A N SRIVASTAVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above mentioned decided writ petitions and special appeals have been bunched together as in all these cases applications for giving effect to the mandamus issued by this court have been prayed for. THE special appeals were decided on 12-3-1979 and a mandamus was issued relying on the said decision by another Division Bench of this court on 22-8-1984 in which one of us was a member (S. C. Mathur, J.). THE complaint of petitioners to all these cases is that the mandamus issued in these cases has not been complied with and the fixation or refixation of salary and the amount calculated is not in accordance with the directions issued by this court interpreting certain relevant rules. In these applications giving rise to these cases certain prayer for issuance of specific mandamus for payment of a particular amount for which direction against Union of India and others has been sought. In the counter affidavit filed by the railway administration details have been given indicating the amount to which the petitioners are entitled to according to which some of them are not entitled to any further amount than what has already been paid to them THE amount calculated by railway administration is much less than the amount claimed by these petitioners. THE proceedings were initiated by three persons who were employees of the railway administration initially belonging to the running cadre of the Northern Railway but later on they were shifted to the stationary cadre. THEy filed writ petition in the matter regarding fixation and payment of emoluments including allowances to which they were rightly entitled to. THEse writ petitions came up for hearing with certain other similar writ petitions filed later on. THE writ petitions were partly allowed and the opposite parties were directed to refix pay of these persons according to relevant rules and also to fix pay under Clause (2) of Rule 2027 and certain other directions were given. THE Union of India feeling dis-satisiied filed special appeal against that judgment. THEse special appeals came up for hearing along with seven other writ petitions in which similar questions were raised. THE special appeals were partly allowed by a Division Bench of this court of which one of us (U. C. Srivastava, J.) was a member. THE writ petitions heard with the special appeals too were allowed and the railway administration was directed to refix the pay of Sardar Husain and Ram Kumar Dubey for the period they held their officiating appointment in the stationary post according to the relevant rules. THEy were further directed to refix the salary in accordance with para 1 (b) (ii) of Railway Board's letter dated 1-7-1949 after taking into consideration that running allowance was part of pay during that period. In the said judgment following directions were given :- (a) Basic pay has to be construed in accordance with Rule 21-A of the Railway Establishment Act.... (b) fixation of pay in stationary cadre will be made according to the Old Indian Railway Establishment Manual which provides that where a person in the running post was officiating for a period exceeding 21 days then he should be fixed in the running post for the purposes of fixation of pay ; (c) Rules of fixation of pay are contained in paragraph 2017 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code.

(2.) THE special leave petition filed by the Union of India was dismissed and the said judgment became final Three months time was granted to the railway administration to comply with the same but they prayed for further time which was granted As the petitioners were not given any relief, a contempt application was moved and a Chartered Accountant was appointed to calculate the salary of the concerned persons and to submit his report before the court. THE Chartered Accountant submitted his report. THE petitioners to the writ petition thereafter moved applications before this court in these cases in the month of September 1986 for reliefs mentioned above. THE special leave petitions filed by the Union of India against the judgment passed in the special appeals referred to above were dismissed, with the result that the said judgment became final.