Supreme Court of India

INDIAN RAILWAY PERMANENT WAY INSPECTORS ASSOCIATION AND ANR.versusTHE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 1997 INSC 191
Decided: 24 February 1997
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYG T NANAVATI

Holding

The Court upheld the Government’s view that the duties of Permanent Way Inspectors are substantially the same as those of the Mistries, and therefore the Tribunal’s order rejecting the higher pay claim is lawful.

Summary

The petitioners, Permanent Way Inspectors (Grade III) in the Indian Railways, sought a higher pay scale (Rs 1600‑2660) than the one fixed (Rs 1400‑2300) on the ground that they formed a separate cadre subordinate to Permanent Way Mistries and Direct Track Maintenance Mistries. The Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras) rejected their claim, leading to a Special Leave Petition before this Court. The Government, after evaluating the nature of duties of the three posts, concluded that the Inspectors performed substantially the same duties as the Mistries and therefore were not entitled to a higher scale, relying on the Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 and the recommendations of the IVth and Vth Pay Commissions. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's order was consistent with law and that there was no basis for interference. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether Permanent Way Inspectors (Grade III) constitute a separate cadre entitled to a higher pay scale than Permanent Way Mistries and Direct Track Maintenance Mistries.
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal's order rejecting the claim can be set aside by this Court.

Subjects

Service LawPay ScaleRailway Services (Revised Pay) RulesPay CommissionCentral Administrative TribunalSpecial Leave PetitionCadreSubordination

Judgment

A INDIAN RAILWAY PERMANENT WAY INSPECTORS
ASSOCIATION AND ANR.
v.
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 24, 1997
B
(K. RAMASWAY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.)

Service Law :

C Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986:

Pay Scale--Railways--f'ennanent Way Inspectors Grade III-Claim for
higher pay .scale than Pem1ane11t Way Mistries and Direct Track Maintenance
Mistries on the ground that these are separate cadres and are subordi11ate to
claimants-Held, the Government after evaluating the nature of the duties and
D responsibilities of the different sets of officers, came to the conclusion that the
claimants perfonn substantially the same and similar duties and respon-
sibilities and that therefore, there is no reaso11 to revise the pay scales of
Pennane11t Way Inspectors Gr. III to the scale of pay higher than one fixed
by the Railway Department in the Rules, as recommended by the Wth Pay
E Commission. A representation seems to have been made before the Vth Pay
Commission and the Vth Pay Commission has given the report to the .
Government-Therefore, based on the submission of report of the Vth Pay
Commission and acceptance by the Government, the claimants' pay would
be looked inter-The Tribunal's order accepting Governm5mt's stand is con-
F sistent'with law, and does not warrant a11y interferei1ce.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 3370 of 1997. --
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.9.96 of the Central Ad-
G ministrative Tribunal, Madras in O.A. No. 1369 of 1993.

P.S. Poti, Manoj Pillai and Ms. Malini Poduval for the Petitioners.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

H This special leave petition arises from the order of the Central
452
INDIAN RLY. PERMANENT WAY INSPECTORS ASSN. v. U.0.1. 453

Administrative Tribunal, Madras, made on 13.9.96 in O.A. No. 1369/93. A

-
The petitioners are the Permanent Way Inspectors in the pay scale of Rs.
1400-2300. They had sought the pay scale of Rs. 1600-2660 and when that
was not given, they approached the Tribunal which has rejected their claim.
Thus, this special leave petition.

It is their contention that the Permanent Way Inspectors, Gr. III, B
Permanent Way Mistries and Direct Track Maintenance Mistries are
separate cadres and are subordinate to the Petitioners. Therefore, they are
entitled to higher scales of pay. It is true that, in an earlier batch of four
applications ry similarly situated employees, the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Bangalore Bench has given direction to grant the pay scales c
claimed by them. After. the special leave petition was disposed of by this
Court and an order was made in a contempt petition by the Tribunal, the
Government considered the matter in the light of the decision given by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore. On consideration thereof, by
proceedings dated July 12, 1991, the Government have stated as under :
D
"'
"In obedience duty directions issued by the Honourable Central
Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in the order dated
27.7.89 passed in application Nos. 2029 & 2039 to 2041/1988, is
advised the Ministry or Railway (Railway Board) in consultation
with the Ministry of Finance, which is the nodal ministry for E
deciding and on issuance pertaining to pay scale and relative aspect
of Central Government employees have made due evaluation of
the nature of duty and responsibility of the PWl's Grade III with
that of PWM & DTM on such evaluation of all aspect it has been
observed that Kholder of the post of PWI Grade III performs
F
substantially the same or similar duties and responsibilities and
--,- therefore there are no circumstances to revise the scale of pay of
PWI Grade III to the scale of pay higher than the one fixed in the
Railway Services (revised pay) rule 1986 issued by the President
pursuant to the recommendation made by the IVth Pay Commis-
sion." G

This was accepted by the Bangalore Tribunal in the contempt
proceedings. When the petitioners raised the similar contention, the
Tribunal did not accept their conte.ntion. It is seen that the Government
after evaluating the nature of the duties and responsibilities of the different H
l
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] 2 S.C.R.
+
A sets of officers, as mentioned in the order, came to the conclusion that they
perform substantially the same and similar duties and responsibilities and
that, therefore, they did not find any reason to revise the pay scales of
Permanent Way Inspectors, Gr. III to th;: scale of pay higher than one fixed
by the Railway Department in the Railway Services (revised pay) Rules,
B 1986 as recommended by the IVth Pay Commission. A representation
seems to have been made before the Vth Pay Commission and the Vth Pay
Commission has given the report to the Government. Therefore, based on
the submission of the report of the Vth Pay Commission and acceptance
by the Government, ~he petitioners' pay would be looked into. The
Tribunal's order is consistent with law. Therefore, it does not warrant any
C interference.

The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.

R.P. Petition dismissed.

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