THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD AND ANR. versus T. VITTAL RAO AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 1097 · Decided: 02-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
T. VITTAL RAO AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 2, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND PX BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.) 
B 
Service Law: 
Overtime allowance to Train Superintendents-Issuance of a Circular 
placing them in supervisory category thereby disentitling them to draw C 
overtime allowance-Withdrawal of Circular-Claim of arrear for intervening 
period-Held: Circular/Notification not prospective in effect-Since the 
Circular/Notification withdrawn and status-quo ante was restored, the 
incumbent would be deemed to have been continuing in the non-supervisory 
· capacity only-Hence, they are entitled to claim the overtime allowance for D 
the intervening period. 
Respondents, working as Train Superintendents in the Railway, were 
entitled to draw overtime allowance. Later, in terms of the Circular dated 
2.8.84 they were placed in the supervisory category, thereby, they became 
disentitled to draw overtime allowance. However, the said Circular was later E 
withdrawn by the Railway Board. Respondents claimed for the arrears for 
the intervening period, which was rejected b_y the authorities. They filed a 
petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Triblinal allowed the 
petition holding that they were entitled to overtime allowance. The writ petition 
filed by the appellants questi9ning the correctness or otherwise of the said F 
judgment of the Tribunal was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present 
appeal 
Appellants contended that the circular dated 11.4.2001 withdrawing the 
earlier Circular conferring supervisory status on the respondents did not 
have retrospective effect or retroactive operation and in that view of the matter, G 
the Tribunal and consequently the High Court, committed a serious error in 
directing payment of overtime allowance in favour of the respondents for the 
intervening period; and that the petition was barred by limitation. 
Respondents submitted that since the circular dated 2.8.1984 was 
IW7 
H 
1098 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] I S.C.R. 
.. A withdrawn, they became entitled to overtime allowance. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD.I.I. Overtime allowance ceased to become payable to the 
respondents only when they were placed in the supervisory category. By reason 
B of the notification dated 11.4.2001, the status quo ante as was obtaining on 
2.8.1984 was restored as a result whereof the respondents would be deemed 
to have been continuing io remain in the non-supervisory category only. It is 
furthermore clear in terms of the circular letter issued by the Railway Board 
itself that till an appropriate decision is taken, for the intervening period i.e 
C from 2.8.1984 to ll.4.200lthe practice would remain effective. As the practice 
remained effective, the respondents continued to be in the non-supervisory 
category and in that view of the matter they had rightly been held to he entitled 
to the overtime allowance. fl 100-F, GI 
1.2. The Circular letter dated 11.4.2001 does not state that it is 
D prospective in nature. It does not further more state that overtime allowance 
would be payable to the respondents only after the issuance thereof. The 
earlier circular dated 2.8.1984 having been withdrawn, the effect of circular 
dated 2.8.1984 shall stand effaced. Furthermore, from a letter dated 20.9.2001 
issued by the appellant, it appears that the circular letter dated 11.4.2001 
was also understood in the same manner as was done by the respondents 
E inasmuch as therein it was stated that the Train Superintendents for the extra 
work beyond rostered hours would be eligible for overtime allowance as they 
should be treated under non-supervisory post. [1100-H; 1101-A, B] 
P. Mahendran and Ors. v. State of Karnataka, !1990) l SCC 411 and 
NT Devin Katti and Ors. v. Karnataka Public Service Commission & Ors., 
F 1199013 sec 157, distinguished. 
G 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 939 of 2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.3.2005 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in Writ Petition No. 1625 of2004. 
A. Sharan, Rudreshwar Singh and B. Krishna Prasad for the Appellants. 
C.S.N. Mohan Rao and D. Mahesh Babu for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
r 
CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD v. T. VITT AL RAO [SINHA, J.] 
I 099 
S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted. 
A 
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.3.2005 
passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 1625 of 2004 
whereby and whe

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