants/petitioners – Munshi Ram, he has served only for a period

of three and half months approximately between his absorption on

16.07.2015 and superannuation on 31.10.2015.

3.4It is submitted that as such the respective Commission Vendors

who are subsequently absorbed in the Railways are claiming parity with

Casual Labourers and accordingly are claiming that 50% of their service

rendered as Commission Vendors prior to their absorption is to be

counted for qualifying service for pensionary benefits which is being

provided to the Casual Labourers.

3.5It is submitted that therefore the question which is required to be

considered is, whether can the Commission vendors claim the benefit of

their past service at par with the Casual Labourers? It is submitted that

to appreciate the above, the difference between the status of

Commission vendors and the Casual Labourers is required to be

considered. The fundamental difference between the status of

7

Commission Vendors and Casual Labourers is explained by Ms.

Madhavi Divan in the chart which is as under:

Casual Labourer Commission Vendor/Bearer

Mode of

Appointment

Done by Sr.

Subordinate

authorized to recruit

after sanction of

General Manager.

No such provision.

Age Limit 18-28 years relaxable

up to 05 yrs.

Not defined.

Wages Daily rate wages

governed by

Minimum wages Act.

Work on commission basis

after sale of products.

Regularization Absorption against

permanent post after

attaining Temporary

Status following due

procedure of

screening by a

committee of 03

officers.

No provision for their

regularization in railway

service. Respondents in this

case were absorbed in railway

service in compliance of Delhi

High Court’s Order.

Emoluments Wages, transport

allowance, leave,

medical treatment,

Work on commission basis.

Holidays, travel

concessions.

Seniority Seniorities are

maintained and

promotions in higher

grade are done

accordingly.

No seniority is maintained.

They work at different stations

on commission basis.

Working hours Fixed under hours of

employment

Regulations.

No working Hours fixed.

8

Termination from

service

Disciplinary and

appeal rules are

applicable on them.

Not applicable.

3.6It is further submitted that the Commission Vendors were engaged

on a purely contractual basis. The relevant terms of the proforma

contractual agreement entered into with the Commission Vendors are as

follows:

i. Clause 1: Commission vendors shall work on commission basis

[@Pg. 34 in Application for Addl. Docs. i.e. IA No. 137388/2021].

xxx xxx xxx

ii. Clause 8: Open to either party to determine this agreement by

giving one month’s notice without assigning any reason and without

any compensation [@Pg. 35 in Application for Addl. Docs. i.e. IA No.

137388/2021].

iii. Clause 9: Commission vendors are not entitled to any

remuneration except commission on sale of articles [@Pg. 35 in

Application for Addl. Docs. i.e. IA No. 137388/2021].

xxx xxx xxx

iv. Clause 13: Administration/Railways shall supply the articles to be

sold by commission vendors to the public travelling by train [@Pg. 35

in Application for Addl. Docs. i.e. IA No. 137388/2021].

xxx xxx xxx

v. Clause 16: Commission vendors shall not be treated as Railway

servant for any purpose [@Pg. 36 in Application for Addl. Docs. i.e.

IA No. 137388/2021].

It is submitted that from the above, it can be seen that there was

no master-servant relationship contemplated between a Commission

9

Vendor and the employer – Northern Railways. The remuneration was

only in the form of commission and further on no count was a

Commission Vendor was treated as a railway servant.

3.7It is submitted that on the other hand, the Casual Labourers stood

on different footing. The provisions relating to Casual Labourers found

in a separate Chapter XX in the Railway Manual (IREM) show the

difference in status, which are as under:

i) Rule 2001 [@page 30 in Application for Addl. Docs. i.e. IA No.

137388/2021]:

2001: (I) Definition of Casual labour - Casual labour refers to labour whose

employment is intermittent, Sporadic or extends over short period or

continued from one work to another. Labour of this kind is normally recruited

from the nearest available source. They are not ordinarily liable to transfer.

The conditions applicable to permanent and temporary staff do not apply to

casual labour.

Casual labour on Railway should ordinarily be employed only in the following

types of cases

.

(a) Casual Labour (Open Line).- Casual labour are primarily engaged to

supplement the regular staff in work of seasonal or sporadic nature, which

arises in the day to day working of the Railway system. This includes labour

required for unloading and loading of materials, special repair and

maintenance of tracks and other structures, supplying drinking water to

passengers during summer months, (recoupment of man-days lost on

account of absenteeism) patrolling of tracks, etc. casual labour so engaged in

the operation and maintenance of railway system is referred to as open line

casual labour, as distinct from project Casual Labour, described in para (b)

infra.

(b) Casual Labour (Project)- Casual Labour are also engaged on Railways

for execution of Railway projects, such as new lines, doubling, conversion,

construction of building, track Renewals, Route Relay interlocking Railway

Electrification, Setting up of new units etc. Casual Labour so engaged are

referred to as “Project Casual Labour”.

