LexUNION OF INDIA versus S.R. DHINGRA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A UNION OF INDIA ... v. S.R. DHINGRA AND ORS. DECEMBER 14, 2007 B [A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] ~ Service Law: c Running Allowance-Given to 'Running Staff' in Railways, apart from salary-Pension for 'Running Staff' computed by taking into account 'Running Allowance '-Respondents, 'Running Staff', are pre- 1986 retirees-Vide OM dated 10-2-1998, pay of pre-1986 retirees revised on notional basis on 1-1-1986-Clarification issued by Railway D Board that 'Running Allowance 'not to be taken into consideration at the time of re-fixation of pay on notional basis on 1-1-1986- Quashed ,_ by Tribunal-Justification of-Held, not justified- 'Running ·1 Allowance' could be considered for computing pension only once- Benefit of 'Running Allowance' already given to Respondents at the E time of retirement could not be given again vide OM dated 10-2-1998 -Clarification issued by Railway Board was valid-Indian Railway Establishment Code-r. 2 5 44( g). Two sets of employees of same rank-Retiring at different points of time-Held: One set cannot claim benefit extended to the other set F on ground that they are similarly situated-Though they retired with r " the same rank, they are not of the same class or homogeneous group -Art. 14 has no application-Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 14 .. 'Running Staff in the Railways viz. drivers, guards, shunters G etc, who go along with the railway train, are entitled to an allowance called 'Running Allowance' apart from their salary. Computation of pension after retirement in the Railways is made on the basis of average emoluments plus a part of the Running Allowance which is included in average emoluments in terms of Rule 2544(g) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. H 746 UNION OF INDIA v. S.R. DHINGRA 747 The present dispute relates to pension for the Running Staff A who retired prior to 1986. In order to implement one recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission to give parity to the pre-1986 retirees with the post 1986 retirees, the pay of the pre-1986 retirees was fixed as on 1.1.1986, B however, the pay so fixed was treated as average emoluments. On 10.2.1998, an Office Memorandum was issued providing for fixation of notional pay of all Government servants who retired prior to 1.1.1986 as on 1.1.1986. Due to certain doubts and confusion, a clarification was sought as to whether running allowance was to be C added again while fixing the pay notionally as per the OM dated 10.2.1998. On 29.12.1999, the Railway Board issued clarification that running allowance was not to be taken into consideration at the time ofre-fixation of pay on notional basis on 1.1.1986. Respondents filed application before the Tribunal challenging D the said clarification. Appellants contended that only the pay was to be notionally fixed as per the OM dated 10.2.1998, and therefore, there was no need to add running allowance again since Running allowance would be added only if on the basis of pay so fixed the average emoluments was to be recalculated and that the said course E of recalculation of average emoluments was specifically excluded by the said OM dated 10.2.1998. Tribunal allowed the application ofrespondents and quashed the Railway Board's clarification dated 29.12.1999. Several writ petitions were filed thereagainst in the High Court, one of which was transferred to this Court. F Allowing the transfer case, the Court HELD: 1.1. The benefit ofrunning allowance which has been given to the respondent at the time ofretirement is not to be given again vide Office Memorandum dated 10.2.1998. [Para 26) (754-H) G 1.2. The clarification of the Railway Board dated 29.12.1999 clarifying that the running allowance which was already taken into account for pension and other benefits at the time of retirement is not to be added to the pay of pre-1986 retirees revised on notional H 748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. A basis as on 1.1.1986 is valid. It appears that due to a clerical error -< the notional benefits of the respondents w.e.f.1.1.1986 was wrongly fixed and such retired employees are getting excess pension. It is well-settled that a mistake does not confer any right to any party, and can be corrected. [Para 23] (754-B-C] B 1.3. The benefit of running allowance has to be taken into consideration for computing pension only once. It had been taken into consideration while fixing the pension of the respondents
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.