REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.   7353-7354      OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.26873-26874 of 2005)

Union of India & Ors. … Appellant

Versus

Satya Brata Chowdhury & Ors. … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Eastern  Railway  Administration  of  Union  of  India  is  before  us

aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 20.4.2005

passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in WPCT No.365 of

2004  and  WPCT No.840  of  2004  dismissing  the  writ  petitions  filed  by

appellants from a judgment and order dated 3.6.2004 passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.1254 of 2000 and 10th

February 2004 passed by the Tribunal in Original Application No.1458 of

1997.

3. The short question which arose for consideration before the Tribunal

and consequently before the High Court, was whether the recommendations

of the Fifth Central Pay Commission could have been extended in favour of

respondents  herein  with  effect  from 18.2.2000  in  stead  and  in  place  of

1.10.1996; and whether their claim for fixation of pay scale with effect from

1.1.1996 was justified.   

4. Respondents were appointed as Time Keepers in different workshops

belonging  to  the  Eastern  Railway  Administration.   Other  Railway

Administrations also have similar workshops.  Time Keepers, although are

recruited in the clerical  grade, in view of this Court’s  decision in  Works

Manager, Central Railway Workshop v. Vishwanath & Ors. [AIR 1970 SC

488] are to be treated as workers under the Factories Act, 1948.   

5. Respondents appointed as Time Keepers at Liluah and Kancharpara

Workshops  were,  however,  being  treated  as  Clerical  Grade  employees.

Indisputably,  the concerned workers  filed an Original  Application before

the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, which was marked as

T.A. No.1585 of 1996, praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs :

2

“i) That  a  separate  cadre  and  a  separate seniority  list  for  the  Time Keepers  of  the Liluah  Workshop  be  maintained  and  the Time Keepers should not  be transferred to the post of Clerks.

(ii) For rescinding and revoking the order dated 14.7.1985 (Annexure-B to the petition) for transferring petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 11 from Time Officer to clerical side.

(iii) To  pass  an  order  of  injunction  restraining the respondents from transferring petitioner Nos.1,  2  and  11  from Time Office  to  the clerical side.”

It was allowed, opining :

“We find that no records of Kharagpur Workshop, S.E.  Railway,  Diesel  Locomotive  Workshop, Varanasi  or  C.L.W.  as  stated  in  the  reply  were produced during hearing to demolish the case of the applicants that the Time Keeprs are treated as a distinct  cadre  with  separate  seniority,  promotion and transfer lists.  In view of the admission made by the official  respondents  in  this  respect  in  the unreported judgment  of  this  Tribunal,  mentioned above,  that  except  in  Eastern  Railway,  Time Keepers are treated as a separate cadre, there could be  no  doubt  about  the  authenticity  of  the statements made by the applicants in this petition on this point.  Annexure ‘B’ to the reply whereby the respondents wanted to establish that applicant Nos.1,  3,  4,  7,  8  and  11  refused  to  be  Time Keepers  on 26.8.84 has no legal  consequence in view of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to  above,  holding  that  the  nature  of  the  duties discharged by the Time Keepers bring them within the purview of ‘worker’ under the Factories Act,

3

1948.   Under  the  circumstances,  the  alleged refusal cannot change the legal position.

We  are  bound  by  the  decision  of  the  Supreme Court  and  the  judgment  of  our  Bench  dated 11.5.90.  In view of the findings of the Supreme Court that Time Keepers are ‘workers’ within the meaning  of  Factories  Act,  1948  for  all  practical purposes,  the  authorities  of  Eastern  Railway are not  permitted  to  treat  the  Time  Keepers  in  the manner they have been treating them.”

The Tribunal, on the basis of the said findings, issued the following

directions :

“On  careful  consideration  of  the  facts  and circumstances of this case and the submissions of the counsel for the parties to the proceeding, we quash  the  order  of  transfer  dated  14.7.85  of  the applicant  Nos.1,  2  and  11.   We  also  direct  the official  respondents  herein  to  treat  the  Time Keepers in the Eastern Railway, Liluah Workshop or elsewhere in a similar manner as is being done by  Kharagpur  Workshop,  S.E.  Railway,  Diesel Locomotive Workshop, Varanasi and C.L.W. as a separate  cadre  regarding  seniority,  confirmation, promotion  and  transfer  etc.  and  allow  them  all other  benefits  admissible  to  them  under  the Factories Act, 1948 and all these must be finalized and  our  direction  be  implemented  within  six months  from the  date  of  communication  of  this order.”

