Court Cases relating to demand of Loco Inspectors for reckoning of pay element of 55% at the time of retirement.
सरकार GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
रेल मंत्रालय MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(रेलवे वोर्ड RAILWAY BOARD)
रेल मंत्रालय MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(रेलवे वोर्ड RAILWAY BOARD)
No.E(P&A)ll-2009/RS-18
New Delhi, dated 04.12.2017.
The General Managers,
All Indian Railways (Except NCR).
New Delhi, dated 04.12.2017.
The General Managers,
All Indian Railways (Except NCR).
Sub : Court Cases relating to demand of Loco Inspectors for reckoning of pay element of 55% at the time of retirement.
Kindly refer to this office letter No. E(P&A)I1/2008/RS-32/Vol-III. dated 22-03-2016 and E(P&A)II/2016/RS-18 dated 22-07-2016 on the above subject whereby it was informed that ‘Stay' has been obtained in Civil Appeal No. 3l10/20l6. UOI Vs. Sh. Kishan Lal Sharma and Civil Appeal No. 4386/2016 UOI Vs. K. L. Mehndiratta against the verdict dated 09-10-2015 of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
It is understood that several court cases have been filed before various Hon’ble Tribunals and High Court on the subject. WP No. 60133 of 2006 before the Hon'ble High Court. Allahabad filed by UOI & Ors. Vs. A. Amrol, Retd. Loco Inspector has been decided in favour of UOI on 17-08-2017. In this connection, it is stated that the Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad has given the following order:-
• “(9)lt is undisputed that the respondents had been promoted as stationary staff from the running staff.
• (10)ln the background of the aforesaid judgment UOI Vs. B. Baneerjee, no running staff including the erstwhile members of the running staff permananently engaged in the performance of stationary duty can be given running allowances. Running allowances are to be paid to the running staff only for performing actual running duty.
• (11)The protection to the respondents of 30% of the basic pay as per the judgment of the Apex Court has also been extended as urged by Sh. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioners.
• (12)Consequently, in view of the aforesaid judgment , we allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 16-05-2006 to the extent indicated above)"
In view of the above. it is advised that if any similar issue is pending before any Court of Law on your Railways, the above position may be brought to the notice of the Hon‘ble Courts. A copy of the said order is enclosed. It is requested to take adequate care to defend and assign similar case, if any. to a Senior officer for proper monitoring and follow up. The status of such cases may be informed to this office from time to time.
• “(9)lt is undisputed that the respondents had been promoted as stationary staff from the running staff.
• (10)ln the background of the aforesaid judgment UOI Vs. B. Baneerjee, no running staff including the erstwhile members of the running staff permananently engaged in the performance of stationary duty can be given running allowances. Running allowances are to be paid to the running staff only for performing actual running duty.
• (11)The protection to the respondents of 30% of the basic pay as per the judgment of the Apex Court has also been extended as urged by Sh. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioners.
• (12)Consequently, in view of the aforesaid judgment , we allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 16-05-2006 to the extent indicated above)"
In view of the above. it is advised that if any similar issue is pending before any Court of Law on your Railways, the above position may be brought to the notice of the Hon‘ble Courts. A copy of the said order is enclosed. It is requested to take adequate care to defend and assign similar case, if any. to a Senior officer for proper monitoring and follow up. The status of such cases may be informed to this office from time to time.
(Salim Md. Ahmed)
Deputy Director, Estt.(P&A)-ll,
Railway Board.
Deputy Director, Estt.(P&A)-ll,
Railway Board.
Comments