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

PETITIONER: SADHAN CHANDRA DEY AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UOI AND ORA.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       27/08/1998

BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, S.RAJENDRA BABU

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:  JUDGMENT Nanavati.  J. The  appellants  were  employed as Volunteers by the Eastern Railway  to  help  the  staff  to  check  ticketless travel.  They were  paid  Rs.  8/- per day.  They had worked as such for a long time without break.  By  an  order  dated 31.1.86,   the  D.R.M.,  Sealldah  withdrew  the  scheme  of utilising services   of   Volunteers.      The   appellants, therefore,   challenged   that   order  before  the  Central Administrative Tribunal.  The said order was set  aside  and the Railway Administration was directed to treat all of them as casual employees with temporary status. Inspite  of  that  order, the Railway Administration did not treat them as temporary  employees  and  extend  the benifits  available to temporary emplloyees. Therefore, they filed O.A.No. 439/88 before the Tribunal.  That  application was  heard  alongwith O.A.Nos. 139 and 420/88. All the three applications were disposed of by the Tribunal  by  a  common order  dated  31.7.90.  The  relevant  part  of the order is quoted below : - "22, After giving our anxious consideration  to  the facts  of these three cases, the materials on record and the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties,  we find  merit  in  the  contention  of the applicants that the respondents have sought to avoid implementing  the  judgment in  Samir Kumar Mukherjee’s case by denying all the benefits specified in that judgment to the  applicants.    Since,  in view   of  the  special  circumstances  of  the  cases,  the applicants were held to be casual employees  with  temporary status,  entitled  to  the  same service conditions as other temporary railway employees, there cannot be any question of absorbing them as casual labourers as ’fresh facts’ as  that would   be   contrary   to  the  judgments  in  Samir  Kumar Das(supra).  Hence, the impugned Annexure -F dated  30.10.87 to CA 139 of 87 has to be quashed. 23In  view  of  our  discussion  above, we allow these applications and give the following direction :  - (i)Annexure - F dt. 30.10.87 to OA  139  88  is  hereby quashed. (ii)All the applicants in OA 139 of 88, OA 439 of 88 and

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

OA 420 of 88 shall  be  treated  as  casual  employees  with temporary status   w.e.f.    25.3.86,  3.10.86  and  25.8.87 respectively and their service conditions will  be  governed by the relevant rules of the Railways.

(iii)Their  fitment  as  such  casual  employees  against appropriate  posts  shall  be done by the respondents on the basis  of  their  qualifications  and  experience  from  the aforesaid   dates  within  four  months  from  the  date  of communication of this order. (iv)As regards pay and allowances,  they  will  get  the said benefits from the date of this judgment as the Tribunal has   earlier  held  while  ordering  reinstatement  of  the applicants that they would be paid daily wage of Rs. 8/-  as was  being  paid before their dis-engagement. However, those of the applicants  who  have  already  got  any  benefit  in respect  of  pay  and  allowances before the passing of this judgment shall continue to enjoy the same. It  appears  that  pursuant  to  this  order  of the Tribunal, the Railway  Administration  of  Asansol  division fixed  pay  of  the  applicants in one of those applications notionally, with effect from the date  on  which  they  were granted temporary  status  by the Tribunal.  As that benefit was not extended by the Sealdah Division to the  appellants, they approached the  Tribunal  by  way  of O .A.  No.  1197, 1240 and 1243/93 and prayed for a direction to the Union  of India  and the railway authorities to extend similar benefit to them.  The  Tribunal  dismissed  those  applications  and therefore the applicants are now before this court. It  was  contended  by  the  learned counsel for the appellant that once the Tribunal by its order dated  31.7.90 declared  that  the  appellants were to be treated as casual employees with temporary status, w.e.f.  25.3.86, 3.10.86  & 25.8.87,   as  the  case  may  be  and  that  their  service conditions shall be governed by the relevant  rules  of  the Railways,  it  became the duty of the Railways to grant them all the benefits available  to  temporary  employees,  right from  the  date they acquired the temporary status under the order of the Tribunal.   It  was  submitted  that  what  was denied  to  them  by  the Tribunal was payment of arrears of wages from the date they acquired the  status  of  temporary employees  till  the  date of the order of the Tribunal; but they are entitled to  get  their  pay  fixed  notionally  in appropriate  pay  scales  right  from the date they acquired temporary status, and from the date  of  the  order  of  the Tribunal  they  should  be  paid  their wages as per the pay fixed notionally in that manner.  This contention was raised before the tribunal also and it was rejected on  the  ground that  benefit of pay and allowances was to be five only from the date of the order and till then they  were  to  be  paid daily wage of  Rs.    8/-.  In our opinion, the Tribunal was right in  taking  that  view  of  its  earlier  order  dated 31.7.90. In view of the special facts  and  circumstances  of these  and  other  cases  which  were  decided together, the appellants and other applicants though casual employees were ordered to be given temporary status.  Their  services  were already terminated.    Not  as  a recognition of their right that they were ordered to be reinstated but it was by way of solving a human problem that the Tribunal wanted them to  be taken  back  in service not as fresh employees but as casual employees with temporary status.  A middle course was chosen by the Tribunal and therefore it ordered that benefit of pay and allowances as an employee  with  temporary  status  will begin from  the  date of its order.  They were ordered to be

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

treated as  casual  employees  with  temporary  status  with effect  from  earlier  dates  in  order  to  preserve  their seniority for other purposes. Merely because one  Member  of  the  Tribunal  on  a subsequent  occasion  interpreted  that order in a different manner and because of that some persons  working  under  the Asansol Division got a wrong benefit, it would not be proper to  extend  it  to  persons  working in other Divisions. The Division Bench of the tribunal was right in  observing  that the  view taken by the Single Member was wrong as it was not consistent with the decision of 31.7.9o. The Division  Bench judgment  dated  31.7.90  was not challenged and it has thus acquired finality. The view taken by the Tribunal  in  these cases  is correct and does not deserve interefered with. The appeals are therefore dismissed.