ANNEXURE RULE 2544 Sub rule g i and g ii may be substituted by the following g i For the purpose of calculation of average emoluments actual amount of running allowance drawn by the railway servant during the month limited to a maximum of 45 of pay, in the revised Scales of Pay.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal also did number numberice the earlier judgment of the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal.
In addition to the pay the running staff entitled to payment of Running Allowance.
i For the specified purposes for which running allowance is reckoned as Pay at present, 30 of the basic pay of the running staff companycerned will be reckoned except as below a for the purpose of retirement benefits, 55 of basic pay will be taken into account.
He filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
By letter of the Railway Board dated June 23, 1976 the direction companytained in the letter dated March 22, 1976 was modified and it was intimated In partial modification of the orders companytained therein, the Railway Ministry have decided, as a special case, that in the case of Running Staff retiring between 1.1.1973 to 31.3.1976, pay for the purposes of retirement benefits only shall be pay in revised scales plus actual amount of running allowance drawn subject to a max imum of 45 cf pay in revised pay scales.
This right which accrued in their favour on their retirement between January 1, 1973 and December 4, 1988 was sought to be affected by amending the rules on December 5, 1988 with retrospective effect reducing the maximum limit of running al lowance that qualifies for pension.
The said claim of the appellant was negatived by the Government.
In the said letter it was stated 3.23.
It seems that the earlier dicision of the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No.
Special Leave Petition No.
When the maximum was reduced from 75 to 45 upto April 1, 1979 or at the rate of 55 from April 1, 1979, the vested rights of all those who retired between January 1, 1973 and December 4, 1988 in the matter of receiving pension and retirement benefits were adversely affected.
The above has the sanction of the President.
10373 of 1990 has been filed by the Union of India against the said judgment of the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal.
After the said decision of the Tribunal, the impugned numberifications were issued on December 5, 1988.
g ii For the purpose of gratuity and or death cum retirement gratuity the monthly average of running allowances drawn during the 365 days of running duty immediately preceding the date of quitting service limited to 45 of average pay drawn during the same period, in the revised scales of pays.
1000 a month in the Government of India currency, being the maximum pension admissible under the rules.
In view of the companyflicting decisions of various Benches of the Tribunal the matter was referred to the Full Bench of the Tribunal.
The appellant claimed that he was entitled to be paid the salary of a High Court judge from October 1, 1947 and also claimed that he was entitled to receive pension of Rs.
The above has the sanction of the President.
G.S.R. 1143 E is as follows S.R. 1143 E In exercise of the powers companyferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the President is pleased to amend Rule 2544 of Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume II Fifth Reprint as in the Annexure.
was filed in the Delhi High Court by employees who had been working as railway guards.
1572 of 1988.
SCR 63 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. AGRAWAL, J. These appeals and special leave petitions filed by the Union of India and the Railway Administration involve the question regarding validity of the numberifications Nos.
These appeals and special leave petitions have been filed against the decision of the Full Bench and those other Benches of the Tribunal.
By numberifications dated December 5, 1988, Rule 2544 was amended prescribing the maximum at 45 from January 1, 1973 to April 1, 1979 and 55 from April 1, 1979 onwards.
K 269 of 1988 was allowed by the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal by judgment dated April 2, 1990 and the impugned numberifications were quashed to the extent the amendments in Rule 2544 were given retrospective effect on the view that the said amendments in the rule in so far as the same were given retrospective effect were unjust, unreasonable and were violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
During the pendency of the said Writ Petition relevant rule was amended by numberification dated February 3, 1971 with retrospective effect from October 1, 1954 and the expression Rs.
It was held that the said executive instruction cannot be accepted to be a statutory amendment of the existing rules governing the Running Al lowance.
K 269 of 1988 filed by K.S. Srinivasan and others was pending before the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal.
Some of them had retired from service while some had filed the Writ Petition in a repre sentative capacity through the General Secretary of All India Guards Council.
By letter of the Railway Board dated July 17, 1981 the decisions taken on the recommendations of the Committee on Running Allowances were companymunicated.
No steps were taken by the Railway Administration to challenge the companyrectness of the said judgment of the Tribunal and it has become final.
By numberification No.
The existing quantum of Running allowance based on the prevailing percentages laid down for various purposes with reference to the pay of the Running Staff in Authorised Scales of pay may be allowed to companytinue.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx A Writ Petition Writ Petition No.
Through letter of the Railway Board dated March 22, 1976 it was intimated The question of revision of rules regarding treatment of Run ning Allowance as pay for certain purposes companysequent upon the introduction of revised pay scales under Railway Services Revised Pay Rules, 1973 has been under Consideration of this Ministry.
In the said Writ Petition the petitioners challenged the validity of the order of the Railway Board as companytained in the letter dated March 22, 1976 whereby the quantum of percentage of the Running Allowance for the purpose of retirement and other benefits was reduced from 75 as prescribed in Rule 2544 to 45 with effect from January 1, 1973.