Such of those casual Labour engaged on open line (revenue) works, who

continue to do the same work for which they were engaged or other work

of the same type for more than 120 days without a break will be treated as

10

temporary (i.e. given “temporary status”) on completion of 120 days

continuous employment.

Casual Labour on projects who have put in 180 days of continuous

employment on works of the same type are entitled for 1/30th of the

minimum of the appropriate scale of pay plus Dearness allowance…

(ii) Grant of temporary status to project casual labour is regulated by

instructions separately issued by the Railway Board. As far as possible,

casual labourers required for new projects must be taken from amongst

those casual labourers. Who have worked on the open line/projects in the

past in preference to outsiders?

(ii) Seasonal labour sanctioned for specific works of less than 120 days

duration. If such labour is shifted from one work to another of the same type

and the total continuous period of such work at any time is more than 120

days duration, they should be treated as temporary (i.e. granted “temporary

status” after the expiry of 120 days continuous employment.

(emphasis supplied)

ii. Rule 2002 [@page 31 in Application for Addl. Docs. i.e. IA No.

137388/2021]:

2002. Entitlements and privileges admissible to Casual Labour.—Casual

Labour are not eligible for any entitlement and privileges other than those

statutorily admissible under the various Acts, such as. Minimum Wage Act,

Workmen's Compensation Act, etc. or those specifically sanctioned by the

Railway Board from time to time.

iii. Rule 2005 [@page 32 in Application for Addl. Docs. i.e. IA No.

137388/2021]:

xxx xxx xxx

2005. Entitlements and Privileges admissible to Casual Labour who are

treated as temporary (i.e. given temporary status) after the completion

of 120 day or 360 days of continuous employment (as the case may be).

— (a) Casual labour treated as temporary are entitled to the rights and

benefits admissible to temporary railway servants as laid down in 'Chapter

XXIII of this Manual. The rights and privileges admissible to such labour also

include the benefit of D&A Rules. However, their service prior to absorption in

temporary/permanent/regular cadre after the required selection/ screening

will not count for the purpose of seniority and the date of their regular

appointment after screening/selection shall determine their seniority vis-a-vis

other regular/temporary employees. This is however, subject to the provision

that if the seniority of certain individual employees has already been

determined in any other manner, either in pursuance of judicial decisions or

otherwise, the seniority so determined shall not be altered.

11

Casual labour including Project casual labour shall be eligible to count only

half the period of service rendered by them after attaining temporary status

on completion of prescribed days of continuous employment and before

regular absorption, as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary

benefits. This benefit will be admissible only after their absorption in regular

employment. Such casual labour, who have attained temporary status, will

also be entitled to carry forward the leave at their credit to new post on

absorption in regular service. Daily rated casual labour will not be entitled to

these benefits.

(emphasis supplied)

iv. Rule 2006 [@page 32 in Application for Addl. Docs. i.e. IA No.

137388/2021]:

2006. Absorption of Casual Labour in regular vacancies. — Absorption of

casual labour in regular Group ‘D’ employment may be considered in

'accordance with instructions issued by the Railway Board from time to time.

Such absorption is, however, not automatic but is subject, inter-alia, to

availability of vacancies and suitability and eligibility of individual casual

labour and rules regarding seniority unit method of absorption etc. decided by

the Railway Administration.

It is submitted that therefore the Commission Vendors cannot claim

the benefits at par with the absorbed Casual Labourers.

3.8It is further urged that the Casual Labourers are being granted the

benefits pursuant to the decision of this Court in the case of Union of

India v. Rakesh Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 388. That on an interpretation

of concerning Rule 31 of the 1993 Rules which provides for counting of

service paid from contingencies, this Court held that period of Casual

Labourers prior to grant of temporary status by virtue of note on Rule 31

has to be counted to the extent of 50% for pensionary benefits. It is

submitted that Rule 31 which fell for consideration before this Court

reads as under:

12

31. Counting of service paid from contingencies.—In respect of a

railway servant, in service on or after the 22nd day of August, 1968, half

the service paid from contingencies shall be taken into account for

calculating pensionary benefits on absorption in regular employment,

subject to the following condition, namely—

(a) the service paid from contingencies has been in a job involving whole-

time employment;

(b) the service paid from contingencies should be in a type of work or job

for which regular posts could have been sanctioned such as posts of

malis, chowkidars and khalasis;

(c) the service should have been such for which payment has been made

either on monthly rate basis or on daily rates computed and paid on a

monthly basis and which, though not analogous to the regular scales of

pay, borne some relation in the matter of pay to those being paid for

similar jobs being performed at the relevant period by staff in regular

establishments;

(d) the service paid from contingencies has been continuous and followed

by absorption in regular employment without a break:

Provided that the weightage for past service paid from contingencies shall

be limited to the period after 1-1-1961 subject to the condition that

authentic records of service such as pay bill, leave record or service book

is available.

