UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus MUNSHI RAM

Citation: [2022] 10 S.C.R. 1135 · Decided: 31-10-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1135
   [2022] 10 S.C.R. 1135
1135
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
v.
MUNSHI RAM
(Civil Appeal No. 2811 of 2022)
OCTOBER 31, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Constitution of India: Arts.14 and 16 – Regularisation –
Parity – In the instant case, the departmental catering and vending
services were started by Northern Railways for which the staff of
the private contractors was taken as commission vendors – The
commission vendors were paid commission on sales turnover
achieved by them instead of paying regular salaries – Thereafter,
pursuant to the memorandum issued by the Railway Board, the
commission vendors/bearers were absorbed in regular vacancies –
Claim for grant of pensionary/retirement benefits by commission
vendors – Held: Commission vendors/bearers working in the
Western Railway, Eastern Railway, Southern Railway and South-
Eastern Railway were held to be entitled to 50% of the services
rendered prior to their regularization to be counted for pensionary
benefits – Since employees working in different divisions/zones in
the Railways are under the very same employer i.e. Railway Board
which is under the Ministry of Railways, therefore, the employees
working under the same employer are required to be treated similarly
and equally and are entitled to similar benefits and are entitled to
the same treatment – There cannot be different criteria/parameters
with respect to similarly situated employees working in different
Zones/Divisions, but working under the same employer and to deny
similar benefits would tantamount to discrimination and in violation
of Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution – No reason to deny the similar
benefits to the respondents-commission vendors/bearers working
in the Northern Railway being similarly situated – Service law.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It can be seen that with respect to Commission
Vendors/bearers working in the Western Railway, Eastern
Railway, Southern Railway and South-Eastern Railway, they are
held to be entitled to 50% of the services rendered prior to their
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1136
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
regularization to be counted for pensionary benefits and all those
Commission Vendors/bearers are granted such benefits. [Para
6][1160-G-H]
2. It cannot be disputed that employees working in different
divisions/zones in the Railways are under the very same employer
– Railway Board which is under the Ministry of Railways. There
are 16 Zones and 68 Divisions in the Railways. Therefore, the
employees working under the same employer – Railway Board
working in different Zones/Divisions are required to be treated
similarly and equally and are entitled to similar benefits and are
entitled to the same treatment. There cannot be any
discrimination inter se. Under the circumstances, on the ground
of parity, the Commission Vendors/bearers working in the
Northern Railway are entitled to the same benefits which are
held to be entitled to all the similarly situated Commission
Vendors/Bearers working under different Zones/Divisions. There
cannot be different criteria/parameters with respect to similarly
situated employees – Commission Vendors/bearers working in
different Zones/Divisions, but working under the same employer.
To deny similar benefits would tantamount to discrimination and
in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
[Paras 7, 8][1161-A-D, E]
3. Once it is found that the respondents-Commission
Vendors/bearers working in the Northern Railway are also entitled
to similar benefits which are given to the similarly situated
Commission Vendors/bearers working in different zones/divisions
and since they are already being paid the pensionary benefits by
counting the benefit of 50% of their services rendered prior to
their regularization, there is no reason to deny the similar benefits
to the respondents – Commission Vendors/bearers working in
the Northern Railway being similarly situated. [Para 9][1161-F-
H]
Saital Singh v. Union of India Writ Petition (C) No.
6804-05 of 1982; T.L Madhavan, General Secretary,
AIRCS Workers Union v. Union of India 1988 Supp
SCC 437; Gurdas Ram & Others v. Union of India Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 5175/1998; Union of India v.
Rakesh Kumar (2017) 13 SCC 388 : [2017] 3 SCR
783; Haryana State Electricity Board v. Gulshan Lal
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1137
(2009) 12 SCC 231 : [2009] 8 SCR 950; Uttar Pradesh
Power Corporation Ltd. v. Ayodhya Prasad Mishra
(2008) 10 SCC 139 : [2008] 13 SCR 373; Union o

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