REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7353-7354 OF 2008

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.26873-26874 of 2005)

Union of India & Ors. … Appellant

Versus

Satya Brata Chowdhury & Ors. … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

S.B. Sinha, J.

1.Leave granted.

2.Eastern Railway Administration of Union of India is before us

aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 20.4.2005

passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in WPCT No.365 of

2004 and WPCT No.840 of 2004 dismissing the writ petitions filed by

appellants from a judgment and order dated 3.6.2004 passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.1254 of 2000 and 10

th

February 2004 passed by the Tribunal in Original Application No.1458 of

1997.

3.The short question which arose for consideration before the Tribunal

and consequently before the High Court, was whether the recommendations

of the Fifth Central Pay Commission could have been extended in favour of

respondents herein with effect from 18.2.2000 in stead and in place of

1.10.1996; and whether their claim for fixation of pay scale with effect from

1.1.1996 was justified.

4.Respondents were appointed as Time Keepers in different workshops

belonging to the Eastern Railway Administration. Other Railway

Administrations also have similar workshops. Time Keepers, although are

recruited in the clerical grade, in view of this Court’s decision in Works

Manager, Central Railway Workshop v. Vishwanath & Ors. [AIR 1970 SC

488] are to be treated as workers under the Factories Act, 1948.

5.Respondents appointed as Time Keepers at Liluah and Kancharpara

Workshops were, however, being treated as Clerical Grade employees.

Indisputably, the concerned workers filed an Original Application before

the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, which was marked as

T.A. No.1585 of 1996, praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs :

2

“i)That a separate cadre and a separate

seniority list for the Time Keepers of the

Liluah Workshop be maintained and the

Time Keepers should not be transferred to

the post of Clerks.

(ii)For rescinding and revoking the order dated

14.7.1985 (Annexure-B to the petition) for

transferring petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 11 from

Time Officer to clerical side.

(iii)To pass an order of injunction restraining

the respondents from transferring petitioner

Nos.1, 2 and 11 from Time Office to the

clerical side.”

It was allowed, opining :

“We find that no records of Kharagpur Workshop,

S.E. Railway, Diesel Locomotive Workshop,

Varanasi or C.L.W. as stated in the reply were

produced during hearing to demolish the case of

the applicants that the Time Keeprs are treated as a

distinct cadre with separate seniority, promotion

and transfer lists. In view of the admission made

by the official respondents in this respect in the

unreported judgment of this Tribunal, mentioned

above, that except in Eastern Railway, Time

Keepers are treated as a separate cadre, there could

be no doubt about the authenticity of the

statements made by the applicants in this petition

on this point. Annexure ‘B’ to the reply whereby

the respondents wanted to establish that applicant

Nos.1, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 11 refused to be Time

Keepers on 26.8.84 has no legal consequence in

view of the decision of the Supreme Court referred

to above, holding that the nature of the duties

discharged by the Time Keepers bring them within

the purview of ‘worker’ under the Factories Act,

3

1948. Under the circumstances, the alleged

refusal cannot change the legal position.

We are bound by the decision of the Supreme

Court and the judgment of our Bench dated

11.5.90. In view of the findings of the Supreme

Court that Time Keepers are ‘workers’ within the

meaning of Factories Act, 1948 for all practical

purposes, the authorities of Eastern Railway are

not permitted to treat the Time Keepers in the

manner they have been treating them.”

The Tribunal, on the basis of the said findings, issued the following

directions :

“On careful consideration of the facts and

circumstances of this case and the submissions of

the counsel for the parties to the proceeding, we

quash the order of transfer dated 14.7.85 of the

applicant Nos.1, 2 and 11. We also direct the

official respondents herein to treat the Time

Keepers in the Eastern Railway, Liluah Workshop

or elsewhere in a similar manner as is being done

by Kharagpur Workshop, S.E. Railway, Diesel

Locomotive Workshop, Varanasi and C.L.W. as a

separate cadre regarding seniority, confirmation,

promotion and transfer etc. and allow them all

other benefits admissible to them under the

Factories Act, 1948 and all these must be finalized

and our direction be implemented within six

months from the date of communication of this

order.”

It furthermore observed :

4

“The Eastern Railway, being one of the biggest

employers, we hope that this decision will be

treated as passed on a representative suit and the

directions given in this application be made

available to the Time Keepers who are similarly

circumstanced but are not parties to this

proceeding. The Railway, as a model employer,

will try to prevent the Time Keepers from coming

to this Tribunal for obtaining similar reliefs

repeatedly and thereby prevent wasting public

money in fighting out futile litigations. The

country is passing through serious economic crisis

and all unnecessary and useless expenses should

be prevented by taking reasonable steps whenever

necessary.”

6.Indisputably, pursuant to or in furtherance of the said observations,

options were obtained from them as to whether they would continue as

clerical grade staff or workmen. They were treated to be workers under the

Factories Act. A separate seniority list started to be maintained. A different

cadre was created. By an order dated 28.10.1991, it was directed :

“The existing staff of Mech./Elect. Deptt.

