Holding

The 11 April 2001 circular withdrew the 2 August 1984 circular, was not prospective, and thus restored the non‑supervisory status, entitling the respondents to overtime allowance for the intervening period.

Summary

The respondents, who were Train Superintendents, were placed in the supervisory category by a Railway Board circular dated 2 August 1984, which removed their entitlement to overtime allowance. On 11 April 2001 the Board issued another circular withdrawing the 1984 circular and stating that the practice followed during the intervening period would remain effective. The respondents claimed arrears of overtime for the period from 2 August 1984 to 11 April 2001, which was upheld by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Chairman Railway Board appealed, arguing that the 2001 circular was not retrospective and that the claim was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court held that the 2001 circular, not being expressly prospective, withdrew the earlier circular and restored the non‑supervisory status, making the respondents entitled to overtime for the intervening period. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the circular dated 11 April 2001 has retrospective effect, thereby restoring overtime entitlement for the period between 2 August 1984 and 11 April 2001.
Whether the respondents' claim for arrears of overtime allowance is barred by limitation.
Interpretation of administrative circulars with respect to prospective or retrospective operation.

Subjects

overtime allowancesupervisory categorycircularretrospective effectservice lawrailwayarrearslimitationadministrative law

Judgment

THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD AND ANR. A
v.
T. VITTAL RAO AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 2, 2006

[S.B. SINHA AND PX BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.) B

Service Law:

Overtime allowance to Train Superintendents-Issuance of a Circular
placing them in supervisory category thereby disentitling them to draw C
overtime allowance-Withdrawal of Circular-Claim of arrear for intervening
period-Held: Circular/Notification not prospective in effect-Since the
Circular/Notification withdrawn and status-quo ante was restored, the
incumbent would be deemed to have been continuing in the non-supervisory
· capacity only-Hence, they are entitled to claim the overtime allowance for D
the intervening period.

Respondents, working as Train Superintendents in the Railway, were
entitled to draw overtime allowance. Later, in terms of the Circular dated
2.8.84 they were placed in the supervisory category, thereby, they became
disentitled to draw overtime allowance. However, the said Circular was later E
withdrawn by the Railway Board. Respondents claimed for the arrears for
the intervening period, which was rejected b_y the authorities. They filed a
petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Triblinal allowed the
petition holding that they were entitled to overtime allowance. The writ petition
filed by the appellants questi9ning the correctness or otherwise of the said F
judgment of the Tribunal was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present
appeal

Appellants contended that the circular dated 11.4.2001 withdrawing the
earlier Circular conferring supervisory status on the respondents did not
have retrospective effect or retroactive operation and in that view of the matter, G
the Tribunal and consequently the High Court, committed a serious error in
directing payment of overtime allowance in favour of the respondents for the
intervening period; and that the petition was barred by limitation.

Respondents submitted that since the circular dated 2.8.1984 was
IW7 H
1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] I S.C.R.

.. A withdrawn, they became entitled to overtime allowance.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD.I.I. Overtime allowance ceased to become payable to the
respondents only when they were placed in the supervisory category. By reason
B of the notification dated 11.4.2001, the status quo ante as was obtaining on
2.8.1984 was restored as a result whereof the respondents would be deemed
to have been continuing io remain in the non-supervisory category only. It is
furthermore clear in terms of the circular letter issued by the Railway Board
itself that till an appropriate decision is taken, for the intervening period i.e
C from 2.8.1984 to ll.4.200lthe practice would remain effective. As the practice
remained effective, the respondents continued to be in the non-supervisory
category and in that view of the matter they had rightly been held to he entitled
to the overtime allowance. fl 100-F, GI

1.2. The Circular letter dated 11.4.2001 does not state that it is
D prospective in nature. It does not further more state that overtime allowance
would be payable to the respondents only after the issuance thereof. The
earlier circular dated 2.8.1984 having been withdrawn, the effect of circular
dated 2.8.1984 shall stand effaced. Furthermore, from a letter dated 20.9.2001
issued by the appellant, it appears that the circular letter dated 11.4.2001
was also understood in the same manner as was done by the respondents
E inasmuch as therein it was stated that the Train Superintendents for the extra
work beyond rostered hours would be eligible for overtime allowance as they
should be treated under non-supervisory post. [1100-H; 1101-A, B]

P. Mahendran and Ors. v. State of Karnataka, !1990) l SCC 411 and
NT Devin Katti and Ors. v. Karnataka Public Service Commission & Ors.,
F 1199013 sec 157, distinguished.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 939 of 2006.

From the Judgment and Order dated 15.3.2005 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in Writ Petition No. 1625 of2004.
G
A. Sharan, Rudreshwar Singh and B. Krishna Prasad for the Appellants.

C.S.N. Mohan Rao and D. Mahesh Babu for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
r

CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD v. T. VITT AL RAO [SINHA, J.] I099

S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted. A
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.3.2005
passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 1625 of 2004
whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant herein
questioning the correctness of the judgment and order dated 3.10.2003 passed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal in 0.A. No. 13/2003 was dismissed. B
The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The respondents herein
at all material times were and still are working as Train Superintendents.
Admittedly prior to 2.8.1984 they were placed in the non-supervisory category..
The Railway Board issued a circular on 2.8.1984 in terms whereof they were C
placed in the supervisory category.