Note.—(1) The provisions of this Rule shall also apply to casual labour

paid from contingencies.

(2) The expression “absorption in regular employment” means absorption

against a regular post.”

It is submitted that insofar as the Commission Vendors are

concerned, Rule 31 of the 1993 Rules shall not be applicable at all.

3.9It is further submitted that so far as the Commission Vendors are

concerned, there are no commensurate rules and therefore, Rule 31 of

the 1993 Rules which formed the basis of the judgment in Rakesh

Kumar’s case (supra) cannot be applied to the Commission Vendors

who occupy an altogether different status.

3.10It is submitted that as such Rule 14 of the 1993 Rules provides the

period which shall not be treated as service for pensionary benefits. It is

13

submitted that as per Rule 14(v) of the 1993 Rules, the period under a

covenant or a contract which does not specifically provide for grant of

pensionary benefits and/or the period on contract basis except when

followed by confirmation are not to be counted for pensionary benefits. It

is submitted that the respective Commission Vendors have been

rendering service under the contract which do not provide for grant of

pensionary benefits. They are not even paid regular salaries and they

were paid on the basis of the commission. It is submitted therefore by

applying Rule 14(v) of the 1993 Rules, service rendered as Commission

Vendors which are rendered under the contract and which do not provide

for grant of pensionary benefits, prior to their absorption, cannot be

counted for the pensionary benefits, otherwise the same shall be hit by

and/or contrary to Rule 14(v) of the 1993 Rules.

3.11It is submitted that insofar as Rule 14(xiv) is concerned, the

expression “confirmation” indicates beyond any manner of doubt that the

said sub-rule applies only in cases where there was a substantive post in

which a contractual employee was confirmed at a later stage. It is

submitted that however, this is not the case insofar as the Commission

Vendors are concerned. It is submitted that upon harmonious

interpretation of Rule 14(v) and Rule 24 it becomes clear that period of

employment as Commission Vendors will not constitute service for

pensionary benefits. It is submitted that the aforesaid Rules, namely,

14

Rule 14(v) and 14(xiv) have not been considered in any of the judgments

that have been passed by the Tribunals or the High Courts in its correct

perspective. It is submitted that the contractual terms between

Commission Vendors and the Railways specifically omits to mention any

entitlement to pension.

3.12It is submitted that the aforesaid fundamental differences between

Casual Labourers and Commission Vendors which relate to the mode of

appointment, nature of work, conditions of service, the applicable law,

the disciplinary proceedings etc. show that there can be no parity

between the two.

3.13.It is further submitted by Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned ASG that it is

required to be noted that some of the Commission Vendors insisted for

being absorbed in Group ‘C’ posts, rather than Group ‘D’ posts. Even,

these persons in particular including the respondents herein are seeking

selective parity with casual labourers as and when it suits their

convenience. Such Commission Vendors were granted Group ‘C’ posts,

pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Such

absorption was not a matter of right, but rather a concession granted to

them which cannot be used as a platform to seek benefits which were

never intended to be extended to them. It is submitted that this was the

precise basis for the learned CAT Delhi’s order dated 12.02.2016 in

another case concerning similarly situated Commission Vendors wherein

15

it was held that the Commission Vendors absorbed prospectively

pursuant to the High Court’s order dated 05.11.2012 were not entitled to

seek consideration of past service because seeking such a relief

amounts to seeking review of the High Court’s order directing their

absorption.

3.14It is vehemently submitted by Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned ASG

that in none of the judgments of the High Courts and the Tribunals which

have held against the Railways, considered the aforesaid differentia

between the casual labourers and the commission vendors and the law

on unequals not being treated equally. Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned ASG

has relied upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Haryana State

Electricity Board v. Gulshan Lal, (2009) 12 SCC 231; Uttar Pradesh

Power Corporation Ltd. v. Ayodhya Prasad Mishra, (2008) 10 SCC

139; and Union of India v. Muralidhara Menon, (2009) 9 SCC 304 in

support of her submission that as observed and held by this Court in the

aforesaid decisions that unequals cannot be treated as equals.

3.15Now so far as the reliance placed upon the dismissal of the special

leave petitions by this Court on earlier occasions, it is submitted that the

orders of dismissal passed by this Court on earlier occasions are either

on delay or are in any event summary dismissals. These are not

reasoned orders which tantamount to precedents under Article 141 of the

Constitution. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the decision of this

16

Court in the case of Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair, (2020) 5

SCC 421 (paras 48 & 49).

