Constitution of India: Arts.14 and 16 – Regularisation – Parity – In the instant case, the departmental catering and vending services were started by Northern Railways for which the staff of the private contractors was taken as commission vendors – The commission vendors were paid commission on sales turnover achieved by them instead of paying regular salaries – Thereafter, pursuant to the memorandum issued by the Railway Board, the commission vendors/bearers were absorbed in regular vacancies – Claim for grant of pensionary/retirement benefits by commission vendors – Held: Commission vendors/bearers working in the Western Railway, Eastern Railway, Southern Railway and SouthEastern Railway were held to be entitled to 50% of the services rendered prior to their regularization to be counted for pensionary benefits – Since employees working in different divisions/zones in the Railways are under the very same employer i.e. Railway Board which is under the Ministry of Railways, therefore, the employees working under the same employer are required to be treated similarly and equally and are entitled to similar benefits and are entitled to the same treatment – There cannot be different criteria/parameters with respect to similarly situated employees working in different Zones/Divisions, but working under the same employer and to deny similar benefits would tantamount to discrimination and in violation of Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution – No reason to deny the similar benefits to the respondents-commission vendors/bearers working in the Northern Railway being similarly situated – Service law.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It can be seen that with respect to Commission Vendors/bearers working in the Western Railway, Eastern Railway, Southern Railway and South-Eastern Railway, they are held to be entitled to 50% of the services rendered prior to their regularization to be counted for pensionary benefits and all those Commission Vendors/bearers are granted such benefits. [Para 6][1160-G-H]
2. It cannot be disputed that employees working in different divisions/zones in the Railways are under the very same employer – Railway Board which is under the Ministry of Railways. There are 16 Zones and 68 Divisions in the Railways. Therefore, the employees working under the same employer – Railway Board working in different Zones/Divisions are required to be treated similarly and equally and are entitled to similar benefits and are entitled to the same treatment. There cannot be any discrimination inter se. Under the circumstances, on the ground of parity, the Commission Vendors/bearers working in the Northern Railway are entitled to the same benefits which are held to be entitled to all the similarly situated Commission Vendors/Bearers working under different Zones/Divisions. There cannot be different criteria/parameters with respect to similarly situated employees – Commission Vendors/bearers working in different Zones/Divisions, but working under the same employer. To deny similar benefits would tantamount to discrimination and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. [Paras 7, 8][1161-A-D, E]
3. Once it is found that the respondents-Commission Vendors/bearers working in the Northern Railway are also entitled to similar benefits which are given to the similarly situated Commission Vendors/bearers working in different zones/divisions and since they are already being paid the pensionary benefits by counting the benefit of 50% of their services rendered prior to their regularization, there is no reason to deny the similar benefits to the respondents – Commission Vendors/bearers working in the Northern Railway being similarly situated. [Para 9][1161-FH] Saital Singh v. Union of India Writ Petition (C) No. 6804-05 of 1982; T.L Madhavan, General Secretary, AIRCS Workers Union v. Union of India 1988 Supp SCC 437; Gurdas Ram & Others v. Union of India Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5175/1998; Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar (2017) 13 SCC 388 : [2017] 3 SCR 783; Haryana State Electricity Board v. Gulshan Lal (2009) 12 SCC 231 : [2009] 8 SCR 950; Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. v. Ayodhya Prasad Mishra (2008) 10 SCC 139 : [2008] 13 SCR 373; Union of India v. Muralidhara Menon (2009) 9 SCC 304 : [2009]
12 SCR 540; Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair (2020) 5 SCC 421 : [2020] 7 SCR 851; State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati (2019) 19 SCC 626; Gurdas Ram & Others Vs. UOI & Others W.P. (C) No.5175 of 1998 & CM No.14513 of 2010; Waman Rao and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.(1981) 2 SCC 362 : [1981] 2 SCR 1; Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466 : [2014] 4 SCR 1012; All India Judges’ Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1993) 4 SCC 288 : [1993] 1 Suppl. SCR 749; Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India and Others (2008) 6 SCC 1 : [2008] 4 SCR 1; G.C. Ghosh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 1991 Supp (2) SCC 497 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.