Union of India v. Revati Karwa

Chhattisgarh HC11 Mar 2025WPS/2343/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Overtime allowance; Railway Servants (Hours of Work and Period of Rest) Rules, 2005 Rule 7(3); delay and laches; continuing/recurring wrong; recurring cause of action; belated service claim; retired SEC Railway employees; SSE/W/WS/BMY; CAT Jabalpur Bench Bilaspur circuit; Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648; M.R. Gupta v. Union of India (1995) 5 SCC 628; State of M.P. v. Yogendra Shrivastava (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 251; writ petitions dismissed; payment directed within 45 days; ₹ 40,22,837/-; neutral citation 2025:CGHC:46530-DB; NAFR.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed; Railway authorities directed to further process the respondents' claim for payment of overtime allowance and make payment within 45 days from receipt of a copy of the order; parties left to bear their own costs. ¶¶223

Union of India Vs Revati Karwa — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶223

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' claim for overtime allowance for the period 2007-2010, rejected by order dated 4-3-2015 as an older and belated claim, is barred by delay and laches, notwithstanding that non-payment constitutes a recurring and continuous wrong. +2 more

¶¶212

Court's answer

Non-payment of overtime allowance is a recurring and continuous wrong for which the railway authorities themselves are responsible; they are not justified in refusing payment where the only ground of refusal is that the claim is older and belated.

¶¶220

Ratio / Principle

Delay in making the claim by the respondents or delay in making payment would not come in the way of making payment of overtime allowance.

¶¶220

Key takeaways

The learned CAT was absolutely justified in holding that the respondents are entitled to overtime allowance.ratio¶¶220
The plea based on Rule 7(3) of the Rules of 2005 is not available to the petitioners because, by order dated 4-3-2015, the respondents' claim was refused only on the ground of it being an older and belated claim.ratio¶¶223
The Railway authorities are directed to further process the respondents' claim for payment of overtime allowance and make payment within 45 days from receipt of a copy of the order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Division Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal and Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ.; order by Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.), 11-09-2025 — dismisses fourteen writ petitions by the Union of India/South East Central Railway challenging CAT, Jabalpur Bench (Bilaspur circuit) orders dated 20-11-2019 and 7-12-2020 directing payment of overtime allowance to nineteen retired railway employees for work done overtime between 2007 and 2010, the outstanding amount having been quantified by the Railways' own Personnel Branch at ₹ 40,22,837/-. Holds that non-payment of overtime allowance is a recurring and continuous wrong giving rise to a recurring cause of action, so delay and laches do not bar the claim (relying on Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648); that the plea under Rule 7(3) of the Railway Servants (Hours of Work and Period of Rest) Rules, 2005 is not available because the rejection dated 4-3-2015 rested solely on the claim being older and belated; and directs the Railway authorities to process and pay the overtime allowance within 45 days of receipt of the order.

¶1

Page 1 of 15

¶2

(WPSNo.2325/2021 and thirteen other connected cases)

¶3

2025:CGHC:46530-DB

¶4

Digitally 2025:CGHC:46530-DB signed by SISTA SISTA SOMAYAJULU SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.09.12 18:33:47 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR +0530

¶5

NAFR

¶6

WPS No. 2325 of 2021

¶7

Union of India, through the General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004

¶8

South East Central Railway, through the General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004

¶9

Divisional Railway Manager, C/o S.E.C. Rly., DRM Office, Fafadih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492008

¶10

Regional Personnel Officer, C/o S.E.C. Rly., DRM Office, Fafadih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492008

¶11

--- Petitioners

¶12

Versus

¶13

Raghunath, Aged about 63 years (at the time of filing of the O.A), S/o Late Shri Ratan, C/o Bimla Senapati, Sirsabhata, G-Cabin, Charoda, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶14

--- Respondent

¶15

WPS No. 2340 of 2021

¶16

Union of India, through the General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004

¶17

South East Central Railway, through the General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004

¶18

Divisional Railway Manager, C/o S.E.C. Rly., DRM Office, Fafadih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492008

¶19

Regional Personnel Officer, C/o S.E.C. Rly., DRM Office, Fafadih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492008

--- Petitioners

Versus

Page 2 of 15

(WPSNo.2325/2021 and thirteen other connected cases)

¶24

Kislal, Aged 60 years, S/o Late Baratu, R/o Behind Indrajeet Kirana Store, Ward No.4, Dadar Charoda, P.O BMY, District Durg 490025

¶25

--- Respondent

¶26

WPS No. 2341 of 2021

¶27

Union of India, through the General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004

¶28

South East Central Railway, through the General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004

¶29

Divisional Railway Manager, C/o S.E.C. Rly., DRM Office, Fafadih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492008

¶30

Regional Personnel Officer, C/o S.E.C. Rly., DRM Office, Fafadih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492008

¶31

--- Petitioners

¶32

Versus

¶33

Durga Biswas, W/o Late Shri V.K. Biswas, aged 43 yrs, R/o Qr.No.102 A, Railway Colony, Bhilai-3, Post Bhilai-3, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 490021

