Case Brief
E.S.P. Rajaram and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors– Appeal (civil) 441 of 2001
Deciding Authority
Supreme Court
Name of the Judges
G.B.Pattanaik & S.Rajendra Babu & D.P.Mohapatra & Doraiswamy Raju & S.V.Patil
Date of Judgment
10th January 2001
Facts of the Case
The controversy which arose in this case was regarding the claim of Traffic Apprentices appointed prior to 15-5-1987 that they should be given the scale of pay of Rs.1600-2660, benefit of which was available to Traffic Apprentices recruited after 15-5-1987. Similar claims were raised before different benches of the CAT. There had been divergence of opinion between the different benches, some accepting the claim of pre 1987 Traffic Apprentices for the higher scale of pay, some other benches taking a contrary view. The Ernakulam bench of CAT had quashed the memorandum dated 15-5-1987 issued by the Railway Board in which it was provided that the higher scale of pay would be admissible only to the Traffic Apprentices recruited after the date of the memorandum.
These conflicting views taken by different benches of the CAT came up for consideration by this Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. M. Bhaskar and others. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court in the judgment, the departmental authorities gave appropriate placement in the scale of pay to the appellants who were recruited as Traffic Apprentices prior to 15-5-1987. They were given the pay of scale of Rs. 455-700 which stood revised as Rs.1400-2300 on the recommendation of the 4th Pay Commission and not the scale of Rs.550-750 which was revised to Rs.1600-2660. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the appellants filed OA No.1096/96 which was disposed of by the judgment dated 4th of October, 1996 of the Madras Bench of the CAT. Thereafter the appellants filed SLP No. 5373 of 1997 giving rise to this appeal. In the said SLP a bench of three learned Judges of this Court by the Order passed on 6-11-1997 directed that the matter be placed before a constitution bench, since the judgment in M. Bhaskar’s case was delivered by co-equal bench.
Judgment
The main thrust of the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the appellants was that the observations and directions given by this Court in M. Bhaskar’s case particularly in paragraph 18 thereof are unsustainable since it was passed without giving any notice to the appellants and/or other similarly placed employees who were seriously prejudiced by such directions.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court remarked it as necessary to trace the source of power of this Court to issue the directions and pass the order as in paragraph 18 of M Bhaskar’s case one can straightaway look to Article 142 of the Constitution. The said provision vests power in the Supreme Court to pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it. The provision contains no limitation regarding the causes or the circumstances in which the power can be exercised nor does it lays down any condition to be satisfied before such power is exercised. The exercise of the power is left completely to the descretion of the highest court of the country and its order or decree is made binding on all the Courts or Tribunals throughout the territory of India. However, this power is not to be exercised to override any express provision. It is not to be exercised in a case where there is no basis in law which can form an edifice for building up a super structure.
If the judgment of the tribunal which had taken a view contrary to the ratio laid down by judgment of this Court in M. Bhaskar’s case was allowed to stand then the resultant position would have been that some Traffic Apprentices who were parties in those cases would have gained an unfair and undeserved advantage over other employees who are or were holding the same post. Such enviable position would not only have been per se discriminatory but could have resulted in a situation which is undesirable for a cadre of large number of employees in a big establishment like that of the Indian Railways. The main plank of argument of the appellants was that since they were not parties in the case they had no opportunity to place their case before this Court. However, No point of substance assailing the observations on merits could be placed by them. The only contention made in that regard was some of the employees who were given benefit in the judgments of the CAT have got further promotions and they may lose the benefit of such promotion in case the observations made in paragraph 17 of the judgment are allowed to stand as it is. The Court was not impressed by the contention raised. If some employees were unjustly and improperly granted a higher scale of pay and on that basis were given promotion to a higher post then the basis of
such promotion been on a non-existent; the superstructure built on such foundation should not be allowed to stand; This is absolutely necessary for the sake of maintaining equality and fair play with the other similarly placed employees. However, in the considered view of the Court, it will be just and fair to clarify that any amount drawn by such employees either in the basic post (Traffic Apprentice) or in a promotional post will not be required to be refunded by the employee concerned as a consequence of this judgment. This position also follows as a necessary corollary from the observations made by this Court in paragraph 18 of the judgment in M.Bhaskar’s case.
Decision
On the basis of the above discussions made and the reasons set forth, the appeal was dismissed but in the circumstances of the case without any order for costs.
Shubham Shandilya, 4th Year, B.B.A. LL.B., Symbiosis Law School, Pune
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS