G.M. SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY Vs BENULAL MUKHERJEE .
Bench: SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR,SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA
Case number: C.A. No.-000077-000077 / 2013
Diary number: 11042 / 2004
Advocates: SHREEKANT N. TERDAL Vs
K. S. RANA
Page 1
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 77 OF 2013
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.21221/2004)
G.M. SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY & ORS. Appellant(s)
:VERSUS:
BENULAL MUKHERJEE & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that
this matter is squarely covered by the judgment of
this Court in Union of India Vs. Arun Jyoti Kundu
and Ors. (2007) 7 SCC 472. In the present case, the
Calcutta High Court vide its judgment dated 4.3.2003
passed in WPCT No.1325 of 2002, has dismissed the
writ petition filed by the appellant. Relying upon
the aforementioned judgment of the High Court
rendered in WPCT No.1325 of 2002, the judgment of
the Tribunal dated 7.1.2003 passed in O.A No.1419 of
1997 has been affirmed.
Page 2
2
3. This Court by its judgment in the case of
Union of India Vs. Arun Jyoti Kundu and Ors.
(supra), has set aside the judgment of the High
Court and that of the Central Administrative
Tribunal and dismissed the O.A. filed before the
Central Administrative Tribunal. In paragraph 19
of the judgment this Court has held as under:
“19. We are afraid that the tribunal has
exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the
direction, it has issued. The fact that
notwithstanding the Fifth Pay Commission
not recommending, particularly, the
payment of higher scale to two sets of
typists, typists in English language and
typists in Hindi language, the Government
chose to give them relief with effect
from 31.1.2000 would not justify an
inference of discrimination or a finding
that the authority has acted arbitrarily
or unreasonably. As this Court has
clarified in the decisions adverted to,
it is for the Government to act on the
report of the Pay Commission or either to
accept or not to accept its
recommendation. Once the recommendations
of the pay commission are accepted, in
full, it could also give effect to it
from the date recommended in that behalf.
Page 3
3
But when admittedly no provision was made
in respect of the English and Hindi
typists and they pointed to the anomalies
and the Government on the basis of the
recommendation of the Anomalies
Committees decided to given them the
scale with effect from 31.1.2000, it
could not be held to be discriminatory or
to be beyond the power of the Government.
4. Ultimately, this Court held that the Central
Administrative Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in
issuing the directions, it has issued and the High
Court was in error in not setting them aside and
accordingly, the original applications filed before
the Central Administrative Tribunal were dismissed.
5. In view of the aforesaid observations of this
Court, this appeal has to be allowed. Accordingly,
the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed
by the High Court in W.P.C.T. No.625/2003 on 9th
September, 2003 is set aside. No costs.
.........................J (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)
...........................J (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
Page 4
4
New Delhi; January 4, 2013.