http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  939 of 2006

PETITIONER: The Chairman Railway Board & Anr.

RESPONDENT: T. Vittal Rao & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/02/2006

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & P.K. Balasubramanyan

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23570 of 2005]  

S.B. SINHA, J :          Leave granted.   

       This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated  15.3.2005 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No.  1625 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the  appellant herein questioning the correctness of the judgment and order dated  3.10.2003  passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.  13/2003 was dismissed.          The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.  The respondents herein  at all material times were and still are  working as Train Superintendents.   Admittedly prior to 2.8.1984 they were placed in the non-supervisory  category.  The Railway Board issued a circular on  2.8.1984 in terms  whereof  they were placed in the supervisory category.

       Indisputably, prior to 2.8.1984 those who were to work beyond  rostered hours were entitled to draw overtime allowance.  As by reason of  the aforementioned circular dated 2.8.84 the respondents were placed in the  supervisory category, they became disentitled to draw overtime allowance.    The  said circular letter however, was withdrawn by the Railway Board on  or about 11.4.2001, inter alia,  stating:  

"Pending question of classification of Train  Superintendents on trains other than Rajdhani Express  being discussed further with the Federations, the matter  has been carefully considered by Board and it has been  decided as under:  

(i)     Instructions contained in Board’s letter No.  E(LL)/79/HER/1-13, dated 2.8.84 are  withdrawn with immediate effect.  

(ii)    For the intervening period from 2.8.84 till  11.4.2001 (i.e., the date of issue of this letter),  the practice followed on each individual   railway in regard to classification of Train  Superintendents on trains other than Rajdhani  Express as Superivisory or non-supervisory  shall remain effective.  

(iii)   The matter regarding classification as  ’Supervisory’ of Train Superintendents on  trains other than Rajdhani Express shall be  finalized expeditiously in consultation with the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

two recognized staff Federations."

The respondents in view of the aforementioned circular letter dated  11.4.2001 filed  an original application  before the Central Administrative  Tribunal which was marked as O.A. No. 13/03.  The Tribunal arrived at a  finding of fact that whereas rostered hours of duty of the respondents  were  108 hours every fortnight,  the respondents  having worked for 205 hours   are entitled to 97 hours’ over time allowance every fortnight  The writ  petition filed by the appellants herein questioning the correctness or  otherwise of the said judgment of the Tribunal was dismissed.   

Mr. A. Sharan, learned senior  counsel  appearing on behalf of the  appellant submitted that the said circular  dated  11.4.2001 did not have  retrospective effect or retroactive operation and in that view of the matter,  the Tribunal and consequently the High Court, committed a serious error in  directing  payment of overtime allowance  in favour of the respondents for  the period from 2.8.1984 to 11.4.2001.  In any view of the matter, the  learned counsel contended that the original  application was barred by  limitation.  Our attention has further been drawn to the fact that the  respondents did not deny or dispute that they had drawn the over time  allowance from the date of the clarification issued by the Railway Board.   

Mr. C.S.N. Mohan Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  respondents, on the  other hand,  submitted that as by reason of the  aforementioned circular dated 11.4.2001  the earlier circular dated 2.8.1984  was withdrawn, the respondents became entitled to over time allowance.

A bare perusal of the circular dated 11.4.2001 clearly demonstrates   that thereby the earlier circular letter dated 2.8.1984 stood withdrawn.  It is  not denied or disputed that the practice prevailing in the Division was that  apart from Train Superintendents  of Rajdhani Express, others were entitled  to overtime allowance.  Overtime  allowance ceased  to become payable to  the respondents only when they were placed in the supervisory category.  By  reason of the said notification dated 11.4.2001 indisputably, the status quo  ante  as was obtaining on 2.8.1984 was restored  as a result whereof the  respondents would be deemed to have been continuing to remain in the non- supervisory category only.  It is furthermore clear in terms of the circular  letter issued by the Railway Board itself that till an appropriate decision is  taken, for the intervening period i.e. from 2.8.1984 to 11.4.2001 the practice  would remain effective.  As the practice remained effective , the respondents  continued to be in the non-supervisory category and in that view of the  matter they had rightly been held to be entitled to the overtime allowance.   Circular letter dated 11.4.2001 does not state that it is prospective in nature.  It does not further more state that overtime allowance would be payable to  the respondents only after  the issuance thereof.   The earlier circular dated  2.8.1984 having been withdrawn, the effect  of circular dated 2.8.1984 shall  stand effaced. Furthermore, from a letter dated 20.9.2001 issued by the  Division Railway Manager (P) SC  to the Sr. DCM/SC, it appears, that the  circular letter dated 11.4.2001 was also understood in the same manner as  was done by the respondents inasmuch as therein it was stated that the Train  Superintendents for the extra work beyond rostered hours would  be eligible  for overtime allowance as they should be treated  under non-supervisory  post.  

P. Mahendran & Ors. v. State of Karnataka [1990 (1) SCC 411]  relied  upon by the learned counsel for the appellants  is of no assistance in the  instant case.  The question which arose for consideration therein was as to  whether the qualification contained in the amended rules should be given  retrospective effect or whether the rules being prospective in nature, the  right of the candidates cannot be taken away.  

N.T. Devin Katti & Ors. v. Karnataka Public Service Commission &  Ors.  [1990 (3) SCC 157]  is an authority for the proposition that the changes  in the reservation policy cannot be effected retrospectively so as to affect the  candidates’ existing right  in terms of the advertisement for selection which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

had been issued much prior to the change in policy.   

For the foregoing reasons we do not find any merit in this appeal and  it is accordingly dismissed.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, the  parties shall bear their own costs.