Important points
It is well-settled that a mistake does not confer any right to any party, and can be corrected.
When two sets of employees of same rank retire at different points of time, one set cannot claim benefit extended to other set on ground that they are similarly situated.

Headnote:Indian Railway Establishment Code - Rule 2544(g)- Running Allowance-Entitlement to - Clarification sought as to whether running allowance was to be added again while fixing pay notionally - Railway Board issued clarification that running allowance was not to be taken into consideration at time of re-fixation of pay on notional basis on 1.1.1986 - Said clarification was challenged by way of an Original application before Central Administrative Tribunal by respondents - Order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, allowing O.A. of respondents and quashing Railway Boards clarification - Writ petition thereagainst- Clarification of Railway Board clarifying that running allowance which was already taken into account for pension and other benefits at time of retirement is not to be added to pay of pre-1986 retirees revised on notional basis as on 1.1.1986 held valid - It appeared that due to a clerical error notional benefits of respondents w.e.f. 1.1.1986 was wrongly fixed and such retired employees were getting excess pension - It is well-settled that a mistake does not confer any right to any party, and can be corrected-Benefit of running allowance has to be taken into consideration for computing pension only once- It had been taken into consideration while fixing pension of respondents at time of their retirement- It was not required to be taken into account again for any future calculation-Benefit of running allowance which had been given to respondent at time of retirement was not to be given again vide Office Memorandum dated 10.2.1998 - Order of Central Administrative Tribunal set aside - Writ Petition allowed. (Paras 20 to 24, 26, 27)
       Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14 - Applicability of-When two sets of employees of same rank retire at different points of time, one set cannot claim benefit extended to other set on ground that they are similarly situated - Though they retired with same rank, they are not of same class or homogeneous group- Hence Article 14 has no application - The employer can validly fix a cut-off date for introducing any new pension/retirement scheme or for discontinuance of any existing scheme - What is discriminatory is introduction of a benefit retrospectively (or prospectively) fixing a cut-off date arbitrarily thereby dividing a single homogenous class of pensioners into two groups and subjecting them to different treatment. (Para 25)
       (2006) 11 SCC 709, (1983) 1 SCC 305, (1990) 4 SCC 207, (1991) 2 SCC 104, (1998) 8 SCC 30, (2000) 7 SCC 62.Relied upon.
       Facts of the case :
       Issue in consideration in present case was regarding as to whether running allowance was to be added again while fixing the pay notionally.
       Findings of the Court :
       The Court held that clarification of Railway Board clarifying that running allowance which was already taken into account for pension and other benefits at time of retirement is not to be added to pay of pre-1986 retirees revised on notional basis as on 1.1.1986 was valid. It appeared that due to a clerical error notional benefits of respondents w.e.f. 1.1.1986 was wrongly fixed and such retired employees were getting excess pension. It is well-settled that a mistake does not confer any right to any party, and can be corrected. Benefit of running allowance has to be taken into consideration for computing pension only once. It had been taken into consideration while fixing pension of respondents at time of their retirement. It was not required to be taken into account again for any future calculation. Benefit of running allowance which had been given to respondent at time of retirement was not to be given again vide Office Memorandum dated 10.2.1998.Order of Central Administrative Tribunal was set aside- Writ Petition was allowed.

JUDGMENT

MARKANDEY KATJU, J.—

1.Writ Petition No. 4648/2002 titled Union of India and another v. S.R. Dhingra and others was filed in the Delhi High Court and was thereafter transferred to this Court by order dated 9.5.2006 in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 278 of 2005.

2.It appears that similar matters were pending before the Delhi High Court, Punjab & Haryana High Court and Central Administrative Tribunal and further proceedings in those cases were ordered to be stayed awaiting the judgment in the matter which was transferred to this Court by the order dated 9.5.2006.

3.The facts of the case are that in the Railways there are certain employees such as drivers, guards, shunters etc, who go along with the railway train and are categorized as Running Staff. Such staffs are entitled to an allowance called Running Allowance which is apart from their salary. Computation of pension after retirement in the railways is made on the basis of average emoluments plus a part of the running allowance which is included in average emoluments in terms of Rule 2544(g) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. The present dispute relates to the pension for the running staff who retired prior to 1986.

4.Prior to its amendment Rule 2544(g) running allowance upto a maximum of 75% of pay and other allowances was added to the pay for computing pension. Subsequently, by notification dated 5.12.1988 Rule 2544 was amended, and the maximum limit of the running allowance was fixed at 45% of the pay in the revised scale of pay. Thereafter by another amendment this was raised to 55% of the average pay.

5.The validity of this amendment was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal by means of a petition which was allowed by the Ernakulam Bench by the order dated 20.4.1990 and the impugned notification was quashed to the extent that the amendment of Rule 2544(g) was given retrospective effect.

6.A contrary view was taken by another Bench of the Tribunal and hence the matter was referred to a Full Bench, and the Full Bench agreed with the view taken by the Ernakulam Bench.

7.The matter was then carried in appeal to this Court in Chairman, Railways Board and others v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah and others1, 1997(6) SCC 623 which gave its judgment on 25.7.1997, upholding the decision of the Full Bench of the Tribunal.

8.It may be mentioned that the Tribunal had struck down the retrospective operation of the notification dated 5.12.1988 issued in exercise of the power of the President under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution whereby Rule 2544 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code was amended with retrospective effect. In the aforesaid decision this Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Union of India and the Railway Administration and upheld the view taken by the Full Bench of the Tribunal.

9.To implement the aforesaid decision of this Court the Railway Board issued instructions on 14.10.1997 that the pension and other retiral benefits of the railway running staff who retired between 1.1.1973 to 4.12.1988 should be re-computed, and arrears on account of re-computation of pension be paid to them accordingly.

10.In the meanwhile the Fifth Pay Commission report was rendered and in implementation of some of the recommendations in respect of the pre-1986 retirees the Department of Personnel & PW issued OM dated 27.10.1997 that pension/family pension will be consolidated w.e.f. 1.1.1996 by adding together their existing pension/family pension, dearness relief, interim relief I and interim relief II and fitment weightage of 40%. The said revision was to be done on the basis of existing pension. It is not in dispute that the said relief was extended to the respondents herein and all those similarly placed with the respondents.

11.In order to implement another recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission to give parity to the pre-1986 retirees with the post 1986 retirees, it was decided to fix the pay of the pre-1986 retirees as on 1.1.1986. However, it was spec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 1627

2007(8) Supreme 437Supreme Court of indiaA.K. Mathur & Markandey Katju, JJ.Union of India — Petitioner versusS.R. Dhingra and Others — RespondentsTransfer Case (civil) 106 of 2006Decided on : 14-12-07

Important pointsIt is well-settled that a mistake does not confer any right to any party, and can be corrected.When two sets of employees of same rank retire at different points of time, one set cannot claim benefit extended to other set on ground that they are similarly situated.

Cases Referred (7)

2007(8) Supreme 437
Supreme Court of india
A.K. Mathur & Markandey Katju, JJ.
Union of India — Petitioner
versus
S.R. Dhingra and Others — Respondents
Transfer Case (civil) 106 of 2006
Decided on : 14-12-07

Important points
It is well-settled that a mistake does not confer any right to any party, and can be corrected.
When two sets of employees of same rank retire at different points of time, one set cannot claim benefit extended to other set on ground that they are similarly situated.