Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Ors. vs U.S. Meena & Ors. on 22 November, 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 22.11.2017
W.P.(C) 525/2017
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
U.S. MEENA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners :Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh and Ms. Punam Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents :Mr. Ashok Singh, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
assails the order dated 2nd June, 2016 in O.A. No. 1802/2014 titled as "U.S.
Meena & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors."; and order dated 7th September,
2016 in Review Application No. 186/2016 titled as "Union of India & Ors.
vs. U.S. Meena & Ors." in O.A. No. 1802/2014, passed by the learned
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
2. The facts, which are relevant for the adjudication of the present
petition are adumbrated in brief as follows:-
(a) The respondents (the petitioners therein) were working at the
relevant time on various posts in Cash and Pay Department of the
Northern Railways and were entitled to payment of honorarium for
performing extra duties beyond the regular working hours, in
accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Government of
India; governing the Railway Department.
(b) The respondents were aggrieved by a Circular dated 25th July,
2013, whereby, the Railway Board instead of revising and enhancing
the rates of honorarium, fixed the maximum ceiling limit for payment
of the same to the staff of Cash and Pay Department, with
retrospective effect i.e. from 01.01.2010 onwards.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/Railways has
invited our attention to an understanding ostensibly arrived at between the
parties, which is recorded as a Note of Discussions dated 14th June, 2013,
wherein it has been recorded as follows:
"2. After detailed discussion it was decided in the
meeting held today that a maximum ceiling limit for
payment of honorarium to individual staff of Cash and
Pay department viz. cashiers and other cash and pay
staff in a financial year from 01.01.2010 onwards, who
disburse salaries and allowances, productivity linked
bonus, all arrears including Pay commission arrears etc.
to staff, shall not exceed 25% of his/her annual basic pay
plus grade pay. This ceiling limit would be reviewed for
a downward revisions after one year.
3. Henceforth, sanction of honorarium would be
accorded by the GM with the concurrence of FA&CAO
subject to this ceiling of 25%. No case of sanction of
honorarium need to be sent to Railway Board for
sanction."
4. It would be submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners that the applications of respondents for honorarium, pending
disposal before issuance of the said Circular dated 25th July, 2013, would not
be covered by the submission made on their behalf before the learned
Central Administrative Tribunal; to the effect that honorarium "sanctioned"
by the Railway Board prior to the issue of the said Circular need not be
reopened.
5. It would be further submitted that the ceiling stipulated in the said
Circular dated 25th July, 2013 is applicable to all Cash and Pay Department
Office staff including Shroffs.
6. In other words, the solitary submission made on behalf of the
Railways is that where bills claiming honorarium had been presented by the
concerned respondents but had not been "sanctioned" prior to the issuance of
the said Circular dated 25th July, 2013, the said bills will be subject to
revised honorarium rates, with ceiling.
7. In this behalf, the learned Central Administrative Tribunal observed in
paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment in OA No. 1802/2014 dated 2nd June,
2016, as follows:
"7. We have heard the counsel for the both sides.
Through letter dated 07.09.2013 the Railway Board has
now clarified that cases of honorarium relating to period
prior to 25.07.2013 are not to be reopened and, therefore,
this takes care of the grievance of the applicant in OA No.
1157/15. However, letter dated 07.09.2013 uses the word
"sanctioned". Therefore, the applicants case in OA No.
1802/2014 does not get covered by this circular because
though the bills claiming honorarium presented by the
applicants they had not been "sanctioned" prior to
25.07.2013. Therefore, the honorarium not being
"sanctioned" is result of failure on behalf of the respondents
but because of this the respondents are depriving them of
the higher rates and applying letter dated 25.07.2013."
8. Resultantly, the learned Central Administrative Tribunal issued the
following directions:
"We are, therefore, of the opinion that claim of these
applicants for period prior to 25.07.2013 also be disposed of
in accordance with the rate applicable w.e.f. 01.07.2009 and
to that extent circular dated 07.09.2013 will stand modified
i.e. honorarium due prior to 25.07.2013 will be sanctioned
as per rates effective from 01.07.2009."
9. However, the matter did not rest there and Railways filed a Review
Application being RA No.186/2016 in OA No.1802/2014, against the said
order dated 2nd June, 2016. The Review Application came to be disposed off
by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal by an order dated 7th
September, 2016, in the following terms:
"1.This Review Application (RA) has been filed against the
order dated 2.06.2016 passed by us in OA 1802/2014.
2. The only error apparent in the order is that the date
7.09.2013 occurring in para 7 and 8 of the order should
actually be 9.10.2013 as the Circular is dated 9.10.2013, as
rightly mentioned in para 2 of the order. Therefore, the date
of 7.09.2013 occurring in para 7 and 8 of the Tribunal's
order be corrected as 9.10.2013.
3. On other aspects, we find that the RA is nothing but an
attempt to reargue the matter, which cannot be entertained.
4. The RA is disposed of with the above direction, in
circulation.
5. MA Nos. 2686/2016 and 2692/2016 also stand disposed
of."
10. In relation to the subject dispute before us, it would be pertinent to
refer to a subsequent clarification dated 09.10.2013 issued by the Railway
Board, Ministry of Railways, Government of India, to the subject Circular
dated 25th July, 2013. The said clarification is extracted hereinbelow:
"(i) Honorarium sanctioned by the Board prior to the
issue of the letter dated 25.7.2013 need not be reopened,
and
(ii) The ceiling stipulated in the letter ibid is
applicable to all Cash and Pay Office staff including
Shroffs."
11. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and
perused the case record, we are of the view that the submission made on
behalf of the petitioners is a self-serving one. The applicants entitled to
honorarium at higher rates; prior to the said Circular dated 25th July, 2013,
cannot be visited with the consequence of delay and failure on part of the
Railways to sanction the pending bills claiming honorarium and, resultantly,
cannot be deprived of the said reimbursement of honorarium without ceiling.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that
the impugned orders dated 2nd June, 2016 and 7th September, 2016, do not
suffer from any infirmity so as to warrant any interference by this Court in
the exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
13. In the result, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly
dismissed.
14. No order as to costs.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
NOVEMBER 22, 2017 /rs