It furthermore observed :

4

“The  Eastern  Railway,  being  one  of  the  biggest employers,  we  hope  that  this  decision  will  be treated as passed on a representative suit and the directions  given  in  this  application  be  made available  to the  Time Keepers  who are similarly circumstanced  but  are  not  parties  to  this proceeding.   The Railway, as a model  employer, will try to prevent the Time Keepers from coming to  this  Tribunal  for  obtaining  similar  reliefs repeatedly  and  thereby  prevent  wasting  public money  in  fighting  out  futile  litigations.   The country is passing through serious economic crisis and all  unnecessary and useless  expenses  should be prevented by taking reasonable steps whenever necessary.”

6. Indisputably, pursuant to or in furtherance of the said observations,

options  were  obtained  from them as  to  whether  they would  continue  as

clerical grade staff or workmen. They were treated to be workers under the

Factories Act.  A separate seniority list started to be maintained.  A different

cadre was created.  By an order dated 28.10.1991, it was directed :

“The  existing  staff  of  Mech./Elect.  Deptt. Attached to Time office should be treated as one Unit and in one seniority group.  If anyone of the time office staff  except  the petitioners  desires to get  merged  with  clerical  group  of  staff  on  their own volition in writing, there should be no cause for rejection.”

5

7. Indisputably,  the  Central  Government  constituted  the  Fifth  Pay

Revision  Committee.   It  made  its  recommendations.   The  said

recommendations were enforced as regards clerical  staff with effect from

1.1.1996.  By an office order dated 18.2.2000, the Railway Board directed

implementation of the said revised pay with effect from 18.2.2000, in the

case of respondents, stating :

“…  The Ministry have  noted  that  the pattern  of recruitment of Time Keepers  in  Eastern Railway differs from the pattern prevalent elsewhere.  Time Keepers  being  a  common  category  existing  in various  Railways  and  Production  Units,  it  has been  decided  that  the  recruitment  pattern, including  recruitment  qualifications  etc.  for induction  as  Time  Keepers  at  various  levels  in Eastern  Railway  should  fall  in  line  with  the practice  prevailing  in  other  Railways  and Production Units.

2. The Ministry of Railways, with the approval of  the  President,  have  accordingly  decided  as under :

(i) Induction  at  the  level  of  Junior  Time Keepers should continue in accordance with the  existing  pattern,  which  includes  direct recruitment through RRBs to the extent  of 66  from  amongst  candidates  possessing qualification of matriculation;

(ii) Induction  at  the  level  of  Senior  Time Keepers  should  henceforth  take  place  in accordance with the existing pattern for Sr. Clerks,  which  would  include  direct recruitment through RRBs, to the extent of 20%  from  amongst  candidates  possession

6

qualification  of  graduation  and  13½% through Limited Departmental  Competitive examination  held  by RRB’s  from amongst serving staff in the grade Rs.3050-4590 and

(iii) The following pay scales should be allotted to the Time Keeping Staff of Eastern Railway :

S. Designation Existing Pay Improved No. Scale (Rs) Pay Scale (Rs) 1. Jr. Time Keeper 3050-4580/- 3050- 4590/- 2. Sr. Time Keeper 4000-6000/- 4500- 7000/-”

8. By another letter dated 28.7.2000, it was furthermore directed by the

Railway Board :

“However, with a view to standardizing the cadre structure at least for the future, since the change in recruitment  pattern  could  take  place  only prospectively  in  Eastern  Railway,  the  benefit  of the  improved  pay  structure  has  been  permitted with prospective effect only.”

9. We may also,  at  this  stage,  place  on  record,  a  letter  of  the  Chief

Personnel  Officer of the Eastern Railway dated 13.7.2000 wherein it was

stated that no such recruitment rules were framed by the Eastern Railway

Administration, stating :

7

“Would you please connect this Railway’s letters of  even  number  dated  28.4.2000  and  8.6.2000 wherein  it  was  requested  to  examine  the  issue related to the date of effect of the upgraded Pay Scale of Time Keeping staff of this Railway.  After collecting  information  from  various  Zonal Railways/Production  Units  it  is  understood  that the upgraded pay scale of Time-Keeping category (where exists) were introduced w.e.f. 1.1.1996 in all  Zonal  Railways/Production  Units  except Eastern Railway wherein instructions were issued by  Railway  Board  that  the  same  order  will  be effective  from  the  date  of  issue  of  modified Recruitment Rules in line with Ministerial staff.

