High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2016-06-06Writ petitions dismissed

Union of India and others v. S. Monny and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 30031 of 2006 (S)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
ANIL K.NARENDRAN
Judgment Date: 2016-06-06
Court Decision / Holding: The Writ Petitions fail and they are dismissed accordingly; the CAT’s Ext.P6 order directing pay fixation with protection of the pay drawn at the time of regularisation is sustained as consistent with apex court principles.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Union of India represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Head Quarters Office, Park Town, Chennai-3
Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Trivandrum Division, Trivandrum-14
Section Engineer (Permanent Way), Southern Railway, Trivandrum-14

Respondents

S. Monny
K. Viswambaran Asari
K. Sadasivan Nair (Abated)
K. Achuthan
K. Sreekantan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M.R. Sreeletha, Senior Counsel, Railways
• C.S. Dias, Senior Counsel, Railways

Counsels for Respondents

• M.P. Varkey
• Martin G. Thottan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This judgment of the Kerala High Court concerns writ petitions challenging Ext.P6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which directed pay fixation for railway workers who were Regularised as Gangmen (Group D) after long service as Skilled Casual Labourers. The petitioners contended that pay fixation must protect the pay drawn at the time of regularisation, in line with the Supreme Court’s declarations in Inderpal Yadav v. Union of India and others and the Badri Prasad line of cases, and that Ext.P3’s directions to fix pay based on length of service would adversely affect their rights. They argued they had been regularised in 1997 to Group D with a specific pay scale, and that post-regularisation judgments could not retroactively alter their pay. The respondents argued that pay fixation and protection should follow the norms applicable to Group D absorption, supported by a 1976 Railways letter, and that OA Nos. 834/97 and 1502/98 had been dismissed; they invoked Bhadei Rai as supportive authority. The court held that the apex court’s declarations in similar situations require pay protection at the time of regularisation, a principle already applied by Ext.P6, and found no tenable ground to interfere. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed, upholding the CAT’s pay-protection order.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that Ext.P3’s directive for pay fixation on the basis of length of service would erode the pay rights of employees who were regularised in Group D. They rely on Supreme Court principles in Inderpal Yadav v. Union of India and Badri Prasad that pay should be protected at the time of regularisation. They argue that the petitioners were regularised as Gangmen in 1997 and that post-regularisation judgments, while persuasive, cannot alter this position. They maintain that the 1976 Railways letter supports the existing pay structure and that OA Nos. 834/97 and 1502/98 were properly decided against the workers, making Ext.P6 an improper intervention.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that regularisation into a Group D post with a fixed pay scale is proper and that pay fixation should follow the applicable norms, with pay protection flowing from established jurisprudence and the earlier OA rulings. They cite Bhadei Rai and other apex court principles to justify protection of pay drawn prior to/at regularisation, arguing that the Tribunal’s Ext.P6 simply enforces those protective measures within the statutory framework and does not undermine the long-standing norms of pay fixation.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Inderpal Yadav v. Union of India and others	2005 (11) SCC 301	Positive	Apex Court principle that pay drawn at the time of regularisation should be protected; tribunal’s order aligns with this doctrine.
Badri Prasad and others v. Union of India and others	2005 KHC 1997	Positive	Kerala High Court decision cited in support of pay protection on regularisation; reinforces the protection principle.
Bhadei Rai v. Union of India	2006 SCC (L&S) 89	Mentioned Only	Cited by respondents but not central to the court’s ultimate conclusion; referenced in the context of apex court principles.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Union of India and others v. S. Monny and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/16TH JYAISHTA, 1938 WP(C).No. 30031 of 2006 (S) --------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 504/2004 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 04-08-2006 PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O., CHENNAI-3. 2. DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM-14. 3. SECTION ENGINEER (PERMANENT WAY), SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM-14. - BY ADVS.SMT.M.R.SREELETHA, SC, RAILWAYS SRI.C.S.DIAS,SC, RAILWAYS RESPONDENT(S): - -------------- 1. S.MONY, S/O.SUNDARAN NADAR, SENIOR GANGMAN /II, UNDER SECTION ENGINEER (P.WAY), TRIVANDRUM,RESIDING AT SURESH BHAVAN, PARASALA P.O, TRIVANDRUM. 2. K.VISWAMBARAN ASARI, S/O.KRISHNAN ASARI, SENIOR GANGMAN/II, UNDER SECTION ENGINEER (P.WAY)/TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT:KRISHNA VILASAM, MANJAVILAHAM P.O., TRIVANDRUM. - **3.** [K.SADASIVAN NAIR, S/O.KUTTAN PILLAI, SENIOR GANGMAN/II, UNDER SECTION ENGINEER (P.WAY)/, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT:PADMAVILASAM,, NEMOM P.O., TRIVANDRUM.] **Abated** ## **[“Writ Petition is abated as against R3” as per order dt.10.8.12 in W.P.