UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus B. BANERJEE

Citation: [2013] 10 S.C.R. 296 · Decided: 06-09-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 296 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
V. 
B. BANERJEE 
(Civil Appeal No. 7298 of 2013) 
SEPTEMBER 06, 2013 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] 
SeNice Law: 
-Railway Establishment Manual-Volume I (Revised 
Edition 1989) - Running Allowance Rules, 1981 - n:902, 903, 
905 and 907 - Allowance in lieu of kilometerage (ALK) -
Entitlement - To medically decategorised Driver, working as 
0 
Crew Controller with stationary duties - Held: Running 
Allowance is to be paid only to running staff engaged in actual 
movement of trains or to the staff temporarily assigned 
stationary duties who are likely to go back and perform 
running duties - Medically decategorised Driver, in stationary 
E duty, since not falling in either of the categories, not entitled 
to Running Allowance (ALK) - Running Allowance to which the 
medically decategorised staff was entitled, while a member 
of running staff, has been protected as part of his pay in the 
post of Crew Conrol/er - Such act of the appellant is in 
compliance with the provisions of s.47 of Disabilities Act -
F Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of 
Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - s.47. 
The question for consideration in the present appeal 
was whether the respondent, a medically decategorised 
G Driver of the Indian Railways, working as a Crew 
Controller with stationary duties, was entitled to 
allowance in lieu of kilometerage (ALK). 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
296 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. B. BANERJEE 
297 
HELD: 1. As per the Running Allowance Rules, 1981 
A 
as embodied in the Railway Establishment Manual -
.. 
Volume I (Revised Edition, 1989), no Running Allowance 
i.e. either kilometerage allowance or allowance in lieu of 
kilometerage is contemplated for any staff, including 
erstwhile members of the running staff, permanently 
B 
engaged in performance of stationary duties. Running 
Allowance of either description is required to be paid only 
to members of the running staff who are directly engaged 
in actual movement of trains or such staff who are 
temporarily assigned stationary duties but who are likely c 
to go back and perform running duties. The retention of 
decategorised Drivers working as Crew Controllers in the 
original cadre of Drivers by the Railway Board's Circular 
No.9/98 dated 09.01.1998 and their entitlement to Running 
Allowance (ALK) has to be understood in the above 0 
context. The aforesaid inclusion, which is wholly fictional, 
cannot confer any benefit contrary to the express 
provision of the Running Allowance Rules. The above 
position has been made abundantly clear by the Railway 
Board Circular No.12/2004 dated 14.01.2004. [Paras 9 and 
E 
1 O] [304-F-H; 305-A-C] 
2. Under Rule 903 of the Running Allowance Rules, 
30% of the basic pay of the running staff represents the 
pay element in the Running Allowance. Therefore, in case 
of medically decategorised Driver, like the respondent, 
F 
the said component being a part of the pay drawn by him 
as a running staff has to be protected. The same 
apparently has been done by the appellant. The above 
act of the appellants also ensures compliance with the 
provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities G 
(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full 
Participation) Act, 1995 which entitles the respondent to 
receive the pay and service benefits earlier drawn by him. 
The Running Allowance to which the respondent was 
entitled while he was a mf'.mber of the running staff has 
H 
298 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
been protected as a part of his pay in the post of Crew 
Controller. In such circumstances, any further grant of 
ALK will not be justified. [Para 11] [305-D-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
B 
7298 of 2013. 
From the Judgment and Order ·dated 20.06.2011 of the 
High Court at Calcutta in WPCT No. 128 of 2011. 
Mohan Jain. ASG, S.K. Bajwa, Mohit Garg, Shreekant N. 
c Terdal for the Appellants. 
D 
Avijit Bhattacharjee, Samina Sheikh, Rohit Dutta, Kamal 
Kumar Banerjee, Tayenjam Momo Singh for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. The. precise question that arises 
for determination in the present appeal is whether the 
respondent, a medically decategorised Driver of the Indian 
Railways, working as a Crew Controller with stationary duties, 
E 
is entitled to allowance in lieu of kilometerage (ALK). The 
Central Administrative 

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