Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Ors vs Habib-Ur-Rehman Khan & Ors on 23 December, 2009
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C.) No.14151/2009
% Date of Decision: 23.12.2009
Union of India & Ors .... Petitioners
Through Mr.Kumar Rajesh Singh, Advocate.
Versus
Habib-Ur-Rehman Khan & Ors .... Respondents
Through Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO
the Digest?
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 & 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 Special Leave Petition 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.Ghosh & Ors v. Union of India and
Ors, 1991 Suppl.(2) SCC 497 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 & Ors v. D.S.Mathur, Secretary, Department of
Telecommunications", 2008 (4) SCALE 815 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.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
December 23, 2009 VIPIN SANGHI, J.
„k‟