(C)No.30031/06]** 4. K.ACHUTHAN, S/O.KRISHNAN NADAR, SENIOR GANGMAN/II, UNDER SECTION ENGINEER (P.WAY)/, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDIGN AT: KAUVILA PUTHENVEEDU, DHANUVACHAPURAM P.O., TRIVANDRUM. WP(C).No. 30031 of 2006 (S) 5. K.SREEKANTAN, S/O.KRISHNAN ASARI, GANGMAN, UNDER SECTION ENGINEER(P.WAY)/, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT: PERATHALACKAVILA VEEDU, FATHIMANAGAR P.O., KANYAKUMARI, TAMIL NADU. R1,2,4 & 5 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.VARKEY R1,2,4 & 5 BY ADV. SRI.MARTIN G.THOTTAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-06-2016, ALONG WITH WPC. 32052/2006 & WPC.33409/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **APPENDIX IN WP.30031/06** ## **PETITIONER'S EXTS:** EXT.P1: COPY OF OA No.504/04 (WITHOUT ANNEXURE) FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH DT.3.7.04. EXT.P2: COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN OA No.504/04 DT.19.11.2004. EXT.P3: COPY OF LETTER NO.V/P.524/I/FIXATION OF PAY DT.3.6.2004. EXT.P4: COPY OF REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANTS IN OA.504/04. EXT.P5: COPY OF ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN OA.No.504/04 DT.17.7.2004. EXT.P6: COPY OF ORDER OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN OA.504/04 DT.4.8.06. ## **RESPONDENTS' EXTS: NIL** TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE dsn **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------W.P.(C)Nos.30031 & 32052 of 2006 & 33409 of 2007** **-------------------------------------------------DATED THIS THE 6[th] DAY OF JUNE, 2016** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J** . The challenge is against Ext.P6 order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal intercepting Ext.P3 order dated 3.6.2004 and directing the respondents to effect the pay fixation of the respondents herein protecting the pay which was being drawn by them at the time of regularisation, to be in conformity with law declared by the Apex Court in **Inderpal Yadav v. Union of India and others (2005 (11) SCC 301)** and reiterated in **Badri Prasad and others v. Union of India and others (2005 KHC 1997)** . 2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Railways and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The respondents herein were working as Skilled Casual Labourers in the Railways for quite long. Subsequently, they came to be regularised as Gangman, which is a 'Group D post', vide order dated 24.3.1997. While they were working accordingly, Ext.P3 order was issued on 3.6.2004 by the 2[nd] petitioner giving W.P.(C)Nos.30031 & 32052/06 & 33409/07 -2- appropriate instruction/direction to the concerned authorities to effect pay fixation based on the length of service. On coming across the said position, the respondents approached the Tribunal pointing out that, if Ext.P3 order which was produced as Annexure A1 was implemented, that would have adversely affected their rights and interest and that they are actually entitled to have their pay protected at the time of regularisation. Reliance was sought to be placed on **Inderpal Yadav v. Union of India and others (2005 (11) SCC 301)** and **Badri Prasad and others v. Union of India and others (2005 KHC 1997)** . 4. The claim was sought to be resisted from the part of the Department pointing out that the applicants were regularised only in the post of Group-D with a specific scale of pay and by virtue of Railway Board's letter dated 5.11.1976 Skilled Casual Labourers will have their pay fixed on absorption in unskilled categories by granting increments with reference to their length of service. The regularisation of the respondents was effective from 24.3.1997 and that the verdicts passed by the Apex Court subsequently could not have any effect in so far as their case was W.P.(C)Nos.30031 & 32052/06 & 33409/07 -3- concerned. The contentions taken from the part of the Railways were repelled and placing reliance on the verdict passed by the Apex Court, Ext.P6 verdict came to be passed, which in turn is under challenge in these Writ Petitions. 5. During the course of hearing, the learned Standing Counsel for the Railways submits that the respondents had earlier moved the Tribunal, immediately after regularisation in service by filing O.A.No.834/97 and 1502/98 contending that they were working as Skilled Casual employees and that they should have been absorbed as Group C posts carrying higher scale of pay. The claim was resisted by the Railways pointing out that, the applicants did never have the right to be absorbed in any posts in Group C and that the regularisation can be ordered only as Group D in terms of the relevant norms. Accepting the version put forth by the Railways, the OAs were dismissed and the same has become final, having not challenged from the part of the concerned workers. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that under exactly similar circumstances, some of the workers had W.P.(C)Nos.30031 & 32052/06 & 33409/07 -4- approached even the Apex Court and the Court had observed that the pay had to be protected, though they were not entitled for regularisation as Group C. The learned counsel for the respondents submits with reference to Ground C of the OA produced as Ext.P1 in W.P.(C)No.30031/2006 that the concerned workers were granted temporary status with a higher scale of pay of 950-1500 from 1.1.1986 in the 4₹ th Pay Commission and ₹3050-4590 from 1.1.1996 in the 5th Pay Commission and they were drawing the salary accordingly. It was at that point of time that the respondents who were the applicants before the Tribunal working on skilled posts, as skilled workers, with temporary status came to be regularised in a non-skilled cagory of Gangman which is a Group D post with a minimum scale of pay. This being the position, the respondents/applicants were entitled to have similar benefits flowing from the verdicts passed by the Apex Court in so far as there is a categoric declaration to the effect that the concerned persons who were discharging higher responsibilities/duties though are not entitled to be regularised in a higher post but for absorption in duty are entitled to have their W.P.(C)Nos.30031 & 32052/06 & 33409/07 -5- pay protected. Reliance is also sought to be placed on the verdict passed by the Apex Court in **Bhadei Rai v. Union of India (2006 SCC (L&S) 89)** . 7. After hearing both the sides, we find that the issue stands quite settled by virtue of the declaration made by the Apex Court to the effect that under similar circumstance, the pay which was being drawn by the workers concerned at the time of regularisation required to be protected. This alone has been done by the Tribunal. No tenable ground has been raised by the petitioners to have the said verdict passed by the Tribunal intercepted, either on facts or in law. The Writ Petitions fail and they are dismissed accordingly. ## Sd/- ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** , **JUDGE** ## Sd/- **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE** dsn True copy P.S.to Judge