Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 447 (KER)

Union Of India v. M. sivakumar S/o. p. manickam

2025-03-04

AMIT RAWAL, K.V.JAYAKUMAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : (K.V. JAYAKUMAR, J.) This judgment shall dispose of six original cases. The short question involved in this batch of OP(CAT)s is that, whether AC Technicians/AC Coach Attendants are entitled to overtime allowance for the duties performed by them in excess of 96 hours in a fortnight?. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of these OP(CAT)s in brief are enumerated hereunder: The respondents/applicants are AC Technicians/AC Coach Attendants of Southern Railway. The Tribunal was approached seeking a declaration that, they are entitled for overtime allowance for the duties performed by them in excess of 96 hours in a fortnight. The applicants are required to perform duty at 48 hours per week and 96 hours for two weeks. Over and above 96 hours of work, in a fortnight, the respondents/applicants are entitled for overtime allowance as provided under the Rules. However, in view of the Modified Roster issued by the 7 th respondent/Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer, which was implemented only in Trivandrum division, the AC staff will have to work 48 hours per week and 96 hours in two weeks and instead of overtime allowance, they would get Compensatory Rest for extra works of duty performed, in excess of 96 hours of duty and for forgoing their statutory weekly rest in violation of hours of duty and period of rest rules. 3. Aggrieved by the aforementioned Modified Roster, the AC Technicians/applicants submitted representations, but there was no positive response from the Southern Railway. Though the applicants have performed extra hours of duty, they were denied overtime allowance on the pretext that compensatory rest was granted to them. 4. A batch of similarly placed employees, aggrieved by the aforesaid Modified Roster, approached the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal and filed OA 1158/2012 and the same was allowed as per order dated 12.04.2013 (Annexure-A1). The petitioners/Southern Railway and its officers preferred writ petition before the Madras High Court and thereafter, SLP before the Apex Court challenging Annexure-A1 order, but the writ petition and SLP were dismissed. 5. The contention of the respondents/applicants was that, the issue of overtime allowance involved in these matters are no longer res integra in view of the dismissal of the OP(CAT) and the SLP. 6. The relevant paragraphs of Annexure-A1 order are extracted hereunder: “9. 5. The contention of the respondents/applicants was that, the issue of overtime allowance involved in these matters are no longer res integra in view of the dismissal of the OP(CAT) and the SLP. 6. The relevant paragraphs of Annexure-A1 order are extracted hereunder: “9. There is no dispute that the applicants are coming under the staff category classified as "Continuous" and they are entitled for Over Time Allowance as per Rule 10 of Railway Servants (Hours of Work and Period of Rest) Rules, 2005 and they have been granted OTA so far. It is only due to the Issue of modified roster which came into effect from 25.12.2011 and subsequently came into effect from 1.1.2012, there appears to be some change in payment of OTA and the applicants are granted extra hours of compensatory rest instead of OTA. In this regard it is relevant to peruse Rule 10 of Railway Servants (Hours of Work and Period of Rest) Rules, 2005, which reads as follows:- Rule 10. Principle of averaging and payment of overtime allowance. (1) Where a Railway servant is required to render extra hours of duty beyond the rostered hours fixed in accordance with rule 8 or beyond the limits specified for different classes of Railway servant under Section 132, he shall be paid Overtime for such extra hours of work, subject to the principle of averaging as specified in sub rule(2). (2) Averaging shall be done by averaging of the hours of work over the averaging periods as specified in Section 132 which has been adopted to provide a reasonable measure of elasticity as essential in railway working for certain classes of Railway servants and it shall apply to- (i) running staff (ii) operation staff; (iii) Shift workers; and (iv) those other Railway servants whose work is connected with the work of any of the categories of railway servants mentioned in clauses(i), (ii) and (iii).... (4) The hourly rate of overtime shall be worked out on the basis of rostered hours over the relevant averaging period.... Thus it is clear that the applicants are entitled for OTA beyond the rostered hours fixed in accordance with rule Rule 8(3)(b). The standard hour of duty for the category of "Continuous" in which the applicants are working is 48 hours per week and 96 hours bi weekly. Thus it is clear that the applicants are entitled for OTA beyond the rostered hours fixed in accordance with rule Rule 8(3)(b). The standard hour of duty for the category of "Continuous" in which the applicants are working is 48 hours per week and 96 hours bi weekly. This is a common and uniform rule adopted by the railways in various divisions of the Railways and there cannot be a separate modified roster by the southern Railway alone. The submission made by the respondents in the reply that the applicants have to render duty of 54 hours per week and 108 hours in two weeks time for being eligible for Over Time Allowance is not correct as the rostered hours fixed in accordance with rule 8 of HOER Rules, 2005 stipulates 48 hours in a week and 96 hours in a fortnight and where a railway servant is required to render extra hours of duty beyond this period is entitled for OTA subject to the principle of averaging as specified in sub rule(2) supra. 10. That apart, a careful perusal of communication dated 23.12.2011 at Annexure A-6 page NO.28 of the OA reveals that for the better utilization of man power economically, the existing roster for AC accompanying staff has been Modified. This communication is issued from the Divisional Office Electrical Branch, Thiruvananthapuram Division where the applicants are working. A further perusal of the impugned order dated 4.6.2012 (Annexure A-1 al, page 9 of the OA reveals that in the case of AC Staff, no change of classification took place and only the link has been revised within the existing classification. Further, third paragraph of the communication dated 4.6.2012 reveals that there is no violation of the provisions noticed in the case of AC staff at NCJ. The respondents have not mentioned about the modified roster anywhere in the impugned order and only in the last paragraph of the communication, the respondents have denied compliance of modified roster (emphasis added). Also the respondents cannot modify the roster for Thiruvananthapuram division alone without following the principles in HOER Rules, 2005. 11. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is no necessity to interfere with the impugned order dated 4.6.2012 as the respondents themselves agreed that they have not complied with the modified roster. Also the respondents cannot modify the roster for Thiruvananthapuram division alone without following the principles in HOER Rules, 2005. 11. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is no necessity to interfere with the impugned order dated 4.6.2012 as the respondents themselves agreed that they have not complied with the modified roster. Further the respondents have to adopt uniform method to grant OTA for the employees of all Divisions without restricting it to a particular division which is violative of the guidelines in HOER Rules. 2005. Accordingly I hold that the applicants are entitled for over lime allowance for excess hours of duty performed in excess of 96 hours + 8 P&C hours in a fortnight in terms of Rule 10 of Hour of Work and Period of Rest) Rules, 2005 and the respondents are further directed to pay OTA to the applicants for extra duty hours exceeding 96 hours for two weeks instead of giving CR for extra hours of duty. OA is allowed: No order as to cost.” In view of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, which was confirmed by the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court, the issue involved in this OP(CAT)s is no longer res integra. In view of this matter, the present OP(CAT)s are liable to be dismissed. The OP(CAT)s are dismissed accordingly.