Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1553
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Pankaj Kumar, Member (A)
Niraj Kumar Khare – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No. 332/00317/2024|OA No. 64 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Shyama Charan Dixit
For the Respondents: Shri Dinesh Kumar Mishra
Escorting staff entitled to overtime allowance for halt periods at destination as continuous duty without relief; prior Tribunal judgments binding across railway zones; arrears limited to three years prior to filing.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Overtime Allowance - Air Conditioned Coach Maintenance and Assistant Staff (Escorting Staff) - Entitlement to overtime wages for halt period at destination station - Staff remain continuously on duty from departure till return without relief, guarding coaches and assisting maintenance - Halt period counts as duty time for overtime calculation as they are not handed over to outstation staff and cannot leave train unguarded - Prior judgments of Tribunal Benches (Mumbai OA 117/2008 upheld by High Court & Supreme Court; Hyderabad OA 631/2016 similarly upheld) binding due to identical facts - Railway Board's letter providing 4 hours credit or daily allowance does not negate overtime claim as distinct concepts - Discrimination in denying benefit extended to other zones impermissible as single entity. (Paras 6.1, 6.2, 6.3)
(B) Limitation - Continuing wrong - Arrears restricted to three years prior to filing OA per Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh (2008 (8) SCC 648) - No interest on arrears. (Para 6.4, 7.3)
Facts of the case:
Applicants, escort and maintenance staff for air conditioned coaches, sought quashing of rejection order denying overtime allowance for halt periods at destination stations. Prior representation directed to be considered was rejected. They relied on precedents from other Tribunal Benches upheld up to Supreme Court establishing halt as duty time. Respondents claimed staff inactive post-handover and cited Railway Board letter.
Findings of Court:
Impugned order quashed; entitlement to overtime allowance for halt period declared; arrears for three years prior to OA filing to be paid without interest upon claim submission.
Issues: Whether halt period at destination constitutes duty for overtime allowance calculation for escorting staff; applicability of precedents from other zones; limitation for arrears.
Ratio Decidendi: Halt period is on-duty time as staff continuously responsible without relief; uniform treatment across railway zones mandatory; arrears limited to three years for continuing wrong without affecting third parties.
Result: OA allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prayer for ota during halt citing precedents (Para 1) |
| 2. prior oa directed representation consideration (Para 2) |
| 3. applicants continuously on duty seek ota (Para 3) |
| 4. respondents deny ota during halt citing policy (Para 4) |
| 5. arguments heard from both parties (Para 5) |
ORDER (ORAL)
PER HON’BLE MR. PANKAJ KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
In this case relating to the payment of overtime allowance (OTA, hereafter), the applicants has sought the following reliefs:
a) It is humbly prayed, that the Honorable Tribunal may be pleased to quash and set aside the 3rd respondent impugned letter dated 02-04-2024 and issue directions to the Respondents, to grant appropriate overtime allowance/wages to ACCM and ACCA (Escorting Staff of AC coaches) during the halt period, in accordance with the orders of the Honorable CAT Mumbai Bench in O.A 117 of 2008, as upheld by the High Court of Mumbai in W.P. 9227 of 2011 and the identical matter was decided by the CAT Hyderabad in OA No.631/2016, where the claim of the employee was allowed by an order dated 28-09-2018. The Hon'ble Telangana High Court further confirmed this order of CAT Hyderabad via an order dated 07/04/2021 in writ petition No 7564 of 2021 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court also confirmed the view of the CAT Hyderabad in SLP No.2448/2022, vide order dated 11-03-2022, by dismissing the SLP of the railway department.
b) Furthermore, this request is grounded in the fact that the applicants are similarly situated, and they remain on duty even when the train is halted. We also request the Respondents to arrange for the payment of consequential arrears of OTA. ACCM and ACCA (Escorting Staff of AC coaches) during the halt period date of similar employees drawing OTA working in Central Railway & South-Central railway.
c) And pass such other order/orders as deem and fit and proper in the interest of principles of Natural Justice.
2. The applicants are escort and maintenance staff working in air conditioned coaches (AC) operated by the respondents and they are designated as AC Coach Maintenance (ACCM) and AC Coach Assistants (ACCA). They had approached this Tribunal in OA No. 64 of 2024 for payment of overtime allowance whereupon this Tribunal, vide judgment and order dated 05.02.2024, directed the respondents to consider and decide the applicants’ joint representation dated 20.09.2023. The respondents rejected the applicants’ representation vide their order dated 03.04.2024. Aggrieved, the applicants have preferred this OA.
3. The applicants contend that they are deployed on different trains that start from North Eastern Railway stations for destinations all over India and their nature of work is such that they are continuously on duty till the time the train comes back to Lucknow/Gorakhpur and that they are being denied overtime wages payable to them illegally by the respondents. The applicants state that a similar matter was agitated by Central Railway employees in OA No. 117 of 2008 before the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 07.03.2011 and upheld by Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai on 17.01.2012 in Writ Petition No. 9227 of 2011 and finally by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 23.02.2015 in SLP (C) No. 18333/2012. It is further stated that OA No. 631 of 2016 on the identical issue was allowed by the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal on 28.09.2018 which was upheld by Hon’ble Telengana High Court on 07.04.2021 in Writ Petition No. 7564 of 2019 and finally by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 11.03.2022 in SLP (C) No. 2498/2022.
4. Per contra, the respondents state that in terms of the Railway Board’s letter dated 27.06.1985, the applicants are given credit of additional 4 hours towards taking over and handing over proceedings. It is further stated that the ACCM & ACCA staff, after handing over the charge of their respective coaches to the outstation maintenance staff at their destination stations, and remain non-active towards their coach duties till the time they again take over