3.16Now so far as the findings recorded by the High Court that orders

in some cases have become final insofar as the Southern Railway and

Central Railway are concerned, it is submitted that merely because

orders in some cases have become final is no ground for seeking parity

in the present case. It is submitted that an illegality cannot be

compounded or perpetuated merely because it has been condoned or

committed in other cases. It is not open to the respondents to seek a

misplaced parity by seeking a perpetuation of an erroneous position in

law as laid down by the Tribunals and upheld by the High Courts. It is

submitted that there exists no right to negative equality. Reliance is

placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Gulshan Lal (supra)

(paras 31 to 35 and 43 to 47). Reliance is also placed on the decision of

this Court in the case of State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati,

(2019) 19 SCC 626 (para 39).

3.17Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned ASG has further submitted that if the

impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is not interfered

with, there shall be huge financial liability upon the Railways. On the

huge financial burden, Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned ASG has taken us to

the relevant paragraphs in IA No. 137388/2021, which are as under:

Financial implications

17

15. If the 50% of past service rendered as commission vendor/ bearers

were to be counted for computing the qualifying service for grant of

pensionary benefits, huge financial burden would fall upon the shoulders

of the public exchequer.

16. For Delhi Division alone, where only 57 commission vendors/bearers

are there at present, the financial burden would be more than Rupees 10

crores approx. For instance one Mr. Om Prakash (Respondent party in

SLP (C) Diary No. 27616/2020) was engaged as Commission Vendor on

commission basis on 17.02.1977 whose date of birth is 12.01.1956 and

absorbed in Railway on 27.07.2015. He was superannuated on

31.01.2016 when was drawing basic pay 18000 in Level 1 of 7th CPC.

As per the impugned Order, 50% of period from 17.02.1977 to 26.07.2015

comes to 19 years 02 months and 19 days if computed in compliance of

the judgment and order impugned in the present SLP. So the total

qualifying service would be 19 Years 8 months and 23 days. His total

pension would be Rs. 9000/- per month with admissible DA and Rs. 5000/-

family pension per month after demise of the retired employee.

Furthermore, the persons, so absorbed in regular service, who have

already retired without completing 10 years of service after their

absorption would also now become eligible for pensionary benefits which

lead to huge monetary expenditure to the public exchequer. It is therefore

clear that an employee who rendered only 6 months service after

absorption is to be paid Rs. 1,76,940/- lump sum and Rs. 9000/- per

month as pension for at-least 15 years (considering the life span of retiree

as 75 years). As per this illustration, Rs.16,20,000 as on average

excluding Dearness relief has to be paid to an employee who rendered

only about 6 months service after absorption.

17. In southern Railway itself, 1265 Commission Vendors/Bearers have

been regularized on the basis of direction issued by this Hon’ble Court till

2004. The Commission Vendors/Bearers, who are still in service after their

absorption into regular service, if given benefit of counting 50% pre

absorption service, would become entitled for MACP benefits which will

result in the pension and allied benefits also.

This financial impact shall be huge as it will apply to such Commission

Vendors/Bearers in all zones of Indian Railway across the country. There

are more than 1000 of such Commission Vendors/Bearers covered under

absorption scheme excluding those who had already retired from service

without completing 10 years of minimum qualifying service.

18. Zone wise status of the Commission Vendors/Bearers, number of

cases (pending and disposed) involving issues regarding computation of

50 % past service and its financial implication are being given below: -

Sl

No.

ZONE No. of court

cases

No. of Court

cases decided

No. of

Employee

Financial

implication

18

(Subject to

final

computation)

1 Northern

Rly.

13 7 57 Rs. 9 crores

approx. Plus

future pension

2 East Coast

Rly.

3 Nil Nil At present Nil.

Future

Financial

implication

will be

determined on

basis of the

decision

3 Central Rly. 4 1 69 Rs.

9,06,38,400 +

future pension

with DR

4 South

Eastern Rly.

43 Not Known 86

(70

absorbed)

Rs. 30 Lakhs

(approx) +

future pension

with DR

5 Southern

Rly.

36 3 1265 and out

of them, 282

have been

given benefit

as per order

of the Court.

Rs. 15 Crores

+ future

pension with

DR

6 South

Western Rly.

24 Not Known 32 Rs. 55,00,000

Approx +

future pension

with DR

7 South

Central Rly.

3 (Pending) Nil 180 Rs.85 Lakhs

(Approx.) +

future pension

with DR

8 Eastern Rly. 10 1 32 After impl. Of

court orders

the difference

is about 50202

(approx)

9 Western Rly. 7 5 62 Not

ascertained

yet. However

Future

Financial

implication

will be

determined on

basis of the

decision

10 North

Central Rly

NIL NIL NIL NIL

11 North Nil Nil Nil Nil

19

Frontier

Railway

12 West Central

Railway

Nil Nil Nil Nil

13 Soutj East

Central

Railway

Nil Nil Nil Nil

14 North

Western

Railway

Nil Nil Nil Nil

15 North

Eastern

Railway

Nil Nil Nil Nil

16 East Central

Railway

3 Nil Nil Not

ascertained

Future

Financial

implication

will be

determined on

basis of the

decision

1783

3.18Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the present

appeals by reiterating and emphasising that the Commission Vendors

are not entitled to seek parity of treatment with Casual Labourers insofar

as counting their past service before absorption is concerned for grant of

pensionary benefits.

