http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: K.C. SHARMA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       25/07/1997

BENCH: M.M. PUNCHHI, S.C. AGRAWAL, A.S. ANAND, S.P. BHARUCHA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                  THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 1997 Present:                  Hon’ble the Chief Justice                  Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M.Punchhi                  Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.C.Agarwal                  Hon’ble Dr.Justice A.S.Anand                  Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.P.Bharucha J.M. Khanna, Adv. for the appellants.                       J U D G M E N T      The following Judgment of the Court was delivered; S.C. AGARWAL, J. :-      Delay in  filing  of  the  Special  Leave  Petition  is condoned.      Special Leave granted.      This appeal  is directed  against the  judgment of  the Principal  Bench  of  the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal (hereinafter referred  to as  ’the Tribunal’) dated July 25, 1994 in  O.A. No. 774 of 1994.  The appellants were employed as guards in the Northern Railway and they retired as guards during  the  period  between  1980  and  1988.    They  felt aggrieved  by  the  notifications  dated  December  5,  1988 whereby Rule  2544 of the Indian Railways Establishment Code was amended  and for  the purpose  of calculation of average emoluments  the   maximum  limit   in  respect   of  Running Allowances was  reduced from 75% to 45% in respect of period from January  1, 1973  to March  31, 1979 and to 55% for the period from April 1, 1979 onwards.      The validity of the retrospective amendments introduced by the  impugned notifications  dated December  5, 1988  had been considered  by the  Full Bench  of the  Tribunal in its judgment dated December 16, 1993 in O.A. No. 395-403 of 1993 and connected  matters and  the said notifications in so far as they  gave retrospective  effect to  the amendments  were held to  be invalid  as being violative a Articles 14 and 16 of the  Constitution.   Since the  appellants were adversely affected by the impugned amendments, they sought the benefit of the  Full Bench of the Tribunal by filing representations before the  Railway Administration.   Since  they failed  to obtain redress,  they filed the application (O.A. NO. 774 of 1994) seeking relief before the Tribunal in April 1994.  The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

said application  of the  appellants was  dismissed  by  the Tribunal by  the impugned  judgment on  the  view  that  the application was  barred by limitation.  The Tribunal refused to condone the delay in the filing of the said applications.      The correctness  of the  decision of  the Full Bench of the Tribunal  has been  affirmed by  this Court in Chairman, Railway Board  & Ors.  V. C.R.  Rangadhamaiah &  Ors., Civil Appeals Nos. 4174-4182 of 1995 and connected matters decided today.      Having regarding  to the facts and circumstances of the case, we  are of  the view that this was a fit case in which the Tribunal should have condoned the delay in the filing of the application  and the  appellants should  have been given relief in the same terms as was granted by the Full Bench of the Tribunal.    The  appeal  is,  therefore,  allowed,  the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside, the delay in filing of  O.A. No.  774 of  199 is  condoned and  the  said application is allowed.  The appellants would be entitled to the same  relief in matter of pension as has been granted by the Full  Bench  of  the  Tribunal  in  its  judgment  dated December 16, 1993 in O.A. Nos. 395-403 of 1993 and connected matters. No order as to costs.