LexUNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus SATYA BRATA CHOWDHURY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2008] 17 S.C.R. 892 A UNION OF INDIA & ORS. r-- v. SATYA BRATA CHOWDHURY & ORS. t--"" (Civil Appeal No. 7353-7354 of 2008) B DECEMBER 17, 2008 [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: Article 14 - Time Keepers in different workshops belonging to Eastern Railway . ., c Administration - Differential treatment of - Held: The Time keepers were workers under Factories Act - It is not pennissible to treat workers similarly situated differently - Only ~ because some overtime allowance paid or separate seniority list was maintained on workshop basis, the same by itself would not authorize the Eastern Railway Administration to ,,. D F discriminate the workers working in one workshop with the workers working in the other- On facts, since workers of other workshops were given benefit of revised pay structure w.e.f. ,. 1. 1. 1996, there was no justification in ·granting the said benefits w.e.f. 18.2.2000 to the workers at Liluah and E Kancharpura workshops - Service Law. Respondents were appointed as Time Keepers at Liluah and Kancharpara workshops belonging to the Eastern Railway Administration. However, they were treated as clerical grade employees. Other railway F administration had similar workshop. The concerned workers filed an OA before CAT praying that a separate y- \, cadre and a separate seniority list for the Time ~eepers of the Liluah workshop be maintained and Time Keepers be not transferred to the post of clerks. The Tribunal G allowed the OA and held that in view of the judgment of Supreme Court, the Time Keepers were workers within the meaning of Factories Act for all practical purposes and the authorities of Eastern Railway should not be -t permitted to treat the Time Keepers as a separate cadre H 892 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. SATYA BRATA 893 CHOWDHURY & ORS. regarding seniority, confirmation, permission and transfer A and they were entitled to benefits under the Factories Act. ""---1 Pursuant to the said observations, options were obtained .. from them as to whether they would continue as clerical grade staff or workers. They were treated to be workers under the Factories Act and separate seniority list started B to be maintained. The recommendations of the Fifth Pay Revision - Committee were enforced w.e.f. 1.1.1996. By an Office " Order dated 18.2.2000, Railway Board further directed that in view of standardizing the cadre structure since the c change in recruitment pattern could take place only prospectively in Eastern Railway, the benefit of revised pay structure would be permitted prospectively only. By another letter dated 28.7.2000, Railway Board directed implementation of the said revised pay we.f. 18.2.2000 in D the case of respondents. The legality and/or validity of the decision of the i Railway Board was the subject matter of the Original Application filed by the respondents. Indisputably, the only contention raised in support of the said decisions by the appellant was that the recruitment pattern for the E post of Time-Keeper in Eastern Railway was different. The Tribunal held that in the letter of Railway Board dated 28. 7 .2000, it has been indicated that pattern of recruitment of the Time Keepers in Eastern Railway differs from the pattern prevalent in other Railways. F ,,. , Accordingly, treatment of this order in Eastern Railway has to be essentially different from that of the other Railways. But a bare perusal of the record clearly indicates that actually it is not so. In view of the above, the Railway Board Circular dated 18.2.2000 and ·order G dated 28. 7 .2000 was quashed and authorities were directed to fix the pay scale of the applicants as per Fifth .. T Pay Commission's recommendation for the post of Time Keeping cadre w.e.f. 1.1.1996 instead of 18.2.2000 and extend all consequential financial and other benefits in H favour of the applicants within a period of three months 894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R. A from the date of communication of the order along with arrears. The writ petitions thereagainst filed by appellant were dismissed by High Court. Hence these appeals. · The appellant contended that as the respondents had been treated to be workers under the Factories Act and B obtained several benefits including overtime, the appellants were entitled to implement the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Revision Commission with effect from
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.