Holding

Promotions made before 1 January 1986 do not satisfy the conditions of Rule 1316, so the principle of stepping up of pay is inapplicable and the appellants are not entitled to the stepped‑up pay.

Summary

The appellants, Drivers Grade‑C of Central Railways, were promoted to Loco Supervisors before 1 January 1986. After the Fourth Pay Commission’s recommendations took effect on that date, Drivers Grade‑A promoted thereafter received a higher running allowance, leaving the earlier promoters with lower pay. The Railway issued a circular stepping up their pay, but later withdrew it, stating that the codal conditions under Rule 1316 of the Railway Establishment Code were not satisfied. The appellants challenged the withdrawal before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court, both of which dismissed their claim. The Supreme Court examined whether Rule 1316 applied and whether the earlier decision in Union of India v. O.P. Saxena was applicable, concluding that the earlier decision correctly held that promotions before 1 January 1986 did not meet the conditions for stepping up pay and that the sources of recruitment to the Loco Supervisor post were different, rendering the principle of stepping up inapplicable. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals.

Issues considered

Whether Rule 1316 of the Railway Establishment Code applies to Drivers Grade‑C promoted to Loco Supervisors before 1 January 1986.
Whether the appellants are entitled to stepped‑up pay under the circular issued by the Railway.
Whether the decision in Union of India v. O.P. Saxena is applicable to the present facts.

Subjects

Service LawRailway Establishment CodeRule 1316stepping up of payFourth Pay CommissionCentral Administrative Tribunalpromotionpay parity

Judgment

A SURENDER KUMAR
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JANUARY 13, 2005

B [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND P.K BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.]

Service Law:

Railway Establishment Code, 1965; Rule 1316:
c
Stepping up of pay-Drivers Grade---C promoted to the post of loco
Supervisor-Drivers Grade-A though promoted later but getting higher pay-
Justification of-Held: Drivers Grade-A, Drivers Grade-Band Drivers Grade-
C constitute different sources of recruitment to the post of loco Supervisors-
D Since sources of recruitment were different, principle of stepping up of pay
inapplicable.

Appellant-Drivers Grade-C were promoted to the post or Loco
Supervisors in the Central Railways. Later, Drivers Grade-A were also
promoted. In the meantime, the Railways accepted the recommendations
E or the Fourth Pay Commission, as a result of which appellants were getting
lesser pay than those promoted later. Aggrieved, appellants made
representations to Railway Authorities for stepping up of their pay and
p
also for payment of arrears. Authorities issued a Circular whereby their
pay was stepped up. However, the Circular was later withdrawn on the
ground that the conditions necessary for stepping up of the pay as provided
F under Rule 1316 of the Railway Establishment Code were not Culfilled.
Aggrieved, some of the Loco Supervisors, other than the appellants, filed
petitions before the Central Administrative Tribunal against the order of
withdrawal of the Circular. CAT upheld their claim. Union or India
prererred appeal before this Court which was allowed by the Court setting
G aside order of CAT. Subsequently, petitions were filed by the appellants
before CAT, challenging the order of withdrawal of the Circular. Petitions
were rejected by CAT. Appeals against the order of CAT were allowed
by the High Court. Hence the present appeals.

Appellants contended that the case of Union oflndia and Ors. v.D.P.
II 468
S. KUMAR v. U.0.1. 469

