Supreme Court of India
K.C. SHARMA AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA
- Citation
- 1997 INSC 574
- Decided
- 25 July 1997
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- S VERMA
Holding
The Tribunal should have condoned the delay and granted the appellants the same pension relief as earlier awarded, setting aside the limitation bar.
Summary
The appellants, former guards of the Northern Railway who retired between 1980 and 1988, challenged a 1988 notification that retrospectively reduced the percentage of running allowance used to calculate pension from 75% to 45% (1973‑1979) and to 55% thereafter. The Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) had earlier declared those retrospective amendments invalid as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and granted relief to similarly placed employees. The appellants sought the same relief but their application before the Tribunal was dismissed as time‑barred, with the Tribunal refusing to condone the delay. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application on limitation grounds despite the earlier Full Bench decision. The Court held that, given the facts, the Tribunal should have condoned the delay and granted the appellants the relief accorded to the similarly placed employees. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal’s order, condoned the delay, and allowed the application, awarding the pension benefits as determined by the Full Bench.
Issues considered
- Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in rejecting the appellants' application on the ground of limitation without condoning the delay.
- Whether the Tribunal should grant the appellants the same pension relief as awarded to similarly placed employees by the Full Bench of the Tribunal.
- Whether the retrospective amendment of Rule 2544 of the Indian Railways Establishment Code violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution (though already decided).
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16
Subjects
service lawpensionretrospective amendmentlimitationcondonationrailway employeesconstitutional lawArticles 14 and 16Central Administrative Tribunal
Judgment
K.C. SHARMA AND ORS. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA
JULY 25, 1997
[J.S. VERMA, CJ., M.M. PUNCHHI, S.C. AGRAWAL, B
DR. A.S. ANAND AND S.P. Bf0.RUCHA, JJ.]
Service Law:
Indian Railways Establishment L'ode-Rule 2544----Railway employees C
retired between 1.1.73 and 5.12.88--Notifications amended Rule and reduced
percentage limit of rnnning allowance while calculating average emoluments,
by retrospective operatiort-Tribunal quashed notifications as they adversely
affected employees-Application by similarly placed employees for same
relief-Rejected by the Tribunal as time barred-Held, Tribunal should have
~~~~~~~~. D
Appellants had reti_red from Northern Railway after 1.1.73 but before
5.12.88. They were aggrieved by notification dated 5.12.88 which amended
Rule 2544 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code reducing the percent-
age limit of the running allowance, taken for calculation of pension, from E
75% to 45% for the period between 1.1.73 to 31.3.79 and to 55% from the
period, 1.4.79 onwards, i.e. retrospectively.
Full Bench of the CAT quashed the said notification. The appellants,
who were similarly placed, filed a repres2ntation before the Railway Ad-
ministration but were not successful. Later on, they filed an application F
before the Tribunal seeking similar relief as had been given to the similarly
placed employees. The application was dismissed on the ground that it was
barred by limitation. Hence this appeal.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
G
HELD : 1.1. The correctness of the decision of the Full Bench of the
Tribunal has already been affirmed by this Court. [89-C]
1.2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the instant case,
the Tribunal should have condoned the delay and appellants should have H
87
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A been given the relief as was granted by the Full Bench of the Tribunal.
[89-D]
1.3. The delay in filing the O.A. before the Tribunal is condoned and
the application is allowed. The appellants would be entitled to the same
relief in the matter of pension as had been granted by the Full Bench of
B the Tribunal. [89-D]
Chainnan, Railway Board & Ors. v. CR. Rangadhamiah & Ors.,
[1997] Supp. 3 SCR 63, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5082 of
c 1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.7.94 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, New Delhi in O.A. No. 774 of 1994.
J.M. Khanna Adv. for the Appellants.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.C. AGRAWAL, J. Delay in filing of the Special Leave Petition is
condoned.
E Special Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Principal Bench
of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal') dated July 25, 1994 in O.A. No. 774 of 1994. The appellants were
employed as guards in the Northern Railway and they retired as guards
F during the period between 1980 and 1988. They felt aggrieved by the
notifications dated December 5, 1988 whereby Rule 2544 of the Indian
Railways Establishmem Code was amended and for the purpose of calcula-
tion of average emoluments the maximum limit in respect of Running
Allowances was reduced from 75% to 45% in respect of period from
G January 1, 1973 to March 31, 1979 and to 55% for the period from April
1, 1979 onwards.
The validity of the retrospective amendments introduced by the
impugned notifications dated December 5, 1988 had been considered by
the Full Bench of the Tribunal in its judgment dated December 16, 1993
H in O.A. Nos. 395-403 of 1993 and connected matters and the said notifica-
KC.SHARMA v. U.O.I. [S.C.AGRAWAL,J.] 89
tions in so far as they gave retrospective effect to the amendments were A
held to be invalid as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitu-
tion. Since the appellants were adversely affected by the impugned amend-
ment~, they sought the benefit of the said decision of the Full Bench of the
Tribunal by filing representations before the Railway Administration. Since
- they failed to obtain redress, they filed the application (O.A. No. 774 of B
1994) seeking relief before the Tribunal in April 1994. The said application
of the appellants was dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment
on the view that the application was barred by limitation. The Tribunal
refused to condone the delay in the filing of the said applications.
The correctness of the decision of the Full Bench of the Tribunal C
has been affirmed by this Court in Chainnan, Railway Board & Ors. v. C.R.
Rangadhamiah & Ors., Civil Appeals Nos. 4174-4182of1995 and connected
matters decided today.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of
the view that this was a fit case in which the Tribunal should have cor.doned D
the delay in the filing of the application and the appellants should have
been given relief in the same terms as was granted by the Full Bench of
the Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment of
the Tribunal is set aside, the delay in filing of O.A. No. 774 of 199~ is
condoned and the said application is allowed. The appellants would be E
entitled to the same relief in the matter of pension as has been granted by
the Full Bench of the Tribunal in its judgment dated December 16, 1993
in O.A. Nos. 395-403 of 1993 and connected matters. No order as to costs.
A.O. Appeal Allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "service law"Sign in to search