LexK.C. SHARMA AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
K.C. SHARMA AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA JULY 25, 1997 [J.S. VERMA, CJ., M.M. PUNCHHI, S.C. AGRAWAL, DR. A.S. ANAND AND S.P. Bf0.RUCHA, JJ.] Service Law: A B Indian Railways Establishment L'ode-Rule 2544----Railway employees C retired between 1.1.73 and 5.12.88--Notifications amended Rule and reduced percentage limit of rnnning allowance while calculating average emoluments, by retrospective operatiort-Tribunal quashed notifications as they adversely affected employees-Application by similarly placed employees for same relief-Rejected by the Tribunal as time barred-Held, Tribunal should have ~~~~~~~~. D Appellants had reti_red from Northern Railway after 1.1.73 but before 5.12.88. They were aggrieved by notification dated 5.12.88 which amended Rule 2544 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code reducing the percent- age limit of the running allowance, taken for calculation of pension, from E 75% to 45% for the period between 1.1.73 to 31.3.79 and to 55% from the period, 1.4.79 onwards, i.e. retrospectively. Full Bench of the CAT quashed the said notification. The appellants, who were similarly placed, filed a repres2ntation before the Railway Ad- ministration but were not successful. Later on, they filed an application F before the Tribunal seeking similar relief as had been given to the similarly placed employees. The application was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Hence this appeal. Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. The correctness of the decision of the Full Bench of the Tribunal has already been affirmed by this Court. [89-C] 1.2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, G the Tribunal should have condoned the delay and appellants should have H 87 88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A been given the relief as was granted by the Full Bench of the Tribunal. [89-D] 1.3. The delay in filing the O.A. before the Tribunal is condoned and the application is allowed. The appellants would be entitled to the same relief in the matter of pension as had been granted by the Full Bench of B the Tribunal. [89-D] Chainnan, Railway Board & Ors. v. CR. Rangadhamiah & Ors., [1997] Supp. 3 SCR 63, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5082 of c 1997. D From the Judgment and Order dated 25.7.94 of the Central Ad- ministrative Tribunal, New Delhi in O.A. No. 774 of 1994. J.M. Khanna Adv. for the Appellants. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.C. AGRAWAL, J. Delay in filing of the Special Leave Petition is condoned. E 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 F during the period between 1980 and 1988. They felt aggrieved by the notifications dated December 5, 1988 whereby Rule 2544 of the Indian Railways Establishmem Code was amended and for the purpose of calcula- tion of average emoluments the maximum limit in respect of Running Allowances was reduced from 75% to 45% in respect of period from G 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 H in O.A. Nos. 395-403 of 1993 and connected matters and the said notifica- - KC.SHARMA v. U.O.I. [S.C.AGRAWAL,J.] 89 tions in so far as they gave retrospective effect to the amendments were A held to be invalid as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitu- tion. Since the appellants were adversely affected by the impugned amend- ment~, they sought the benefit of the said decision 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 B 1994) seeking relief before the Tribunal in April 1994. The 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 C has b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.