) 1- Saxena, [1997[ 6 sec 360 requires reconsideration since this Court, while A
dealing with that case had assumed that Codal Conditions as per Rule 1316
of the Railway Establishment Code could be applied to persons similarly
situated as the appellants, and that erroneous assumption has led to the
erroneous conclusion in that case; and that the decision of this Court does
not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
B
Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1. It is not possible to accept the distinction sought to be
made by the appellants between those involved in the decision in Union of
India and Ors. v. O.P. Saxena and in the present case. The appellants also
opted to be promoted to the stationary post of Loco Supervisors directly C
from the post of Drivers Grade-C and their promotions were also made
prior to acceptance of recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission,
viz. 1.1.1986. It was the claim ofsuch persons that was considered by this
Court in the said reported decision and this Court held that those who
were promoted before 1.1.1986 did not satisfy the Codal conditions and D
Rule 1316 of the Railway Establishment Code governing the principle of
stepping up of pay. Hence, the persons promoted from Drivers Grade-C
to the post of Loco Supervisors were not entitled to stepped up pay and
could not claim the benefit of the Circular, the withdrawal of the Circular
regarding persons similarly situated was justified. Besides, the sources of
recruitment to the post of Loco Supervisors were Drivers Grade-A, Drivers E
Grade-B and Drivers Grade-C. Thus the sources were different and that
made the principle of stepping up of pay inapplicable. Hence, the claim
of the appellants is squarely covered by the decision in that case necessarily
justifying the rejection of their claim by the Central Administrative
Tribunal and the High Court. [471-G-H; 472-A-D-EJ p
I 1-. 1.2. No justification is found in doubting the correctness of the
decision rendered by the Bench of three Judges of this Court in the case
of Union of India and Ors. v. O.P. Saxena and for not applying the ratio of
the decision to the present case. Thus, the argument that the decision
requires reconsideration, is without substance. Hence, the decision of the G
Central Administrative Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court is ·
sustained. [472-F-G; 473-A[

Union of India and Ors. v. O.P. Saxena, [ 1997) 6 SCC 360, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1022 of2001. H
470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] I S.C.R.

A From the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.1999 of the Bombay High
Court at Aurangabad in W.P. No. 5998 of 1999.
J\

M.N. Krishnamani, B.S Jain, Ajay Veer Singh for Goodwill Indeevar
for the Appellant.

B P.P. Khurana, Vikas Sharma and S.N. Terdal for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

P.K BALASUBRAMANY AN, J. I. The appellants were working as
Drivers Grade-C in the Central Railways. They, along with Drivers Grade-A
"'
~

c and Drivers Grade-B, were entitled to be considered for selection to the
higher post of Loco supervisors. The appellants as drivers, in addition to the
scale of pay at Rs.150-240, were also entitled to a running allowance of 30%
;,I
I of the salary which was liable to be added to their basic pay. They were
promoted between the years 1970 and 1974 as Loco Supervisors in the Grade
of Rs.700-900.
D
2. The Railways accepted the recommendations of the IV Pay 'io
Commission with effect from I. 1.1986. This increased the pay of the Drivers ..,,
as well as their running allowance, being 30% of their basic pay. Certain
persons who were working as Drivers Grade-A were promoted as Loco
E Supervisors in the year 1986. The pay revision with effect from 1.1.1986 not
only increased their pay, but also the running allowance of those working as
Drivers as on that day, it being 30% of their increased basic pay. This resulted
l·"
in the appellants getting a lesser pay as Loco Supervisors than those promoted ii
after 1.1.1986 since they did not have the advantage of the increased 30% •
addition in their running allowance and they had to be content with the 30%
F running allowance on their pay prior to the pay revision. Representations
were made by the appellants pointing out that though they were promoted as ~· .
Loco Supervisors earlier, they were getting lesser pay than those Drivers
promoted subsequent to 1.1.1986 and some of whom were their juniors. The
General Manager took up their grievance and a circular was issued authorizing
the stepping up of the pay of the appellants. The pay was thus stepped up and
G
arrears paid. But subsequently in the year 1992, the said circular was withdrawn
on the basis that Coda! Conditions had to be fulfilled for getting stepped up
pay and they did not fulfil that condition. A person similarly situated as the ..,
appellants along with certain others, approached the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Jabalpur challenging the withdrawal of the stepped up pay. The
H Administrative Tribunal upheld their claim. The decision of the Administrative
Ill

·~·
+
S. KUMAR v. U.0.1. [BALASUBRAMANYAN . .I.] 471

/ ~ Tribunal was challenged by the Union of India in this Court. By Judgment A
"" dated 14.7.1997 reported as Union of India and Ors. v. O.P. Saxena, [1997]
6 SCC 360, this Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the
Administrative Tribunal and dismissed the applications filed before the
Administrative Tribunal by persons similarly situated as the appellants.

