INDIAN RAILWAY PERMANENT WAY INSPECTORS ASSOCIATION AND ANR. versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 452 · Decided: 24-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
INDIAN RAILWAY PERMANENT WAY INSPECTORS 
ASSOCIATION AND ANR. 
v. 
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
B 
FEBRUARY 24, 1997 
(K. RAMASWAY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.) 
Service Law : 
C 
Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986: 
Pay Scale--Railways--f'ennanent Way Inspectors Grade III-Claim for 
higher pay .scale than Pem1ane11t Way Mistries and Direct Track Maintenance 
Mistries on the ground that these are separate cadres and are subordi11ate to 
claimants-Held, the Government after evaluating the nature of the duties and 
D responsibilities of the different sets of officers, came to the conclusion that the 
claimants perf onn substantially the same and similar duties and respon-
sibilities and that therefore, there is no reaso11 to revise the pay scales of 
Pennane11t Way Inspectors Gr. III to the scale of pay higher than one fixed 
by the Railway Department in the Rules, as recommended by the Wth Pay 
E Commission. A representation seems to have been made before the Vth Pay 
Commission and the Vth Pay Commission has given the report to the . 
Government-Therefore, based on the submission of report of the Vth Pay 
Commission and acceptance by the Government, the claimants' pay would 
be looked inter-The Tribunal's order accepting Governm5mt's stand is con-
F sistent'with law, and does not warrant a11y interferei1ce. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) 
No. 3370 of 1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.9.96 of the Central Ad-
G ministrative Tribunal, Madras in O.A. No. 1369 of 1993. 
P.S. Poti, Manoj Pillai and Ms. Malini Poduval for the Petitioners. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
H 
This special leave petition arises from the order of the Central 
452 
--
INDIAN RL Y. PERMANENT WAY INSPECTORS ASSN. v. U.0.1. 
453 
Administrative Tribunal, Madras, made on 13.9.96 in O.A. No. 1369/93. A 
The petitioners are the Permanent Way Inspectors in the pay scale of Rs. 
-
1400-2300. They had sought the pay scale of Rs. 1600-2660 and when that 
was not given, they approached the Tribunal which has rejected their claim. 
Thus, this special leave petition. 
It is their contention that the Permanent Way Inspectors, Gr. III, B 
Permanent Way Mistries and Direct Track Maintenance Mistries are 
separate cadres and are subordinate to the Petitioners. Therefore, they are 
entitled to higher scales of pay. It is true that, in an earlier batch of four 
applications ry similarly situated employees, the Central Administrative 
Tribunal, Bangalore Bench has given direction to grant the pay scales c 
claimed by them. After. the special leave petition was disposed of by this 
Court and an order was made in a contempt petition by the Tribunal, the 
Government considered the matter in the light of the decision given by the 
Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore. On consideration thereof, by 
proceedings dated July 12, 1991, the Government have stated as under : 
D 
"' 
"In obedience duty directions issued by the Honourable Central 
Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in the order dated 
27.7.89 passed in application Nos. 2029 & 2039 to 2041/1988, is 
advised the Ministry or Railway (Railway Board) in consultation 
with the Ministry of Finance, which is the nodal ministry for E 
deciding and on issuance pertaining to pay scale and relative aspect 
of Central Government employees have made due evaluation of 
the nature of duty and responsibility of the PWl's Grade III with 
that of PWM & DTM on such evaluation of all aspect it has been 
observed that Kholder of the post of PWI Grade III performs F 
substantially the same or similar duties and responsibilities and 
--,-
therefore there are no circumstances to revise the scale of pay of 
PWI Grade III to the scale of pay higher than the one fixed in the 
Railway Services (revised pay) rule 1986 issued by the President 
pursuant to the recommendation made by the IVth Pay Commis-
G 
sion." 
This was accepted by the Bangalore Tribunal in the contempt 
proceedings. When the petitioners raised the similar contention, the 
Tribunal did not accept their conte.ntion. It is seen that the Government 
l 
after evaluating the nature of the duties and responsibilities of the different H 
454 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997] 2 S.C.R. 
A sets of officers, as mentioned in the order, came to the conclusion that they 
perform substantially the same and similar duties and responsibilities and 
that, therefore, they did not find any reason to revise the pay scales of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.