Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The applicants were employed as Loco Pilot and Assistant Loco Pilot in the running duties at the Loco shed in Gangapur City of the Kota Division. The Railway Board and the Division prescribed rosters for the running staff but did not provide overtime allowance in accordance with the Railway Board’s circular dated 15.10.1963, which reframed the policy of overtime. The circular mandated that periods of absence from duty should be adjusted from the two-weekly 108-hour limit for overtime calculation, with an example provided. Despite this, the Kota Division had not implemented the circular and had not given the applicants the overtime benefits. Consequently, the applicants filed an Original Application (OA) seeking a direction for the respondents to comply strictly with the rules and circulars on overtime payment. The respondents were ordered on 12.05.2011 to produce records related to overtime payments. The applicants also filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA No. 186/2007) seeking permission to file a joint OA, which was allowed. The respondents filed documents along with their reply to this MA, which were taken on record.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the respondents have failed to comply with the Railway Board’s circular dated 15.10.1963 and subsequent circulars regarding the calculation and payment of overtime to running staff.
  2. Whether the applicants are entitled to overtime benefits as per the prescribed rules and circulars issued by the Railway Board and the respondents.
  3. The correctness and applicability of the method of calculating overtime when staff are absent for a portion of the averaging period, as per the circular dated 09.04.1987.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicants' Arguments

  • The respondents have not implemented the Railway Board’s circular dated 15.10.1963 regarding overtime calculation.
  • The applicants are entitled to overtime benefits as per the circulars and rules issued by the Railway Board and the respondents.
  • Reference was made to the circular dated 09.04.1987, which clarifies that no separate credit should be given for rest days when calculating overtime for staff absent for a portion of the averaging period.
  • The respondents have not strictly complied with these circulars, resulting in denial of rightful overtime payments.

Respondents' Position

  • The respondents have referred to a circular dated 19.11.1982 concerning payment of overtime to running staff, which includes provisions regarding rest days adjacent to leave.
  • Respondents produced documents related to overtime payments in compliance with the court’s order.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court considered the circulars issued by the Railway Board and the respondents, particularly the circular dated 15.10.1963 and the one dated 09.04.1987, which detailed the calculation of overtime and the treatment of rest days during absence from duty. The court noted the applicants’ allegation that these circulars were not strictly complied with and that overtime was not paid accordingly. Emphasizing the respondents’ duty to comply with their own circulars and orders, the court directed that the benefit of overtime must be extended to the applicants strictly in accordance with the law and the circulars issued. The respondents were ordered to complete this exercise expeditiously, within three months of receipt of the order.

Holding and Implications

The Original Application is disposed of with directions to the respondents to comply strictly with the applicable overtime rules and circulars and to pay the overtime benefits to the applicants accordingly.

The direct effect of this decision is that the respondents must implement the overtime payment rules as per the Railway Board’s circulars and ensure the applicants receive the benefits due. No new precedent was established by this order.

    Raghu Raj Singh v. Union Of India

    The applicants were working in the running duties of the Loco shed as Loco Pilot and Assistant Loco Pilot in Gangapur City of the Kota Division. The Railway Board and the Division prescribe the roster of the running staff i.e. Loco Pilot and Assistant Loco Pilot is not giving overtime allowance as per the circular of the Railway Board. The Railway Board vide its circular dated 15.10.1963 reframed the policy of overtime. In above circular, the Railway Board held that the period of absence from duty should be adjusted from 108 hours two weekly limits and the overtime should be given as per the example given in it. However, the Kota Division has not implemented the above circular till date and has not given the benefit of overtime to the employees and the applicants. Thus the applicants preferred this OA claiming relief that the respondents be directed to comply with the rules and circulars issued by the Government Authority rigorously and continued to complied them in future. Vide order dated 12.05.2011, the rspondetns were directed to produce the record related to payment of the overtime made by them to any of the applicants in view of the circular referred in the MA as the applicant also filed an MA No. 186/2007 for seeking permission to file a joint OA. The same is allowed. The respondents have also filed certain documents alongwith the reply to the MA No. 186/2007, which is also taken on record.

    2. By way of Circular dated 19.11.1982, the respondents referred to payment of overtime to running staff, Para No. 4 of which reads as under:- 4. Periodic Rest day proceeding or following the leave may be prefixed or/ and suffixed to the period of leave and all not counted as leave for debit in the leave account of the staff. If such period rest terminates.

    (i) Before noon the leave will commence from the same date.

    (ii) Afternoon, the leave will commence from the following day. Non observance of above instructions will be viewed seriously and staff at fault is liable for DAR action.

    3. Learned counsel for the applicant referred to the Circular dated 09.04.1987 (Annexure A/1) which deals with hours of Employment Regulations  Calculation of overtime in cases where the staff are absent from duty for a portion of averaging period. The Para No. 2 of the said circular is as under:- 2. The instruction contained in Boards letter No. E(Trg) 62 Adj/36 dated 15.10.1963 clearly provided that while calculating overtime of staff those who are absent from duty for a portion of averaging period, no separate credit would be given for the days of rest. It is, however, noticed that these instructions are not being correctly followed on your Railway and while calculating overtime admissible to staff, credit for the days of rest is being afforded. This is not correct and results in heavy unintended payment of overtime to staff. The method showing different illustrations for calculations of overtime in different conditions has also been prepared vide this circular.

    4. I have carefully considered all the circular issued by the respondents from time to time It is alleged by the applicants that these circulars are not strictly complied with and overtime has not been made in accordance with the rules, circulars issued by the respondents from time to time and it is duty cast upon the respondents to comply with the circulars and orders issued by them from time to time. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to extend the benefit of overtime in favour of the applicants strictly in accordance with the provisions of law and in view of circulars/orders issued by the respondents from time to time. The respondents are expected to undertake this exercise expeditiously but in any case not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

    5. With these observations, the OA shall stands disposed of with no order as to costs. (JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE) MEMBER (J)

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Raghu Raj Singh v. Union Of India
    (May 24, 2011)