On 31st October 2022, the Supreme Court in a Division Bench comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V.Nagarathna observed that 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. (Union of India and others Vs. Munshi Ram)
Facts of the Case:
There were 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 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, 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”.
The Single Judge was dealing with a batch of WP by Commission Vendors, who sought the relief of regularization, and in the alternative, absorption in Group ‘C’ posts. The Judge negatived the plea of regularization, however, the other relief, viz., absorption against vacant Group ‘C’ posts was allowed, provided they had not crossed age of 59 years.
They then approached CAT by filing an OA which was dismissed. But another bench of the tribunal allowed the O.A. filed by Munshi Ram granting him the relief of pensionary benefits. Aggrieved by the same, a Writ Petition was filed by the Union of India before the HC.
The HC allowed the WP preferred by the original writ petitions holding that services rendered by the Commission Vendors/Bearers in the Northern Railways, prior to their absorption, should be counted for the purposes of pensionary benefits. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal was filed by UOI.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The counsel for the appellants 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. Munshi Ram has served only for a period of three and half months approximately. 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. As such Rule 14 of the 1993 Rules provides the period which shall not be treated as service for pensionary benefits.
As per Rule 14(v) 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. If the impugned judgment and order of the HC is not interfered, there shall be a huge financial liability upon the railways.” The cases of Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair, State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati, Haryana State Electricity Board v. Gulshan Lal, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. v. Ayodhya Prasad Mishra, and Union of India v. Muralidhara Menon were referred.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The counsel for the respondent submitted that “When the 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. The same was allowed and 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”.
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. 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.” The cases of All India Judges’ Association and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., Ashoka Kumar Thakur Vs. Union of India and Others, Waman Rao and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr, and Gurdas Ram & Others Vs. UOI & Others were referred.
Observation and Judgment of the Court:
The hon’ble court observed 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 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. 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.
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. 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.”
The appeals were dismissed holding that 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.
Case: Union of India and others Vs. Munshi Ram
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 2811 Of 2022 With Civil Appeal No. 2812 Of 2022, Civil Appeal No. 2813 Of 2022, Civil Appeal Nos. 2814-2815 Of 2022
Bench: Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V.Nagarathna
Date: October 31, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :