IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2071 of 2025 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FIXING DATE OF EARLY HEARING) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2071 of 2025 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✓

==========================================================

THE RAILWAY BOARD & ORS.

Versus RAJNIKANT MISTRY S/O PURSHOTTAM DAS ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3 MR DHRUV H PANCHAL(12742) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MS SNEHA A JOSHI(2156) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA Date : 12/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)

1.Heard learned advocate Mr. Harshaeel D.

Shukla for the petitioners and learned advocate Ms. Sneha A. Joshi for the respondent.

2.By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners Railway Board and the General Manager Western Railway have challenged the order dated 14.06.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad(here-in-after referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Original Application No.138 of 2017 whereby the Tribunal quashed and set aside the order dated 21.12.2016 passed by the petitioners by directing the petitioners to reconsider the case of the respondent for grant of overtime wages as per the Railway Servants (Hours of Work and Period of Rest) Rules, 2005 (For short “the Rules, 2005”) within a period of 60 days from the receipt of a copy of the order.

3.This Court passed the following order on

19.02.2025:

“1. Heard, Mr. Harsheel D. Shukla, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the petitioners. According to his submission, duty hours fixed of an employee under Railway Servants (Hours of Work and Period of Rest) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) as per roster defined under Rule 2(h) of “the Rules”, though could not be produced, there is no dispute that the respondent herein was posted as Gateman ‘C’ at Gate No. 70. Drawing attention of the Court to Rule 8(4)(i), who has to work as per Rule 8(3)(c) and in addition thereto, under Rule 8(4)(i) of “the Rules” being 48 hours plus 24 hours per week, which would come to 72 hours a week for a Gateman posted at category ‘C’ Gate. As such, claim of the respondent herein, according to the submission of the learned counsel, there is no designation like Gateman ‘A’. It is the categorization of the Railway Gates / Crossing, ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’. Any Gateman posted at different categories would be addressed as Gateman ‘A’, ‘B’ or ‘C’. As coming out from the impugned order itself in paragraph 19, there is no dispute that respondent herein is working at ‘LC’ Gate No. 70 ‘C’ and therefore, he is not entitled for overtime charges beyond a period of 60 hours a week as he is supposed to work for 72 hours a week in view of aforesaid Rules.

2. Hence, Notice, returnable on 19th March 2025. 2.1 Since, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad.”

4.Thereafter Rule was issued vide order dated

25.08.2025.

5.Having regard to controversy in narrow compass and with the consent of the learned advocates of the parties, the matter was taken for hearing.

6.Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed as Gangman under the Service Men Quota in 2007 and was working as Gatekeeper under Senior Section Engineer (SSE) (P-way) Prantij, Ahmedabad Division, Western Railways. The respondent was working as Gatekeeper at Level Crossing Gate No.70 ”C” with effect from 17.07.2011.

7.As per the Rules, 2005 the respondent was classified as Essentially Intermittent (EI) in the Roster and was required to work for 72 hours a week as per Rules 8(2)(ii), 8(3)(