4.All these appeals are opposed by Shri Sanjay Parikh, learned

Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respective employees –

Commission Vendors.

4.1Shri Sanjay Parikh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf

of the contesting respondents – respective Commission Vendors has

submitted that the employer in this case is the Railway Board under the

20

Ministry of Railways. There are 16 zones and 68 divisions in the

Railways. Employees working in different zones/divisions being under

the same employer - Railway Board, ought to be treated similarly. There

cannot be any discrimination, inter se, as it will violate Articles 14 and 16

of the Constitution.

4.2It is submitted that in the present case, the appellant – Union of

India – Railways has repeated the very same arguments, which were

earlier raised before various Tribunals, High Courts and before this Court

and which have been rejected. It is submitted that therefore it is not fair

and permissible in law to raise and repeat the same arguments every

time in pending litigations, when it has been given a quietus having

attained finality up to this Court.

4.3It is submitted that the respective respondents were recruited as

Commission Vendors on different dates between 1970-1989 in Delhi

based on non-statutory canteens after completion of all the required

formalities.

4.4Referring to the earlier D.O. letter dated 16.02.1974 from the

Railway Board, it is submitted that the names of the Commission

Bearers and Vendors should be registered in order of the length of their

service for their absorption in the permanent vacancies of bearers and

vendors in various departmental catering units to afford the main avenue

for absorption in the permanent order. It is submitted that in addition, it

21

was also mentioned in the D.O. letter dated 16.02.1974 that if there are

casual labourers/substitutes to be considered for regular absorption in

other Class IV categories, the Commission Bearers / Vendors should

also be considered along with them.

4.5It is submitted that as there was a delay in absorption, by letter

dated 13.07.1976 in paragraph 3, it was directed that action should be

taken to absorb progressively the Commission Bearers/Vendors in

regular vacancies. It is submitted that both expressions “regularization”

and “absorption” have been used in paragraph 3. It is urged that

therefore it was decided by the Railway Board to give the Commission

Bearers/Vendors the status of Railway employees by taking /absorbing

them on permanent vacancies.

4.6It is submitted that when the above D.O. letter dated 16.02.1974

read with letter of 13.07.1976 were not given effect to, a Writ Petition (C)

No.6804 of 1982 was filed before this Court under Article 32 of the

Constitution. It is submitted that the said writ petition came to be allowed

by this Court vide judgment and order dated 13.12.1983 and it was

directed that until all the bearers and vendors are absorbed as per D.O.

letter dated 13.07.1976, “the Railway cannot appoint any person either

as bearer or vendor on permanent basis in Railway service from any

other source”. It is submitted that this Court expressed hope that steps

to absorb bearers/vendors would be taken as early as possible. It is

22

submitted that the meaning and purport of the order was that all

vacancies of bearers/vendors in Railway shall be allocated for

absorption of Commission Bearers/Vendors and till that process is

completed, no appointment on permanent basis from any other source

shall be carried out.

4.7It is submitted that the issue again came up before this Court in the

case of T.L. Madhavan (supra). That this Court again reiterated what

was stated in the earlier order in Writ Petition (C) No.6804 of 1982. That

in paragraph 3, it was also clarified that the vendors and bearers so

absorbed in the “Railway Catering Service” shall be entitled to salary

from the date of their absorption.

4.8 It is submitted that however, the process of absorption was

inordinately delayed and therefore, the Member Staff – Railway Board

wrote a letter dated 12.01.2004 to the General Manager - Northern

Railway about inordinate delay in absorption of Commission

Vendors/Bearers. The attention of the General Manager, Northern

Railway was also drawn to the Orders passed by this Court. The Board

also referred to the letters dated 20.08.1996 and 06.11.2000 which were

written to expedite the process of absorption. In the letter dated

31.07.2001, the Railway Board had written to all the General Managers

to absorb the Commission Vendors/Bearers “in the Commercial

Department as well as in other departments", in view of the fact that

23

catering department on zonal railways had been frozen resulting in very

few vacancies arising therein.

4.9That the Railway Board issued another letter dated 02.08.2005

whereby it was decided that “all Commission Vendors/Bearers to be

absorbed, subject to medical fitness with age cut off as 59 years as on

01.04.2005 with education qualifications as read and write only”. It is

submitted that due to delay in absorption of the Commission

Bearers/Vendors, the Railway Board provided that even if the

Commission Bearers/Vendors have attained the age of 59 years but had

not superannuated, they will be absorbed.

