Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
8. By another letter dated.28.7.2000, it was furthermore directed by the Railway Board : "However, with a view to standardizing the cadre structure at least for the future, since the change in recruitment pattern could take place only prospectively in Eastern Railway, the benefit of the improved pay structure has been permitted with prospective effect only."
9. We may also, at this stage, place on record, a letter of .__ A the Chief Personnel Officer of the Eastern Railway dated 13. 7 .2000 wherein it was stated that no such recruitment rules were framed by the Eastern Railway Administration, stating : "Would you please connect" this Railway's letters of even number dated 28.4.2000 and 8.6.2000 wherein it was requested to examine the issue related to the date of effect . of the upgraded Pay Scale of Time Keeping staff of this Railway. After collecting information from various Zonal Railways/Production Units it is understood that the upgraded pay scale of Time-Keeping category (where -t c exists) were introduced w.e.f. 1.1.1996 in all Zonal Railways/Production Units except Eastern Railway wherein instructions were issued by Railway Board that the same order will be effective from the date of issue of modified Recruitment Rules in line with Ministerial staff. In Eastern Railway no separate Recruitment Rule was framed after the order of the Hon'ble CAT/Cal on May/ 90 for treating the Time-keepers a separate entity as workers within the meaning of Factories Act, since there was no intake for filling up the vacancy of Time-keepers after May/90, but before that the Time-keepers of this Railway were Recruited from the same panel prepared for clerks i.e. their Recruitment Rule was same as that of the clerks."
10. The legality and/or validity of the decision of the F Railway Board was the subject matter of the Original Application filed by the respondents. Indisputably, the only contention raised in support of the said decisions by the r "- appellant was that the recruitment pattern for the post of Time- Keeper in Eastern R~ilway was different.
11. Pranab Kumar Chakraborty and others filed an Original Application before the Tribunal which was marked as OA No: 1458 of 19.97. The said application was disposed of by the Tribunal, holding: •iwe have gone through the said communication dated 28.7.2000, which has been received.from the Rly. Board. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. SATYA BRATA CHOWDHURY & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.] In this there is indication that the recruitment pattern was changed, but it is not the case. In subsequent rule depriving or denying the applicants from getting the pay scales with effect from 1.1.1996 was hampered by this change. For the time being we are not inclined to do into the chang~ in the policy stand which may affect the equation of a particular group or grade with the corresponding Ministerial Staff, which is an internal matter to be sorted out. However, to the extent the benefits has been extended to the Time, f Keeper grades the Eastern Rly, the same should be equitably applicable with effect from 1.1.1996 as the case c is in respect of the awarding the scales under V CPC. We, therefore, partially allow this OA to the extent that the benefit should be awarded with effect from 1.1.1996 to the present applicants only within 3 months from the date of communication of fhe order with arrears."
12. Satya Brata Chowdhary and 70 others thereafter filed another Original Application before the Tribunal which was marked as OA No.1254 of 2000. By a judgment and order dated 3.6.2004, the question, as' to whether the Eastern Railway Administration was justified in its stand not to treat the respondents similarly in the matter of grant of benefit of revision in the pay scales was answered, stating : "We have gone through the said communication dated 18.2.2000 (Annexure-N11) as well as dated 28.7.2000 (Annexure N18), which was received from the Railway, Board. In the above said letter of Railway Board dated 28.7.2000, it has been indicated that pattern of recruitment of the Time Keepers in Eastern Railway differs from the pattern prevalent in other Railways. Accordingly, treatment of this order in Eastern Railway has to be essentially G different from that of the other Railways. But a bare perusal of the record clearly indicates that actually it is not so." It was directed : "In view of above, the Railway Board's circular dated 18.2.2000 (Annexure~A/11) and order dated 28.7.2000 (Annexure-A/10 quashed/set aside. The extent of the benefit which has been extended to the and CLW, Chittaranjan (Annexure-A/14) w.e.f 1.1.1996 and also the letter of the Chief Personnel Officer (Admn) dated 13.7.2000 Grades of S.E. Railway/as well as DLW, Varanasi and CLW, Chittaranjan should also be extended in favour of the applicants which are also similarly situated persons and working as Time Keeper in the Liluah Workshop of EasternRailway. The respondent authorities, c more particularly, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are directed to fix the pay scale of the applicants as per 5th Pay Commission's recommendation for the post of Time Keeping Cadre w.e.f.' 1.1.1996 instead of 18.2.2000 and extend all consequential financial and other benefits in favour of the applicants within a period· of three months from the date of communication of this order along with arrears. It is made clear that we are not inclined to say anything as to the payment of interest." As noticed hereinbefore, writ petitions preferred thereagainst by appellant were dismissed by the High Court.