¶34

--- Respondent

¶35

WPS No. 2342 of 2021

¶36

Union of India, through the General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004

¶37

South East Central Railway, through the General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004

¶38

Divisional Railway Manager, C/o S.E.C. Rly., DRM Office, Fafadih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492008

¶39

Regional Personnel Officer, C/o S.E.C. Rly., DRM Office, Fafadih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492008

¶40

--- Petitioners

¶41

Versus

¶42

Guha, Aged 55 years, S/o Tijau, R/o Qr.No.84 D, BMY Charoda, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 490025 --- Respondent

¶43

Page 3 of 15

¶44

(WPSNo.2325/2021 and thirteen other connected cases)

¶45

WPS No. 2343 of 2021

¶46

Union of India, through the General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004

¶47

South East Central Railway, through the General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004

¶48

Divisional Railway Manager, C/o S.E.C. Rly., DRM Office, Fafadih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492008

¶49

Regional Personnel Officer, C/o S.E.C. Rly., DRM Office, Fafadih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492008

¶50

--- Petitioners

¶51

Versus

¶52

Revati Karwa, W/o Baner, Aged about 46 years, C/o Store 12, Near Shiv Mandir, Bhilai-3, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 490021

¶53

--- Respondent

¶54

WPS No. 2486 of 2021

¶55

Union of India, through the General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004

¶56

South East Central Railway, through the General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004

¶57

Divisional Railway Manager, C/o S.E.C. Rly., DRM Office, Fafadih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492008

¶58

Regional Personnel Officer, C/o S.E.C. Rly., DRM Office, Fafadih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492008

¶59

--- Petitioners

¶60

Versus

¶61

Arjun, Aged 64 years, S/o Late Jabar Singh, R/o Village Rahenbhata, Post Office Malishira, Police Station Titlagarh, District Bolangir (Orissa) 767033

¶62

--- Respondent

¶63

WPS No. 2488 of 2021

¶64

Union of India, through the General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004

¶65

South East Central Railway, through the General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004

¶66

Page 4 of 15

¶67

(WPSNo.2325/2021 and thirteen other connected cases)

¶68

Divisional Railway Manager, C/o S.E.C. Rly., DRM Office, Fafadih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492008

¶69

Regional Personnel Officer, C/o S.E.C. Rly., DRM Office, Fafadih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492008

¶70

--- Petitioners

¶71

Versus

¶72

Devanand, Aged 57 years, S/o Ravi, R/o Qr.No.604 C, Zone-I, BMY Charoda, Bhilai, District Durg, C.G. 490025

¶73

--- Respondent

¶74

WPS No. 2505 of 2021

¶75

Union of India, through the General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004

¶76

South East Central Railway, through the General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004

¶77

Divisional Railway Manager, C/o S.E.C. Rly., DRM Office, Fafadih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492008

¶78

Regional Personnel Officer, C/o S.E.C. Rly., DRM Office, Fafadih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492008

¶79

--- Petitioners

¶80

Versus

¶81

Ramnath (Died) Through Legal Heirs

¶82

1.A Joniya Devi, W/o Late Ramnath, Aged about 68 years

¶83

1.B Rakesh Sharma, S/o Late Ramnath, Aged about 35 years

¶84

1.C Harkesh Sharma, S/o Late Ramnath, Aged about 40 years

¶85

1.D Kameshwar Sharma, S/o Late Ramnath, Aged about 49 years

¶86

1.E (a) Maya Sharma, W/o Late Manoj Sharma, Aged about 40 years

¶87

(b) Ankit Sharma, S/o Late Manoj Sharma, Aged about 17 years

¶88

¶89

Both are minors through their natural guardian mother Maya Sharma

¶90

Page 5 of 15

¶91

(WPSNo.2325/2021 and thirteen other connected cases)

¶92

All are R/o Sector-11, Zone-2, Balaji Nagar, Khursipar, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh-490021.

¶93

--- Respondents

¶94

WPS No. 2508 of 2021

¶95

Union of India, through the General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004

¶96

South East Central Railway, through the General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004

¶97

Divisional Railway Manager, C/o S.E.C. Rly., DRM Office, Fafadih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492008

¶98

Regional Personnel Officer, C/o S.E.C. Rly., DRM Office, Fafadih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492008

¶99

--- Petitioners

¶100

Versus

¶101

K. Bhaskarudu (Died) Through Legal Heir

¶102

1(A) K. Krishnaveni, W/o Late Bhaskardu, Aged about 68 years, R/o C/o Shri J.M. Lingam, Old Bhilai, Post Bhilai-3, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶103

--- Respondent

¶104

WPS No. 2511 of 2021

¶105

Union of India, through the General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004

¶106

South East Central Railway, through the General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004

¶107

Divisional Railway Manager, C/o S.E.C. Rly., DRM Office, Fafadih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492008

¶108

Regional Personnel Officer, C/o S.E.C. Rly., DRM Office, Fafadih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492008

¶109

--- Petitioners

¶110

Versus

¶111

Balakram, Aged 51 years, S/o Late Sadashiv, R/o Qr.No.D-620, Zone-I, Charoda, Bhilai, District Durg 490025. --- Respondent