4.10It is contended that from the aforesaid facts and the various orders

passed by the Railway Board and this Court, it would show that the

Commission Vendors/Bearers were taken in the Railway services by way

of absorption in view of the facts and circumstances prevailing then and

these Commission Bearers/Vendors were discharging duties similar to

those discharged by the vendors/bearers of the Railway canteen. It is

submitted that as such the delay in absorption by different

zones/divisions of Railway was in violation of this Court's orders.

4.11That in view of the delay and negligence of the Northern Railway in

not implementing the Railway Board's Order dated 13.12.1976 and the

orders passed by this Court, a number of Writ Petitions were filed by the

Commission Vendors/Bearers, which can be seen from the Judgment

24

given by the Delhi High Court dated 05.11.2012 in Gurdas Ram &

Others Vs. UOI & Others in W.P. (C) No.5175 of 1998 & CM No.14513

of 2010. It is submitted that it is pursuant to the judgment of the Delhi

High Court in the case of Gurdas Ram & Others (supra) that the

respondents herein were absorbed in Class III.

4.12It is submitted that the learned Single Judge in the case of Gurdas

Ram & Others (supra) issued a madamus to the respondents (Northern

Railway) to absorb eligible petitioners who have not crossed age of 59

years in ‘Group C’ posts against vacant posts of this category after such

eligible petitioners formally make an application to seek absorption in

‘Group C’ posts. It is submitted that the judgment of the learned Single

Judge in Gurdas Ram & Others (supra) was accepted by the Northern

Railway and the appointments were given to the respondents herein as

well as to the others in the post of “Catering Waiter” in Grade Pay of

Rs.5200-20200+GP 1800/-.

4.13On the issue whether the Commission Vendors/Bearers after their

absorption on a permanent sanctioned post in the Railways are entitled

for pension, Shri Sanjay Parikh, learned Senior Advocate has made the

following submissions: -

(i)Initially, these Commission Vendors/Bearers were working on

contractual basis and thereafter they were absorbed and

became permanent Railway employees on different dates.

25

That Rule 14 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993

provides that periods of employment in the capacities

mentioned from (i) to (xiv) shall not constitute service for

pensionary benefits. That clause (xiv) of Rule 14 contains

an exception, namely, that "when employment on contract

basis is followed by confirmation". That the meaning of

confirmation will be absorption in Railway service or taking

them permanently in Railway service or confirmation in

Railway service by absorption/appointment etc. It is

submitted that the nomenclature may not be relevant. That

the respondents' case is covered by the said provision

because their contractual period was followed by their

confirmation/ absorption in the Railway services. That Rule

24 clarifies the situation further as it provides that if a person

is initially engaged by Railways on a contract (as

Commission Vendor/Bearer) and subsequently appointed to

the same or another post in a substantive capacity (as

Catering Waiter) in the present case, such contractual period

of service shall be treated like any other permanent service

in the Railway and be taken into account for calculating the

pensionary benefits.

26

(ii)That the said Rules were considered by the Kerala High

Court and by other High Courts in several Judgments and

the SLPS filed by the Railway Departments were dismissed,

even on merits. Therefore, various Tribunals/High Courts

have accepted 50% of the service rendered on contractual

basis before absorption for grant of pension. That the said

issue has attained finality as on this legal basis and the

Railways have implemented it.

(iii)Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of

Rakesh Kumar’s case (supra). It is submitted that in the

said judgment, this Hon'ble Court had considered the grant

of pension to the casual labours who were granted

temporary status and subsequently regularized for

determining the qualifying service and for grant of pension.

Reliance is placed on the final conclusion in paragraph 53.

(iv)Thus, according to the said judgment, a casual worker is

entitled to reckon 50% of causal service before obtaining

temporary status. That however, the Railway Board is taking

a contrary position and they are asserting that “only 50% of

temporary status service would be counted for pensionary

service after regularization” and that the period prior to

27

temporary status would not be counted for pensionary

benefits.

(v)That various orders passed by the respective High

Courts/Tribunals with respect to the Western Railway,

Eastern Railway, Southern Railway taking the view that the

Commission Vendors/Bearers are entitled for counting 50%

of the period for the purpose of pensionary benefits.

4.14It is also submitted that therefore to deny the benefit of 50% of

earlier service rendered as Commission Vendors/Bearers for the

purpose of pensionary benefits only in one zone of the Railways namely,

Northern Railway, would be discriminatory and violative of Articles 14

and 16 of the Constitution.

4.15It is further submitted that even on the Doctrine of Stare Decisis,

the respondents are entitled to the benefit of counting of their 50%

service/period rendered as Commission Vendors/Bearers for the

purpose of pensionary benefits. Reliance is placed on the decision of

this Court in Waman Rao and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.,

(1981) 2 SCC 362 (para 40); Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of

Punjab and Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466 (para 22).