In Eastern Railway no separate Recruitment Rule  was  framed after  the  order  of  the  Hon’ble CAT/Cal on May/90 for treating the Time-keepers a separate entity as workers within the meaning of Factories Act, since there was no intake for filling up the vacancy of Time-keepers after May/90, but before that the Time-keepers of this Railway were Recruited from the same panel prepared for clerks i.e. their Recruitment Rule was same as that of the clerks.”

10. The legality and/or validity of the decision of the Railway Board was

the  subject  matter  of  the  Original  Application  filed  by  the  respondents.

Indisputably, the only contention raised in support of the said decisions by

the appellant was that the recruitment pattern for the post of Time-Keeper in

Eastern Railway was different.   

8

11. Pranab Kumar Chakraborty and others filed an Original Application

before the Tribunal which was marked as OA No.1458 of 1997.  The said

application was disposed of by the Tribunal, holding :

“We have  gone  through the said  communication dated 28.7.2000, which has been received from the Rly.  Board.   In  this  there  is  indication  that  the recruitment pattern was changed, but it is not the case.  In subsequent rule depriving or denying the applicants from getting the pay scales with effect from 1.1.1996 was hampered by this change.  For the time being we are not inclined to do into the change in  the policy stand which may affect  the equation  of  a  particular  group or  grade  with  the corresponding  Ministerial  Staff,  which  is  an internal matter to be sorted out.  However, to the extent the benefits has been extended to the Time Keeper grades the Eastern Rly, the same should be equitably applicable with effect from 1.1.1996 as the case is  in respect  of  the awarding the  scales under V CPC.  We, therefore, partially allow this OA  to  the  extent  that  the  benefit  should  be awarded with effect from 1.1.1996 to the present applicants only within 3 months from the date of communication of the order with arrears.”

12. Satya  Brata  Chowdhary  and  70  others  thereafter  filed  another

Original Application before the Tribunal which was marked as OA No.1254

of 2000.   

By a judgment and order dated 3.6.2004, the question, as to whether

the Eastern Railway Administration was justified in its stand not to treat the

9

respondents similarly in the matter of grant of benefit of revision in the pay

scales was answered, stating :

“We have  gone  through the said  communication dated 18.2.2000 (Annexure-A/11) as well as dated 28.7.2000 (Annexure  A/18),  which  was  received from the Railway Board.  In the above said letter of  Railway  Board  dated  28.7.2000,  it  has  been indicated that  pattern of recruitment  of the Time Keepers  in  Eastern  Railway  differs  from  the pattern prevalent in other Railways.  Accordingly, treatment of this order in Eastern Railway has to be  essentially  different  from  that  of  the  other Railways.  But a bare perusal of the record clearly indicates that actually it is not so.”

It was directed :

“In view of above,  the Railway Board’s  circular dated 18.2.2000 (Annexure-A/11) and order dated 28.7.2000 (Annexure-A/10 quashed/set aside.  The extent of the benefit which has been extended to the and CLW, Chittaranjan (Annexure-A/14) w.e.f 1.1.1996 and also the letter of the Chief Personnel Officer  (Admn)  dated  13.7.2000  Grades  of  S.E. Railway/as  well  as  DLW,  Varanasi  and  CLW, Chittaranjan should also be extended in favour of the  applicants  which  are  also  similarly  situated persons and working as Time Keeper in the Liluah Workshop  of  Eastern  Railway.   The  respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent Nos. 5  and 6 are  directed  to  fix  the  pay scale  of  the applicants  as  per  5th Pay  Commission’s recommendation  for  the  post  of  Time  Keeping Cadre  w.e.f.  1.1.1996  instead  of  18.2.2000  and extend  all  consequential  financial  and  other benefits in favour of the applicants within a period

10

of three months from the date of communication of this order along with arrears.  It is made clear that we are not inclined to say anything as to the payment of interest.”

As  noticed  hereinbefore,  writ  petitions  preferred  thereagainst  by

appellant were dismissed by the High Court.

