KULDEEP SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through the instant writ petition prays for quashing the impugned order dated May 18, 2016, Annexure P.4, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (in short, "the Tribunal") being against the provisions of Railway Servants (Hours of Work and period of Rest) Rules, 2005 (in short, "the Rules") as he continued performing overtime right from 30.1.2011 till 29.11.2014 as per the orders of respondent Nos. 3 to 6.

(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner was selected and appointed as Booking Clerk in the respondent Northern Railway. He joined on the post on 27.7.1989 at the Railway Station, Kapurthala. Subsequently, he was promoted in the grade of Senior Booking Clerk while working at Kapurthala itself. He was promoted as Head Booking Clerk at the Railway Station, Kapurthala during the year 2004. He was posted as Head Booking Clerk at Lohian Khas from where he was transferred on 20.5.2012 to Railway Station, Kapurthala where he is presently working. In the original application filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal, the dispute was for non release of payment of over time allowance to him and rest for weekly off when he performed the duties right from 30.1.2011 till 2014 and the said bills duly certified by respondent Nos. 3 to 6 were pending with the office of respondent No.2. The respondents withheld the release of payment of the applicant. According to the petitioner, the respondents were paying regularly over time allowance to ASM, SM, Points Man, Gates Man continuously. The petitioner avers that he was working as a subordinate under respondent Nos. 3 to 6 and he was to comply with the continuous orders passed by these officers for carrying out the overtime and was also performing duties without any weekly off. The statutory rules permit fixation of hours of work. As per Rule 8(2)(i), standard hours of duty and Rule 8(3) for working intensive, continuous and essentially intermittent services which is 48 hours a week for which rest of employees posted to work in Essentially Intermittent class of employment is permissible viz. 12 additional hours per week which had not been granted to the petitioner. The application before the Tribunal for release of payment of overtime bills for the period from 30.1.2011 to 19.4.2014 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the due dates was disposed of vide order dated 12.8.2014, Annexure A.2 directing the respondents to decide the matter of the petitioner within a period of two months. However, respondent No.2 did not decide the case of the petitioner. Consequently, he filed C.P.No.060/00297 of 2014 before the Tribunal which was disposed of on 9.1.2015 when the respondents produced order dated 30.12.2014. The petitioner thereafter challenged the order dated 30.12.2014 before the Tribunal. Written statement was filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the Tribunal to which the petitioner filed rejoinder dated 28.6.2015. Vide order dated 18.5.2016, the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, now the post of Head Booking Clerk which had been lying vacant at Kapurthala has been filled up in Oct. 2015 and since then there is no need to perform any overtime on the part of the petitioner and his other colleagues. The petitioner prays through the instant writ petition that the respondents be directed to release duly verified bills for overtime allowance with interest at the rate of 10% per annum.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.