4.16 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the Railways on the

financial liability/implication is concerned, it is submitted that the said

plea would violate Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution besides the

28

Rule of Law. It is submitted that the argument of financial implication

which is primarily been raised to deny equal treatment to the

Commission Vendors/Bearers now Catering Waiters may not be

accepted as the same is wholly unsustainable.

4.17It is submitted that in the case of All India Judges’ Association

and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (1993) 4 SCC 288 (para 16), this

Court had considered the uniformity in the service conditions of judicial

officers and the question of financial burden raised by Union of India was

rejected as being misconceived. That in the said decision, this Court

has said that if a decision has financial implications, the Government is

obligated to loosen its purse.

4.18It is submitted that in the case of Ashoka Kumar Thakur Vs.

Union of India and Others, (2008) 6 SCC 1, it is observed and held by

this Court that the State cannot avoid constitutional obligation on the

ground of financial inabilities.

4.19It is further submitted by Shri Sanjay Parikh, learned Senior

Advocate that the concept of negative equality raised by learned ASG

shall not be applicable in the present case. It is submitted that the

judgment of this Court in the case of Anup Kumar Senapati (supra)

relied upon by the appellants is not applicable to the facts of the present

case. It is submitted that facts of the present case clearly establish the

right for being absorbed on the vacant posts and that the High Courts

29

have granted relief on the basis of the provisions of the Rules, 1993,

which has been confirmed by this Court. It is submitted that there are

admissions/concessions of the Railway Board and acceptance of the

series of judgments that the Commission Vendors/Bearers are entitled to

claim 50% of their service for the purpose of pension. That this is not a

case of either the decisions being wrong or there being any illegality or

fraud or that it is not even a case where the relief/benefit has been

granted inadvertently or by mistake. It is a case where different zones

and divisions under the Railway Board are granting pension whereas it

has been denied to other similarly situated persons in violation of Articles

14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. It is submitted that therefore, the

present case is clearly covered by the decision of this Court in the case

of G.C. Ghosh and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., 1991 Supp (2)

SCC 497.

4.20Making above submissions and relying upon above decisions, it is

prayed to dismiss the present appeals.

5.We have heard learned Additional Solicitor General of India

appearing on behalf of the Union of India and others and Shri Sanjay

Parikh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the

respondents.

At the outset, it is required to be noted that the issue in the present

case is with respect to Commission Vendors working in the Northern

30

Railway and the issue is whether the Commission Vendors who were

absorbed in the regular service are entitled to reckon 50% of the period

of service as Commission Vendors, prior to their absorption, as

qualifying service for grant of pensionary benefits, at par with the casual

labourers whose services were regularized by virtue of Rule 2005 of the

Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Vol. II, 1991 (IREM) r/w Rule 31

of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.

At the outset, it is required to be noted that so far as the

Commission Vendors working in the Western Railway, Eastern Railway,

Southern Railway and South-Eastern Railway are concerned, pursuant

to different orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunals and

High Courts, which have been confirmed by this Court, the issue is held

against the Union of India/Railways, the particulars of which are as

under:

i)By a detailed judgment and order in OA No. 238/2004, the

Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the said OA filed by the

Association/Trade Union of the employees of the Railways filed

on behalf of the Commission Vendors/bearers working in the

Western Railway, relying upon the earlier order passed by the

CAT in OA No. 538/1996 and the order passed by the Bombay

High Court in Writ Petition No. 499/2002, and held that the

Commission Vendors/bearers are entitled to 50% of the services

rendered by them as Commission Vendors/bearers for the

purpose of pension along with the services rendered by them as

31

regular employees of the railways. The judgment and order

passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 538/1996 came to be

confirmed by the Bombay High Court, by judgment and order

dated 21.04.2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 190/2006. The

said judgment and order dated 21.04.2008 passed by the High

Court was the subject matter of the special leave petition before

this Court. This Court initially issued notice in the special leave

petition and thereafter by order dated 14.03.2011 passed in

SLP(Civil) No. 24166/2009, dismissed the special leave petition

on the ground of delay as well as on merits;

ii)With respect to the Commission Vendors/bearers working in the

Eastern Railway, there was a decision against the Railways by

the Calcutta High Court, which was the subject matter of Special

Leave Petition before this Court being Special Leave Petition

(Civil) No. 25730/2009. In the case of eastern railway, the CAT,

Calcutta Bench held in favour of the Commission

Vendors/bearers. The writ petition filed by the Railways came to

be dismissed by the Calcutta High Court against which the

aforesaid special leave petition came to be filed before this

Court, which was dismissed by order dated 14.03.2011;

iii)With respect to Commission Vendors/bearers working in the

Southern Railway, the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam held in

favour of the similarly situated Commission Vendors/bearers. In

the case of Southern Railway, the CAT, Ernakulam Bench vide

order in OA No. 440/2003 decided in favour of the Commission

Vendors/bearers. The Railway Board and others filed a writ

petition before the High Court being Writ Petition No.