Attached to Time office should be treated as one

Unit and in one seniority group. If anyone of the

time office staff except the petitioners desires to

get merged with clerical group of staff on their

own volition in writing, there should be no cause

for rejection.”

5

7.Indisputably, the Central Government constituted the Fifth Pay

Revision Committee. It made its recommendations. The said

recommendations were enforced as regards clerical staff with effect from

1.1.1996. By an office order dated 18.2.2000, the Railway Board directed

implementation of the said revised pay with effect from 18.2.2000, in the

case of respondents, stating :

“… The Ministry have noted that the pattern of

recruitment of Time Keepers in Eastern Railway

differs from the pattern prevalent elsewhere. Time

Keepers being a common category existing in

various Railways and Production Units, it has

been decided that the recruitment pattern,

including recruitment qualifications etc. for

induction as Time Keepers at various levels in

Eastern Railway should fall in line with the

practice prevailing in other Railways and

Production Units.

2.The Ministry of Railways, with the approval

of the President, have accordingly decided as

under :

(i)Induction at the level of Junior Time

Keepers should continue in accordance with

the existing pattern, which includes direct

recruitment through RRBs to the extent of

66 from amongst candidates possessing

qualification of matriculation;

(ii)Induction at the level of Senior Time

Keepers should henceforth take place in

accordance with the existing pattern for Sr.

Clerks, which would include direct

recruitment through RRBs, to the extent of

20% from amongst candidates possession

6

qualification of graduation and 13½%

through Limited Departmental Competitive

examination held by RRB’s from amongst

serving staff in the grade Rs.3050-4590 and

(iii)The following pay scales should be allotted to the Time

Keeping Staff of Eastern Railway :

S. Designation Existing Pay

Improved

No. Scale (Rs) Pay Scale (Rs)

1.Jr. Time Keeper3050-4580/- 3050-

4590/-

2.Sr. Time Keeper4000-6000/- 4500-

7000/-”

8.By another letter dated 28.7.2000, it was furthermore directed by the

Railway Board :

“However, with a view to standardizing the cadre

structure at least for the future, since the change in

recruitment pattern could take place only

prospectively in Eastern Railway, the benefit of

the improved pay structure has been permitted

with prospective effect only.”

9.We may also, at this stage, place on record, a letter of the Chief

Personnel Officer of the Eastern Railway dated 13.7.2000 wherein it was

stated that no such recruitment rules were framed by the Eastern Railway

Administration, stating :

7

“Would you please connect this Railway’s letters

of even number dated 28.4.2000 and 8.6.2000

wherein it was requested to examine the issue

related to the date of effect of the upgraded Pay

Scale of Time Keeping staff of this Railway. After

collecting information from various Zonal

Railways/Production Units it is understood that

the upgraded pay scale of Time-Keeping category

(where exists) were introduced w.e.f. 1.1.1996 in

all Zonal Railways/Production Units except

Eastern Railway wherein instructions were issued

by Railway Board that the same order will be

effective from the date of issue of modified

Recruitment Rules in line with Ministerial staff.

In Eastern Railway no separate Recruitment

Rule was framed after the order of the Hon’ble

CAT/Cal on May/90 for treating the Time-keepers

a separate entity as workers within the meaning of

Factories Act, since there was no intake for filling

up the vacancy of Time-keepers after May/90, but

before that the Time-keepers of this Railway were

Recruited from the same panel prepared for clerks

i.e. their Recruitment Rule was same as that of the

clerks.”

10.The legality and/or validity of the decision of the Railway Board was

the subject matter of the Original Application filed by the respondents.

Indisputably, the only contention raised in support of the said decisions by

the appellant was that the recruitment pattern for the post of Time-Keeper in

Eastern Railway was different.

8

11.Pranab Kumar Chakraborty and others filed an Original Application

before the Tribunal which was marked as OA No.1458 of 1997. The said

application was disposed of by the Tribunal, holding :

“We have gone through the said communication

dated 28.7.2000, which has been received from the

Rly. Board. In this there is indication that the

recruitment pattern was changed, but it is not the

case. In subsequent rule depriving or denying the

applicants from getting the pay scales with effect

from 1.1.1996 was hampered by this change. For

the time being we are not inclined to do into the

change in the policy stand which may affect the

equation of a particular group or grade with the

corresponding Ministerial Staff, which is an

internal matter to be sorted out. However, to the

extent the benefits has been extended to the Time

Keeper grades the Eastern Rly, the same should be

equitably applicable with effect from 1.1.1996 as

the case is in respect of the awarding the scales

under V CPC. We, therefore, partially allow this

OA to the extent that the benefit should be

awarded with effect from 1.1.1996 to the present

applicants only within 3 months from the date of

communication of the order with arrears.”

12.Satya Brata Chowdhary and 70 others thereafter filed another

Original Application before the Tribunal which was marked as OA No.1254

of 2000.