13. The matter came up before this Court for hearing on 8.2.2008 when, inter alia, a contention was raised on behalf of respondents that the revised pay scales of Time-Keeper at the Jamalpur workshops had been implemented but the same was denied to the staff at Liluah and Kancharpura workshops.
14. An additional affidavit thereafter has been placed on record on behalf of appellant to contend that the Time-Keepers of Jamalpur workshop had been treated as clerical grade staff and, thus, they are not similarly situated as the respondents.
15. The learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Amarendra Sharan, appearing for the appellant, would contend that as the respondents had been treated to be workers under the Factories Act and obtained several benefits including overtime, the appellants were entitled to implement the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Revision Commission with H effect from 18.2.2000 in stead and in place of 1.1.1996. Such f UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. SATYA BRATA CHOWDHURY & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.] a classification, according to the learned counsel, being valid and reasonable, does not attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
16. Mr. Gaurav Jain and Mr. Shekhar Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, on the other hand, would contend that the purported classification of Time- Keepers in different workshops cannot be treated to be valid warranting different treatments so far as regards implementation of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission is concerned.
17. We may, at the outset, notice that the only contention raised by the appellant before the Tribunal, as also before the High Court, was that the recruitment Procedure in the Eastern Railway Administration was different for the Time-keepers. It has been held not to be so. The judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 5.7.1991 in TA No.1585of1986 has been noticed by us. Therein, the Tribunal directed the workmen of the workshops at Liluah and elsewhere to be treated at par with their counterparts of Kharagpur, Banaras and Chittaranjan locomotive workshop. It was, therefore, impermissible for the appellant to treat the 1workers similarly situated, differently. They were to be treated as workers under Ei · the Factories Act. Only because some overtime allowance became payable to them or a separate seniority list was maintained or a cadre for the said workers on workshop basis was constituted, the same by itself, in our opinion did not authorize the Eastern Railway Administration to discriminate the workers working in one workshop with the workers working in the other.
18. We may also notice that letter dated 13. 7 .2000 issued by the Chief Personnel Manager, Eastern Railways Administration; from a perusal whereof it appears that the claim of appellants that a different recruitment rules existed for the Time-Keepers of different workshops within the Eastern Railway Administration, is not correct. It has also been so found by the Tribunal as also by the High Court .
19. The contention of the learned Additional Solicitor A General that the Time-Keepers recruited in the Liluah workshop could be treated differently from their counterparts at Jamalpur as in the said letter they were not treated as clerical grade staff, also ·does not appear to be wholly correct. Appellants themselves have annexed with their affidavit a letter dated 16.6.2006 issued by the Assistant Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Jamalpur to Chief Assistant Officer, Eastern Railway, Kolkatta wherein it was stated : c "As cadre/s~niority of Time keeping staff is being maintained with General Group Clerks as such benefit of restructuring has been given to the time keeping staff. The staff posted in Time Office and working as Time keepers are governed under Factories Act."
20. The Time keepers of Jamalpur Workshop, thus, have been treated as workers under the Factories Act and if they o had been given the benefit of recommendations of the Fifth Pay Revision Commission, we fail to understand why the same benefit would be denied to the respondents herein.
21. For the· reasons aforementioned, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and orders. The E appeals are dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs.25,000/-. D.G. Appeals dismissed.