15756/2006. The High Court affirmed the order passed by the

tribunal directing that the 50% of the services rendered on

32

contract basis be counted for pension. Against the order passed

by the Kerala High Court, the Railways filed a special leave

petition before this Court, which came to be dismissed on the

ground of delay;

a.By another judgment, similar order was passed by the High

Court of Kerala, confirming the judgment and order passed by

the CAT, Ernakulam Bench, which was decided in favour of

the Commission Vendors/bearers. The said judgment and

order passed by the High Court has attained finality.

b.There were similar judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the

CAT, Ernakulam Bench which were in favour of the

Commission Vendors/bearers, which have attained finality.

iv)With respect to the Commission Vendors/bearers working in the

South-Eastern Railway, the CAT, Calcutta Bench vide order

dated 06.12.2010 in OA No. 758/2007 declined the claim of the

Commission Vendors/bearers. However, by a detailed judgment

and order dated 30.08.2012 in Writ Petition No. 28/2011, the

High Court of Calcutta held that the Commission

Vendors/bearers are entitled to 50% of the services rendered

prior to their regularization to be counted for pensionary benefits.

The special leave petition against the judgment and order

passed by the High Court of Calcutta came to be dismissed by

this Court being Special Leave Petition No. 25019/2013.

6.From the aforesaid, it can be seen that with respect to Commission

Vendors/bearers working in the Western Railway, Eastern Railway,

Southern Railway and South-Eastern Railway, they are held to be

entitled to 50% of the services rendered prior to their regularization to be

33

counted for pensionary benefits and all those Commission

Vendors/bearers are granted such benefits. Now the dispute is with

respect to Commission Vendors/bearers working in the Northern

Railway.

7.It cannot be disputed that employees working in different

divisions/zones in the Railways are under the very same employer –

Railway Board which is under the Ministry of Railways. There are 16

Zones and 68 Divisions in the Railways. Therefore, the employees

working under the same employer – Railway Board working in different

Zones/Divisions are required to be treated similarly and equally and are

entitled to similar benefits and are entitled to the same treatment. As

rightly submitted on behalf of the respondents, there cannot be any

discrimination inter se. Under the circumstances, on the ground of

parity, the Commission Vendors/bearers working in the Northern Railway

are entitled to the same benefits which are held to be entitled to all the

similarly situated Commission Vendors/Bearers working under different

Zones/Divisions. There cannot be different criteria/parameters with

respect to similarly situated employees – Commission Vendors/bearers

working in different Zones/Divisions, but working under the same

employer.

34

8.The Railways/UOI/Railway Board cannot be permitted to repeat

the same arguments which were raised before different Tribunals, High

Courts and also before this Court. Under the circumstances, the

respondents – Commission Vendors/bearers working in the Northern

Railway shall also be entitled to the same benefits which the other

Commission Vendors/bearers working in different Zones/Divisions are

held to be entitled to. There cannot be discrimination among the

similarly situated Commission Vendors/bearers. To deny similar benefits

would tantamount to discrimination and in violation of Articles 14 and 16

of the Constitution of India.

9.Now so far as the submission on behalf of the appellants -

UOI/Railways that there shall be huge financial burden on the Railways

is concerned, it is required to be noted that the issue is with respect to

pensionary benefits. Once it is found that the respondents – Commission

Vendors/bearers working in the Northern Railway are also entitled to

similar benefits which are given to the similarly situated Commission

Vendors/bearers working in different zones/divisions and since they are

already being paid the pensionary benefits by counting the benefit of

50% of their services rendered prior to their regularization, there is no

reason to deny the similar benefits to the respondents – Commission

35

Vendors/bearers working in the Northern Railway being similarly

situated.

10.Even the concept of negative equality submitted on behalf of the

appellants also shall not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of

the case, more particularly when the decisions of different High Courts

which are held against the appellants have been confirmed by this Court

and the special leave petitions have been dismissed on the ground of

delay as well as on merits.

11.In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and even

applying the doctrine of stare decisis, on the aforesaid ground alone, the

present appeals deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed,

by holding that the respondents – Commission Vendors/bearers working

in the Northern Railway are entitled to have 50% of their services

rendered prior to their regularization to be counted for pensionary

benefits like other office bearers/Vendors working under the Railway

Board, working in different zones/divisions, namely, Western Railway,

Eastern Railway, Southern Railway and South-Eastern Railway.

12.All these appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

………………………………..J.

[M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ……………………………….J.

OCTOBER 31, 2022. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]

36