13. The matter came up before this Court for hearing on 8.2.2008 when,

inter alia, a contention was raised on behalf of respondents that the revised

pay  scales  of  Time-Keeper  at  the  Jamalpur  workshops  had  been

implemented  but  the  same  was  denied  to  the  staff  at  Liluah  and

Kancharpura workshops.   

14. An additional affidavit thereafter has been placed on record on behalf

of appellant to contend that the Time-Keepers of Jamalpur workshop had

been treated as clerical grade staff and, thus, they are not similarly situated

as the respondents.   

15. The  learned  Additional  Solicitor  General,  Mr.  Amarendra  Sharan,

appearing for the appellant, would contend that as the respondents had been

treated to be workers under the Factories Act and obtained several benefits

including  overtime,  the  appellants  were  entitled  to  implement  the

recommendations of the Fifth Pay Revision Commission with effect from

11

18.2.2000  in  stead  and  in  place  of  1.1.1996.   Such  a  classification,

according  to  the  learned  counsel,  being  valid  and  reasonable,  does  not

attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

16. Mr. Gaurav Jain and Mr. Shekhar Kumar, learned counsel appearing

on  behalf  of  respondents,  on  the  other  hand,  would  contend  that  the

purported classification of Time-Keepers in different workshops cannot be

treated  to  be  valid  warranting  different  treatments  so  far  as  regards

implementation  of  the  recommendations  of  the  Fifth  Pay Commission  is

concerned.

17. We may, at the outset, notice that the only contention raised by the

appellant before the Tribunal, as also before the High Court, was that the

recruitment Procedure in the Eastern Railway Administration was different

for the Time-keepers.  It has been held not to be so.  The judgment of the

Central Administrative Tribunal dated 5.7.1991 in TA No.1585 of 1986 has

been  noticed  by us.   Therein,  the  Tribunal  directed  the  workmen of  the

workshops  at  Liluah  and  elsewhere  to  be  treated  at  par  with  their

counterparts of Kharagpur, Banaras and Chittaranjan locomotive workshop.

It  was,  therefore,  impermissible  for  the  appellant  to  treat  the  workers

similarly situated, differently.  They were to be treated as workers under the

Factories Act. Only because some overtime allowance became payable to

12

them or  a  separate  seniority  list  was  maintained  or  a  cadre  for  the  said

workers  on  workshop  basis  was  constituted,  the  same  by  itself,  in  our

opinion  did  not  authorize  the  Eastern  Railway  Administration  to

discriminate  the  workers  working  in  one  workshop  with  the  workers

working in the other.   

18. We may also notice that letter dated 13.7.2000 issued by the Chief

Personnel  Manager,  Eastern  Railways  Administration;  from  a  perusal

whereof it appears that the claim of appellants that a different recruitment

rules  existed  for  the  Time-Keepers  of  different  workshops  within  the

Eastern Railway Administration, is not correct.  It has also been so found by

the Tribunal as also by the High Court.   

19. The contention of the learned Additional  Solicitor  General  that the

Time-Keepers recruited in the Liluah workshop could be treated differently

from their counterparts at Jamalpur as in the said letter they were not treated

as clerical grade staff, also does not appear to be wholly correct.  Appellants

themselves have annexed with their affidavit a letter dated 16.6.2006 issued

by  the  Assistant  Personnel  Officer,  Eastern  Railway,  Jamalpur  to  Chief

Assistant Officer, Eastern Railway, Kolkatta wherein it was stated :

“As cadre/seniority of Time keeping staff is being maintained  with  General  Group  Clerks  as  such

13

benefit of restructuring has been given to the time keeping staff.

The staff  posted  in  Time Office  and working as Time keepers are governed under Factories Act.”

20. The Time keepers of Jamalpur Workshop, thus, have been treated as

workers under the Factories Act and if they had been given the benefit of

recommendations  of  the  Fifth  Pay  Revision  Commission,  we  fail  to

understand why the same benefit would be denied to the respondents herein.

21. For  the  reasons  aforementioned,  we  do  not  find  any  ground  to

interfere  with  the  impugned  judgment  and  orders.   The  appeals  are

dismissed with costs.  Counsel’s fee assessed at Rs.25,000/-.

..………………………J.   [S.B. Sinha]

..………………………J.   [Cyriac Joseph]

New Delhi;

December 17, 2008

14