3. In these cases the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay rejected B
the challenge of the appellants to the withdrawal of the stepped up pay. The
appellants challenged the said decision before the High Court of Bombay.
f ' The High Court dismissed the writ petitions. It is the dismissal of those writ
-+
petitions that are challenged before us.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, at the outset, submitted that the c
question raised by the appellants is covered against them by the decision of
this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. O.P. Saxena (supra) and these
appeals have only to be dismissed in the light of the said clecision. Learned
counsel for the appellants in that context argued that the decision in Union
ofIndia and Ors. v. 0.P. Saxena (supra) was distinguishable. He alternatively D
contended that the said decision requires reconsideration since this Court had
""( assumed that Coda! Conditions, especially Rule 1316 of the Indian Railway
Establishment Code (for short "the Code"), applied to persons similarly situated
as the appellants and this erroneous assumption has led to the conclusion in
that case, which was also erroneous. It was submitted that the said decision
related to claims by those who were juniors to one Mr. Kareer who got E
promoted as a Loco Supervisor from Driver Grade-A whereas in the present
case, the appellants were seniors to Mr. Kareer when they were promoted as
Loco Supervisors from the post of Drivers Grade-C. Since the claim is by
those who were seniors to Mr. Kareer, the decision of this Court did not
apply to the appellants. F
• J_
5. On going through the decision in Union of India and Ors. v. O.P.
Saxena (supra) we find that it is not possible to accept the distinction sought
to be made by the learned counsel for the appellants between those involved
in the said decision and in the present case. The appellants also opted to be
promoted to the Stationary Post of Loco Supervisors directiy from the post G
of Drivers Grade-C and their promotions were also made prior to J.1.1986.
It was the claim of such persons that was considered by this Court in the said
reported decision and this Court held that those who were promoted before
1.1.1986 did not satisfy the cod al conditions and Ru le 1316 of the Code
Vol.II, governing the principle of stepping up of pay. This Court held that
H
472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] I S.C.R.

A going by Rule 1316, the persons promoted from Drivers Grade-C to the post
of Loco Supervisors before 1.1.1986 were not entitled to stepped up pay and
could not claim the benefit of ihe circular dated 8.4.1988 and the withdrawal
of that circular regarding persons similarly situated in the year 1992 was
1'
-
...

justified. The factum of seniority of Mr. Kareer was only incidentally referred
B to. The decision was not rested on that fact or aspect at all.

6. The argument that the coda! conditions and Rule 1316 did not
apply to the appellants and that they were assumed to apply in that decision,
could not also be accepted. The argument that it was assumed that Rule 1316 ' 1
applied, is found to be not tenable. The Court considered the question whether
C Rt~le 1316 applied and noticed the conditions to be fulfilled to enable the
seniors to claim parity of pay with those subsequently promoted. This Court
held that the conditions were not satisfied in the case of persons similarly
situated as the appellants and based on it, the conclusion was arrived at that
they were not entitled to the stepped up pay. This Court also noticed that the
sources of recruitment to the post of Loco Supervisors in the case of drivers
D took in Drivers Grade-A, Drivers Grade-B and Drivers Grade-C and hence
the sources were different and that made the principle of stepping up of pay
inapplicable. Thus, we find that the decision of this Court in the Union of
India and Ors. v. O.P. Saxena (supra) cannot either be distinguished or taken
to be based on an assumption regarding applicability of Rule 1316. We find
E that the claim of the appellants is squarely covered by the decision in Union
of India and Ors. v. O.P. Saxena (supra) necessarily justifying the rejection
of their claim by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court. We
are also in respectful agreement with the view that Rule 1316 has application
and, that the appellants do not satisfy the conditions of that Rule.

F 7. Having considered the arguments in that behalf and having carefully
gone through the decision in Union of India and Ors. v. O.P. Saxena (supra),
.)\ '
we do not find any justification in doubting the correctness of the said decision
rendered by a Bench of three Judges. On a consideration of the relevant
aspects, we find that this Court had considered all the relevant aspects while
rendering the said decision and there is no reason for not applying the ratio
G of the said decision or for doubting its correctness. We are, therefore, of the
view that the argument that the said decision requires reconsideration, is
without substance.

8. In the light of the decision in Union of India and Ors v. O.P.
H Saxena (supra) the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal as affirmed
S. KUMAR v. U.O.l. [BALASUBRAMANYAN, .I.) 473
' \ )_ by the High Court of Bombay, challenged before us, has only to be sustained. A
We, therefore, confirm the decision of the High Court and dismiss these
appeals. However, in the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.

S.K.S. Appeals dismissed.

I ,

J