Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 7345
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member
B.Komaraiah – Appellant
Versus
General Manager, S.C.Railway – Respondent
OA|631 of 2016|W.P.No.7564 of 2019|SLP No.2498 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G. Pavana Murthy
For the Respondents: B. Gayatri Varma, Sr. CGSC
Prior Tribunal judgment on OTA entitlement for AC coach staff operates as judgment in rem, extending benefits to similarly situated non-parties; department directed to consider claims upon submission of complete details.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Over Time Allowance (OTA) - Retired and serving escorting and maintenance staff of AC coaches - Entitlement to OTA for halt period at destination stations - Prior judgment of Tribunal in OA.631/2016 treating benefit as judgment in rem, confirmed by High Court and Supreme Court - Applies to similarly situated staff not parties to original OA - Representations incomplete due to lack of details like employee identity, PF number - OTA payable only for action period involving physical/sustained attention, not inaction period post one hour at destination - Tribunal directed submission of complete details and consideration within timelines. (Paras 2, 7, 8, 11)
(B) Precedent - Judgment in rem - Extends benefits to similarly situated non-parties to avoid multiplicity of litigation - Supported by Supreme Court rulings and V CPC recommendations. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
108 retired and 1 serving Group 'C' employees from AC coaching/escorting depots sought arrears of OTA from January 2005 to retirement dates, relying on prior Tribunal order upheld up to Supreme Court. They performed round-the-clock duties, relieved only at headquarters, but not paid for destination halt. Respondents countered with payment of travelling/night duty allowances, treatment as off-duty at destination, and incomplete representations.
Findings of Court:
Issue no more res integra, covered by prior final order implemented by department. Applicants to submit complete details within two weeks; respondents to consider and pay OTA per prior orders within three months.
Issues: Entitlement of similarly situated staff to OTA for destination halt periods; validity of incomplete representations; distinction between action and inaction periods for OTA.
Ratio Decidendi: Prior judgment operates as judgment in rem for similarly situated staff; department cannot take contradictory stand post acceptance; procedural gaps in representations curable by submission of details.
Result: OA disposed of with directions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. list of retired railway ac staff applicants (Para 1) |
| 2. applicants seek ota arrears post prior judgments (Para 2) |
| 3. respondents deny ota for inaction periods (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. applicants rely on prior tribunal rulings (Para 5 , 7 , 9) |
| 5. issue covered by res judicata via precedents (Para 6 , 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 6. direct submission of details and payment (Para 12) |
ORDER
(As per Hon’ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member)
By this OA, the applicants are seeking the following relief:
“…………to direct the respondents to grant arrears of overtime Allowance / wages for the period from Jan 2005 to till their respective dates of retirement. On strength of this Hon’ble Tribunal Judgment in O.A.631 of 2016 and confirmed by the Hon’ble High court in W.P.No.7564 of 2019 and Upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.2498 of 2022 dated 11.03.2022 as the applicant are similarly situated and seeking similar relief and pass such other order /orders as deem and fit and proper in the interest of principals of Natural Justice.”
2. The brief facts of the case are that applicants 108 in number, worked as Escorting and maintenance Staff working in AC Coaches in Hyderabad and Secunderabad Depots of S.C. Railway and retired from service in different years i.e. from 2009 to 2022. The Applicant No.109 is still working. Their grievance is that they were not paid OTA allowance / wages for the half period when they reached the Destination Station and they performed round the clock and relieved only at the HQ station where they started. Aggrieved by non-payment of OTA, some of the Escorting staff earlier approached this Hon’ble Tribunal by filing OA/21/631/2016 and the said OA was allowed and the respondents were directed to pay OTA wages on par with Central Railway Escorting Staff. Aggrieved by the said orders of this Tribunal, the Respondents preferred W.P. 7564 of 2019 before the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana and the same was dismissed on 7.4.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed on 11.3.2022. Though there is direction by the Hon’ble Tribunal to consider for payment of OTA to similarly situated Staff who are not party to O.A.631 of 2016, the respondents failed to pay OTA to the similarly situated staff and forced the present applicants to come before this Tribunal for redressal of their grievance.
3. After Notice, the respondents have appeared through their counsel and filed their detailed reply and submitted that the applicants were paid Travelling Allowance and Night Duty Allowance during the period of journey. Since they did not carry out any work/ maintenance of AC coaches at secondary maintenance depots, they were treated as OFF duty for the period spent at destination station. Moreover, the applicants have submitted their representations to the General Manager, South Central Railway, on 02.09.2022 & 09.09.2022 for payment of Over Time Allowance (OTA) for the halt time at the other destination stations and requested to consider their cases referring to the order of Hyderabad Bench in OA/631/2016. However, the said representations are in-complete, as the applicants have not given the details i.e. Employee name, Present Designation and Depot/Station Working, Employee Identity /PF Number, Incomplete/ Unclear/ False Signature. Further, Over Time Allowance (OTA) is being paid as per rake link charts and 104 hours fortnightly rosters. While calculation OT hours, 1 hour is added before and after journey of trains running hours.
4. It is further submitted by the respondents that the applicants are seeking OTA for inaction period i.e. the period for which they are not being put for any physical or sustained attention of the rake. Moreover, OTA will be paid only for action period and not for inaction period. As the ACCA and ACCM are not in active duties at out station after one hour of arrival of train at destination station, hence they are not entitled for OTA at out station. T
