SURENDER KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 468 · Decided: 13-01-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
SURENDER KUMAR 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 13, 2005 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND P.K BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Railway Establishment Code, 1965; Rule 1316: 
Stepping up of pay-Drivers Grade---C promoted to the post of loco 
Supervisor-Drivers Grade-A though promoted later but getting higher pay-
Justification of-Held: Drivers Grade-A, Drivers Grade-Band Drivers Grade-
C constitute different sources of recruitment to the post of loco Supervisors-
D Since sources of recruitment were different, principle of stepping up of pay 
inapplicable. 
Appellant-Drivers Grade-C were promoted to the post or Loco 
Supervisors in the Central Railways. Later, Drivers Grade-A were also 
promoted. In the meantime, the Railways accepted the recommendations 
E or the Fourth Pay Commission, as a result of which appellants were getting 
lesser pay than those promoted later. Aggrieved, appellants made 
representations to Railway Authorities for stepping up of their pay and 
also for payment of arrears. Authorities issued a Circular whereby their 
pay was stepped up. However, the Circular was later withdrawn on the 
ground that the conditions necessary for stepping up of the pay as provided 
F under Rule 1316 of the Railway Establishment Code were not Culfilled. 
Aggrieved, some of the Loco Supervisors, other than the appellants, filed 
petitions before the Central Administrative Tribunal against the order of 
withdrawal of the Circular. CAT upheld their claim. Union or India 
prererred appeal before this Court which was allowed by the Court setting 
G aside order of CAT. Subsequently, petitions were filed by the appellants 
before CAT, challenging the order of withdrawal of the Circular. Petitions 
were rejected by CAT. Appeals against the order of CAT were allowed 
by the High Court. Hence the present appeals. 
Appellants contended that the case of Union oflndia and Ors. v.D.P. 
II 
468 
p 
) 1-
S. KUMAR v. U.0.1. 
469 
Saxena, [1997[ 6 sec 360 requires reconsideration since this Court, while A 
dealing with that case had assumed that Codal Conditions as per Rule 1316 
of the Railway Establishment Code could be applied to persons similarly 
situated as the appellants, and that erroneous assumption has led to the 
erroneous conclusion in that case; and that the decision of this Court does 
not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1. It is not possible to accept the distinction sought to be 
made by the appellants between those involved in the decision in Union of 
India and Ors. v. O.P. Saxena and in the present case. The appellants also 
opted to be promoted to the stationary post of Loco Supervisors directly C 
from the post of Drivers Grade-C and their promotions were also made 
prior to acceptance of recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission, 
viz. 1.1.1986. It was the claim ofsuch persons that was considered by this 
Court in the said reported decision and this Court held that those who 
were promoted before 1.1.1986 did not satisfy the Codal conditions and D 
Rule 1316 of the Railway Establishment Code governing the principle of 
stepping up of pay. Hence, the persons promoted from Drivers Grade-C 
to the post of Loco Supervisors were not entitled to stepped up pay and 
could not claim the benefit of the Circular, the withdrawal of the Circular 
regarding persons similarly situated was justified. Besides, the sources of 
recruitment to the post of Loco Supervisors were Drivers Grade-A, Drivers E 
Grade-B and Drivers Grade-C. Thus the sources were different and that 
made the principle of stepping up of pay inapplicable. Hence, the claim 
of the appellants is squarely covered by the decision in that case necessarily 
justifying the rejection of their claim by the Central Administrative 
Tribunal and the High Court. [471-G-H; 472-A-D-EJ 
p 
I 1-. 
1.2. No justification is found in doubting the correctness of the 
decision rendered by the Bench of three Judges of this Court in the case 
of Union of India and Ors. v. O.P. Saxena and for not applying the ratio of 
the decision to the present case. Thus, the argument that the decision 
requires reconsideration, is without substance. Hence, the decision of the G 
Central Administrative Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court is · 
sustained. [472-F-G; 473-A[ 
Union of India and Ors. v. O.P. Saxena, [ 1997) 6 SCC 360, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1022 of2001. H 
470 
SUP

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.