It appears that the Principal Bench of the Tribunal by its judgment dated October 23, 1991 in O.A. No.
Under Rule 2544 the members of the running staff are entitled to companyputation of their pay and retirement benefits by taking into account the Running Allowance which they have been receiving subject to a maximum of 75 of the pay and other allowances.
This amendment will be effective from 01.01.1973.
After the companystitution of the Central Administrative Tribunal under the Administra tive Tribunals Act, 1985, the said Writ Petition was transferred to the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal and was registered as No.
The respondents in these cases are employees who had retired after January 1, 1973 and before December 5, 1988.
At that time the said rule prescribed that Running Allowance limited to a maximum of 75 of the other emoluments should be taken into account for the purpose of calculation of average emoluments for companyputation of pension and other retiral benefits.
By the revision of the pay scales the pay scales of the members of the running staff were enhanced with effect from January 1, 1973.
On the basis of the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission the pay scales of the staff in the railways were revised by the Railway Services Revised Pay Rules, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the 1973 Rules numberified vide numberification dated December 7, 1973 which came into force on January 1, 1973.
Persons who retired between January 1, 1973 and December 4,1988 had earned a right to companyputation of pension in accordance with the statutory rules then in force.
At the time when these numberifications were issued O.A. No.
On companying into force of the Constitution the appellant companytinued in the service of that State till he retired from service on January 21, 1956.
A review Application filed by the Union of India against the said judgment of the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal was dismissed by order dated July 25, 1990.
v. Union of India Ors.,
As their pay was revised with effect from January 1, 1973 the limit of 75 had to be worked out with reference to the enhanced pay and other allowances that they became entitled to receive in accordance with the 1973 Rules which came into effect from January 1, 1973.
915 of 1978 titled Dev Dutt Sharma Ors.
Reckoning of Running Allowance as Pay.
This provision will be made applicable retrospectively from 1.4.1979 so that those running staff who have already retired with effect from that date of afterwards will also have their retirement benefits recalculated and re settled.
351 423 of 1988.
As by the time they retired, revision of pay had companye into force, it is the revised pay and the Running Allowance subject to a maximum of 75 of the revised pay and allowances that was required to be taken into account.
T 310 of 1985.
The said petition was allowed by the Tribunal by judgment dated August 6,1986 and the order of the Railway Board dated March 22, 1976 was quashed on the ground that under the Indian Railway Establishment Code which companytains the statutory rules framed by the President under Article 309 of the Constitution Running Allowance up to a maximum of 75 of the pay has to be taken into account for the purpose of calculating pecuniary benefits and other entitlements and that the said right under the statutory rules companyld number be taken away by order dated March 22, 1976 which was a mere executive instruction and the fact that it was issued with the sanction and approval of the President did number give it a character of a statutory rule.
The said decision of the Principal Bench of the tribunal was followed by the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in judgment dated February 28, 1992 in O.A. Nos.
On the basis of the said decision of the Full Bench of the Tribunal, other Benches of the Tribunal at Bangalore, Hyderabad, Allahabad, Jabal pur, Jaipr, Madras and Ernakulam have passed orders giving relief on the same grounds.
Those who retired from January 1,1973 to December 4,1988 were, in accord ance with Rule 2544, as it then stood, entitled to take into account Running Allowance in the matter of companyputation of pension and retirement benefits upto the maximum of 75 of their pay and other allowances.
1572 of 1988 filed by C.L. Malik and others, took a companytrary view on the question of validity of the impugned numberifications and held that the vested rights of the employees were number affected by the amendment of the rules on the ground that total amount of pension and retirement benefits they would have received before the amendment were number reduced by the amended Rule.
Some of these matters were placed before a Bench of three learned Judges of the Court on March 28,1995 on which date the following order was passed.
K 269 of 1988 was number brought to the numberice of the Bench which decided O.A. No.
O.A. No.
With regard to provisional payment of certain allowances in companyjunction with pay fixed under the 1973 Rules, the Railway Board by their letter dated January 21, 1974 intimated that the question of revision of rules for regularisation of various allowances companysequent upon the introduction of the revised pay scales under the 1973 Rules was under the companysideration of the Board and pending final decision thereon, the Board had decided as under Treatment of Running Allowance for various purposes in case of Running Staff.
The Ernakulam Bench had rightly declared that the amended provisions to the extent they have been given retrospective effect as void a offending Article 14 of the companystitution.
G.S.R. 1143 E and G.S.R. 1144 E dated December 5, 1988 issued in exercise of the power companyferred on the President of India under the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution whereby Rule 2544 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume II Fifth reprint has been amended with retrospective effect.
After the issuance of the said numberifications the petitioners in that matter amended the petition to assail the validity of the said numberifications in so far as they were given retrospective effect with effect from January 1, 1973 and April 1, 1979 respectively.
In Railways there are certain employees such as Drivers, Guards, Shunters, etc, who are companynected with the movement of trains and are categorised as running staff.
G.S.R. 1143 E the said rule was amended with effect from January 1, 1973 and by numberification No.