By a judgment and order dated 3.6.2004, the question, as to whether

the Eastern Railway Administration was justified in its stand not to treat the

9

respondents similarly in the matter of grant of benefit of revision in the pay

scales was answered, stating :

“We have gone through the said communication

dated 18.2.2000 (Annexure-A/11) as well as dated

28.7.2000 (Annexure A/18), which was received

from the Railway Board. In the above said letter

of Railway Board dated 28.7.2000, it has been

indicated that pattern of recruitment of the Time

Keepers in Eastern Railway differs from the

pattern prevalent in other Railways. Accordingly,

treatment of this order in Eastern Railway has to

be essentially different from that of the other

Railways. But a bare perusal of the record clearly

indicates that actually it is not so.”

It was directed :

“In view of above, the Railway Board’s circular

dated 18.2.2000 (Annexure-A/11) and order dated

28.7.2000 (Annexure-A/10 quashed/set aside. The

extent of the benefit which has been extended to

the and CLW, Chittaranjan (Annexure-A/14) w.e.f

1.1.1996 and also the letter of the Chief Personnel

Officer (Admn) dated 13.7.2000 Grades of S.E.

Railway/as well as DLW, Varanasi and CLW,

Chittaranjan should also be extended in favour of

the applicants which are also similarly situated

persons and working as Time Keeper in the Liluah

Workshop of Eastern Railway. The respondent

authorities, more particularly, the respondent Nos.

5 and 6 are directed to fix the pay scale of the

applicants as per 5

th

Pay Commission’s

recommendation for the post of Time Keeping

Cadre w.e.f. 1.1.1996 instead of 18.2.2000 and

extend all consequential financial and other

benefits in favour of the applicants within a period

10

of three months from the date of communication

of this order along with arrears. It is made clear

that we are not inclined to say anything as to the

payment of interest.”

As noticed hereinbefore, writ petitions preferred thereagainst by

appellant were dismissed by the High Court.

13.The matter came up before this Court for hearing on 8.2.2008 when,

inter alia, a contention was raised on behalf of respondents that the revised

pay scales of Time-Keeper at the Jamalpur workshops had been

implemented but the same was denied to the staff at Liluah and

Kancharpura workshops.

14.An additional affidavit thereafter has been placed on record on behalf

of appellant to contend that the Time-Keepers of Jamalpur workshop had

been treated as clerical grade staff and, thus, they are not similarly situated

as the respondents.

15.The learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Amarendra Sharan,

appearing for the appellant, would contend that as the respondents had been

treated to be workers under the Factories Act and obtained several benefits

including overtime, the appellants were entitled to implement the

recommendations of the Fifth Pay Revision Commission with effect from

11

18.2.2000 in stead and in place of 1.1.1996. Such a classification,

according to the learned counsel, being valid and reasonable, does not

attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

16.Mr. Gaurav Jain and Mr. Shekhar Kumar, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of respondents, on the other hand, would contend that the

purported classification of Time-Keepers in different workshops cannot be

treated to be valid warranting different treatments so far as regards

implementation of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission is

concerned.

17.We may, at the outset, notice that the only contention raised by the

appellant before the Tribunal, as also before the High Court, was that the

recruitment Procedure in the Eastern Railway Administration was different

for the Time-keepers. It has been held not to be so. The judgment of the

Central Administrative Tribunal dated 5.7.1991 in TA No.1585 of 1986 has

been noticed by us. Therein, the Tribunal directed the workmen of the

workshops at Liluah and elsewhere to be treated at par with their

counterparts of Kharagpur, Banaras and Chittaranjan locomotive workshop.

It was, therefore, impermissible for the appellant to treat the workers

similarly situated, differently. They were to be treated as workers under the

Factories Act. Only because some overtime allowance became payable to

12

them or a separate seniority list was maintained or a cadre for the said

workers on workshop basis was constituted, the same by itself, in our

opinion did not authorize the Eastern Railway Administration to

discriminate the workers working in one workshop with the workers

working in the other.

18.We may also notice that letter dated 13.7.2000 issued by the Chief

Personnel Manager, Eastern Railways Administration; from a perusal

whereof it appears that the claim of appellants that a different recruitment

rules existed for the Time-Keepers of different workshops within the

Eastern Railway Administration, is not correct. It has also been so found by

the Tribunal as also by the High Court.

19.The contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General that the

Time-Keepers recruited in the Liluah workshop could be treated differently

from their counterparts at Jamalpur as in the said letter they were not treated

as clerical grade staff, also does not appear to be wholly correct. Appellants

themselves have annexed with their affidavit a letter dated 16.6.2006 issued

by the Assistant Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Jamalpur to Chief

Assistant Officer, Eastern Railway, Kolkatta wherein it was stated :

“As cadre/seniority of Time keeping staff is being

maintained with General Group Clerks as such

13

benefit of restructuring has been given to the time

keeping staff.

The staff posted in Time Office and working as

Time keepers are governed under Factories Act.”

20.The Time keepers of Jamalpur Workshop, thus, have been treated as

workers under the Factories Act and if they had been given the benefit of

recommendations of the Fifth Pay Revision Commission, we fail to

understand why the same benefit would be denied to the respondents herein.

21.For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any ground to

interfere with the impugned judgment and orders. The appeals are

dismissed with costs. Counsel’s fee assessed at Rs.25,000/-.

..………………………J.

[S.B. Sinha]

..………………………J.

[Cyriac Joseph]

New Delhi;

December 17, 2008

14