Indisputably, prior to 2.8.1984 those who were to work beyond rostered
hours were entitled to draw overtime allowance. As by reason ·of the
aforementioned circular dated 2.8.84 the respondents were placed in the
supervisory category, they became disentitled to draw overtime allowance. D
The said circular letter however, was withdrawn by the Railway Board on or
about 11.4.2001, inter alia, stating:

"Pending question of classification of Train Superintendents on trains
other than Rajdhani Express being discussed further with the
Federations, the matter has been carefully considered by Board and E
it has been decided as under:

(i) Instructions contained in Board's letter No. E(LL)/79/HER/1-13,
dated 2.8.84 are withdrawn with immediate effect.

(ii) For the intervening period from 2.8.84 till 11.4.2001 (i.e., the date F
of issue of this letter), the practice followed on each individual railway
in regard to classification of Train Superintendents on trains other
than Rajdhani Express as Superivisory or non-supervisory shall remain
effective.

(iii) The matter regarding classification as 'Supervisory' of Train G
Superintendents on trains other than Rajdhani Express shall be finalized
expeditiously in consultation with the two recognized staff
Federations."

The respondents in view of the aforementioned circular letter dated
11.4.2001 filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal H
--
1100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) I S.C.R.

A which was marked as O.A. No. 13/03. The Tribunal arrived at a finding of fact
that whereas rostered hours of duty of the respondents were I 08 hours every
fortnight, the respondents having worked for 205 hours are entitled to 97
hours' over time allowance every fortnight The writ petition filed by the
appellants herein questioning the correctness or otherwise of the said judgment
of the Tribunal was dismissed.
B
Mr. A. Sharan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
submitted that the said circular dated 11.4.200 I did not have retrospective
effect or retroactive operation and in that view of the matter, the Tribunal and
consequently the High Court, committed a serious error in directing payment
C of overtime allowance in favour of the respondents for the period from
2.8.1984 to 11.4.200 I. In any view of the matter, the learned counsel contended
that the original application was barred by limitation. Our attention has further
been drawn to the fact that the respondents did not deny or dispute that they
had drawn the over time allowance from the date of the clarification issued
by the Railway Board.
D
Mr. C.S.N. Mohan Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents, on the other hand, submitted that as by reason of the
aforementioned circular dated 11.4.200 I the earlier circular dated 2.8.1984 was
withdrawn, the respondents became entitled to over time allowance.

E A bare perusal of the circular dated 11.4.200 I clearly demonstrates that
thereby the earlier circular letter dated 2.8.1984 stood withdrawn. It is not
denied or disputed that the practice prevailing in the Division was that apart
from Train Superintendents of Rajdhani Express, others were entitled to overtime
allowance. Overtime allowance ceased to become payable to the respondents
F only when they were placed in the supervisory category. By reason of the
said notification dated 11.4.200 I indisputably, the status quo ante as was
obtaining on 2.8.1984 was restored as a result whereof the respondents would
be deemed to have been continuing to remain in the non-supervisory category
only. It is furthermore clear in terms of the circular letter issued by the Railway
Board itself that till an appropriate decision is taken, for the intervening period
G i.e. from 2.8.1984 to 11.4.200 I the practice would remain effective. As the
practice remained effective , the respondents continued to be in the non-
supervisory category and in that view of the matter they had rightly been held
to be entitled to the overtime allowance. Circular letter dated 11.4.2001 does
not state that it is prospective in nature. It does not further more state that
H overtime ailowance would be payable to the respondents only after the
CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARDv. T. VITTALRAO[SINHA,J.] 1101

.- . issuance thereof. The earlier circular dated 2.8.1984 having been withdrawn, A
the effect of circular dated 2.8.1984 shall stand effaced. Furthermore, from a
letter dated 20.9.2001 issued by the Division Railway Manager (P) SC to the
Sr. DCM/SC, it appears, that the circular letter dated 11.4.2001 was also
understood in the same manner as was dorie by the respondents inasmuch
as therein it was stated that the Train Superintendents for the extra work B
beyond rostered hours would be eligible for overtime allowance as they
should be treated under non-supervisory post.

P. Mahendran & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, [1990] l SCC 411 relied
.;
upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is of no assistance in the
instant case. The question which arose for consideration therein was as to C
whether the qualification contained in the amended rules should be given
retrospective effect or whether the rules being prospective in nature, the right
of the candidates cannot be taken away.

N. T. Devin Katti & Ors. v. Karnataka Public Service Commission &
Ors. [ 1990] 3 sec 157 is an authority for the proposition that the changes in D
the reservation policy cannot be effected retrospectively so as to affect the
candidates' existing right in terms of the advertisement for selection which
had been issued much prior to the change in policy.

For the foregoing reasons we do not find any merit in this appeal and
it is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the E
parties shall bear their own costs.

S.K.S. Appeal dismissed .

•