Cabinmen classified as 'Continuous' under railway rules, entitled to OTA for work beyond 8 hours daily.

ORDER (ORAL)

The applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are retired employees of Railways as Cabinman and applicant Nos. 3 to 6 at the relevant point in time were working as Cabinman with the respondents.

2. Briefly stating, the applicants, in terms of the R.B.E. Circular No. 131/2015 (Annexure A/2) placed at page 21, are required to perform duties of 8 hours and beyond the said working hours, they are entitled for Over Time Allowance (OTA). With respect to their claim, the applicants preferred representations (Annexure A/19). Learned counsel for the applicants confirms that all the applicants have preferred the representations, which were pending consideration at the relevant point in time and those are pending consideration till today even after five years of filing of the present OA. Accordingly, the applicants have filed this OA seeking the following relief:

“(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order declaring to the effect that the action of the respondents preparing 12 hours per day/75 hours weekly roaster for the applicants (Cabinman) at Northern Railway Station Manani is illegal, arbitrary, against the rules and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to prepare 8 hours per day/48 hours weekly roaster for the Cabinman.

(ii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the respondents to grant of over time allowances to the applicants for 4 hours overtime daily from the date of their posting as Cabinman on the station with all consequential benefits including the arrear of overtime allowances with interest.

(iii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant along with the costs of litigation.”

3. Learned counsel for the applicants explains that all employees belonging to the category as of the applicants are governed by the Railway Servants (Hours of Employment) Rules 1961, and have been classified in 4 categories :-

1. Intensive

2. Essentially Intermittent

3. Excluded Staff

4. Continuous

4. He submits that Rules of 1961 were amended in the year 2005 and notified by virtue of R.B.E. Circular No. 131/2015 annexed at page 21. He submits that since the applicants fall in the 4th category i.e. “Continuous” on the basis of their factual job, they are entitled to the OTA for the period they have worked beyond eight hours each day. In support of his claim, he draws strength from the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 643/2015 decided on 29.08.2017 annexed at page 32. This order was assailed by the respondents before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by way of Writ Petition No. 8408/2018 and Writ Petition No.8628/2018, which came to be dismissed by a common order on 20.03.2019 (Annexure A/4). The respondents have preferred Review Application against the order, which also came to be dismissed.

5. Notices were issued and the respondents have filed their reply.

6. Sh. Rupinder Pal Singh, learned counsel who appears on advance service on behalf of respondents vehemently opposes the OA. He submits that the applicants have earlier approached this Tribunal and in compliance of the decision of this Tribunal, the respondents have issued the impugned order. He draws strength from para 4 and 5 of the counter reply and submits that the applicants were performing 12 hours duty roster as per the SWR issued by the Competent Authority. He states that as per the Rules, the applicants were working at Gate No.134C as ‘Essentially Intermittent’ Classification and, therefore, since they were allotte