1. Premature retirement of railway employee — Reinstatement in service — Dispute over treatment of intervening period as duty with full pay versus leave. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 1426
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D. P. Wadhwa, Sujata. V. Manohar
M. A. RAVOOF, APPELLANT
Versus
SENIOR DIVISIONAL SIGNAL TELECOMMUNICATION ENGINEER AND ANOTHER, RESPONDENTS.
Civil Appeal No. 870 of 1992,
decided on November 6, 1997.
Important Points
The Court held that employees reinstated after premature retirement are entitled to full pay for the intervening period only if the retirement resulted from political or personal victimization. In other cases, treating the period as leave or dies non is a discretionary matter based on Railway Board Guidelines.
Subject
Employment Law - Reinstatement
Act Referred
Headnote
Termination from services - Premature retirement - Material time Electrical and Signal Maintainer working with South Central Railways under Divisional Signal and Telecommunication Engineer Secunderabad - He was prematurely retired from service in public interest on completion of years qualifying service after giving him three months notice as required under relevant rules - His compulsory retirement was with a view to strengthening administrative machinery and to ensure efficiency - However on considering representations received from appellant his case was reconsidered by Railway Board - By order he was reinstated in service - Under said order intervening period between date of his premature retirement and date of his reinstatement was treated as leave due and admissible - Since appellant had days leave at average pay to his credit and days of leave with half pay he was paid leave salary accordingly and balance period was treated as extraordinary leave without pay - Appellant contends that in some other cases of such reinstatement employees have been paid full salary and therefore he should also be paid full salary for entire period between his premature retirement and reinstatement - Held, If in any case it is decided to reinstate a prematurely retired railway employee in service after considering his representation in accordance with these instructions period intervening between date of premature retirement and date of reinstatement may be treated as duty or as leave or as dies non as case may be taking into account merits of each case - Where Review Representation Committee records a definitive finding that premature retirement of railway servant was on account of political or personal victimisation intervening period should be treated as duty with full pay and allowances - In other cases it would not be appropriate to treat period during which employee had not worked as on duty and allow him duty pay for same - In such cases period may hitherto be treated as leave due and admissible or dies non as authority ordering reinstatement may decide - Some other persons have been given benefit of pay for entire intervening period - This by itself is of no help to him - If person who is reinstated with full pay during intervening period was a victim of personal or political vendetta he would be entitled to full pay as per Guidelines - In one case it seems that authority under Payment of Wages Act directed that pay should be given to reinstated employee for intervening period - That order also cannot be considered as a precedent which should be applied in all cases much less when Guidelines issued by Railway Board are clear and discretion has been properly exercised in present case - Appeal Dismissed
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Claim for full salary for the intervening period between premature retirement and reinstatement based on parity with other reinstated employees. (Para 3 , 6 )
3. Absence of political or personal victimisation justifies treating the intervening period as leave rather than duty with full pay per Railway Board Guidelines. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. Intervening period after premature retirement is treated as duty with full pay only upon a finding of political or personal victimisation. (Para 3 , 5 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 7 )
6. Under what conditions is the intervening period between premature retirement and reinstatement of a railway employee treated as duty with full pay?
The intervening period is treated as duty with full pay and allowances only when the Review Representation Committee records a definitive finding that the premature retirement was due to political or personal victimisation. (Para 3 , 5 )
7. How is the intervening period treated if no political or personal victimisation is established?
In cases where no political or personal victimisation is found, the period may be treated as leave due and admissible or as dies non, as decided by the authority ordering reinstatement. (Para 3 , 5 )
8. Does the grant of full pay to other reinstated employees create a binding precedent for all similar cases?
No. Parity claims are not sustainable if the other employees were victims of personal or political vendetta or if their pay was granted under specific orders, such as the Payment of Wages Act, which do not override general Guidelines. (Para 6 )
ORDER
1. Mr. B. Kanta Rao states that the appellant has died. He applies for substitution of the appellant by his wife Fatimabi, his heir and legal representative. He undertakes to file his appearance for and on behalf of the heir and legal representative of the deceased namely, Fatimabi, within one week from today. The application is allowed on the undertaking given by Mr. Rao to file his appearance on her behalf and to carry out consequential amendments within one week from today.
2. The appellant was at the material time Electrical and Signal Maintainer working with South Central Railways under the Divisional Signal and Telecommunication Engineer (Maintenance), Secunderabad. He was prematurely retired from service w.e.f. 20-2-1976 in public interest on completion of 30 years qualifying service, after giving him three months notice as required under the relevant rules. His compulsory retirement was with a view to strengthening administrative machinery and to ensure efficiency. However, on considering the representations received from the appellant, his case was reconsidered by the Railway Board. By order dated 12-5-1980 he was reinstated in service w.e.f. 26-5-1980. Under the said order the intervening period between the date of his premature retirement and the date of his reinstatement was treated as leave due and admissible. Since the appellant had 36 days leave at average pay to his credit and 62 days of leave with half pay, he was paid leave salary accordingly and the balance period was treated as extraordinary leave without pay.
3. The appellant contends that in some other cases of such reinstatement the employees have been paid full salary and, therefore, he should also be paid full salary for the entire period between his premature retirement and reinstatement. The claim of the appellant has to be considered in the light of the Guidelines issued by the Railway Board dealing with such cases, as contained in the confidential letter dated 15-11-1979, addressed to the General Managers of all Indian Railways, which is Annexure I to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents in the present proceedings. Part III of these Guidelines deals with the procedure for consideration of representations by employees who have been served with the order of premature retirement. Paras 4 and 5 of Part III of these Guidelines provide as follows :
"4. If in any case, it is decided to reinstate a prematurely retired railway employee in service after considering his representation in accordance with these instructions, the period intervening between the date of premature retirement and the date of reinstatement may be treated as duty, or as leave or as dies non as the case may be, taking into account the merits of each case.
5. Where the Review Representation Committee records a definitive finding that the premature retirement of the railway servant was on account of political or personal victimisation, the intervening period should be treated as duty with full pay and allowances. In other cases, it would not be appropriate to treat the period during which the employee had not worked, as on duty and allow him the duty pay for the same. In such cases, the period may hitherto be treated as leave due and admissible or dies non, as the authority ordering reinstatement may decide."
4. In para 8 of Part III there are certain directions with regard to employees who were retired prematurely during the period of emergency. The Board has directed the appropriate Committee in such cases to take special care to see that overrigorous standards were not applied when the order of compulsory retirement was passed and that such premature retirement was not resorted to for political or personal victimisation.
5. The appellants case is not a case of political or personal victimisation. As per the Guidelines, in his case it would not be appropriate to treat the period during which he did not work as "on duty" or to allow him full salary for the period. As per