¶112

Page 6 of 15

¶113

(WPSNo.2325/2021 and thirteen other connected cases)

¶114

WPS No. 2518 of 2021

¶115

Union of India, through the General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004

¶116

South East Central Railway, through the General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004

¶117

Divisional Railway Manager, C/o S.E.C. Rly., DRM Office, Fafadih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492008

¶118

Regional Personnel Officer, C/o S.E.C. Rly., DRM Office, Fafadih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492008

¶119

--- Petitioners

¶120

Versus

¶121

B. Laxmi, Aged 65 yrs, W/o Late B. Krishnamurty, R/o Jagdamba Chowk, Purana Bhilai, Post Bhilai-3, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 490021.

¶122

--- Respondent

¶123

WPS No. 2531 of 2021

¶124

Union of India, through the General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004

¶125

South East Central Railway, through the General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004

¶126

Divisional Railway Manager, C/o S.E.C. Rly., DRM Office, Fafadih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492008

¶127

Regional Personnel Officer, C/o S.E.C. Rly., DRM Office, Fafadih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492008

¶128

--- Petitioners

¶129

Versus

¶130

Dasarath, Aged 57 years, S/o Late Suru, R/o Qr.No.C-627, BMY Charoda, Bhilai, District Durg 490025

¶131

--- Respondent

¶132

WPS No. 2532 of 2021

¶133

Union of India, through the General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004

¶134

South East Central Railway, through the General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004

¶135

Page 7 of 15

¶136

(WPSNo.2325/2021 and thirteen other connected cases)

¶137

Divisional Railway Manager, C/o S.E.C. Rly., DRM Office, Fafadih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492008

¶138

Regional Personnel Officer, C/o S.E.C. Rly., DRM Office, Fafadih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492008

¶139

--- Petitioners

¶140

Versus

¶141

Suresh, Aged 56 yrs, S/o Shri Raju, R/o Qr.No.95 D, Bhilai-3, Post Bhilai-3, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 490021.

¶142

--- Respondent

¶143

AND

¶144

WPS No. 2537 of 2021

¶145

Union of India, through the General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004

¶146

South East Central Railway, through the General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004

¶147

Divisional Railway Manager, C/o S.E.C. Rly., DRM Office, Fafadih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492008

¶148

Regional Personnel Officer, C/o S.E.C. Rly., DRM Office, Fafadih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492008

¶149

--- Petitioners

¶150

Versus

¶151

Devanand, Aged 57 years, S/o Ratiram, R/o Ward No.21, Indra Nagar, Near Shukla Aata Chakki, BMY Charoda, District Durg 490025

¶152

--- Respondent

¶153

For Petitioners : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General of India, Mr. Rishabhdeo Singh, Advocate and Mr. Bhupendra Pandey, Central Government Counsel.

¶154

For Respondents : Mr. Sudeep Johri and Mr. J.K. Gupta, Advocates.

¶155

Division Bench: -

¶156

Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ.

Order on Board

(11/09/2025)

Page 8 of 15

(WPSNo.2325/2021 and thirteen other connected cases)

¶161

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

¶162

This order will govern the disposal of WPS No.2325/2021 and thirteen other connected writ petitions.

¶163

Since common question of law and fact is involved in all these writ petitions, they were clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶164

This batch of writ petitions questions legality, validity and correctness of order dated 20-11-2019 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit sittings: Bilaspur, by which the original applications filed by the respondents herein have been allowed and order dated 4-3-2015 has been set aside and the Union of India has been directed to make payment of overtime allowance to the railway servants/respondents herein as claimed by them within 60 days. These writ petitions eventually also question legality, validity and correctness of order dated 7-12-2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur in the review applications filed by the Union of India, by which the learned CAT has dismissed the review applications finding no merit.

¶165

(For the sake of convenience, W.P.(S)No.2340/2021 is being taken as lead case.)

¶166

The respondent herein/original applicant was appointed on 24-121972 and stood retired on 3-9-2012 from the Department of Engineering. It is the case of the respondent/original applicant that

¶167

Page 9 of 15

¶168

(WPSNo.2325/2021 and thirteen other connected cases)

¶169

after the stipulated period of duty, he had worked overtime between 2007 to 2010 for which overtime allowance was payable, but it was not paid and thereafter, he along with other original applicants filed original application on 18-4-2017 claiming overtime allowance which was processed by the Personnel Branch of the Office of the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, S.E.C. Railway, Raipur, and the claim of 19 applicants for overtime allowance was denied by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer due to being older and belated claim by order dated 4-3-2015 leading to filing of original applications before the CAT on the ground that payment of overtime allowance is a recurring cause of action and therefore their claim is absolutely justified and further processing of the claim caused delay and laches, which the Union of India has opposed holding that the claim is stale and not available. However, pursuant to the order of CAT dated 9- 10-2018, documents relating to overtime allowance were filed vide Annexure R-1 and thereafter, the matter was considered by the CAT and the CAT considered the dispute regarding non-payment of overtime allowance to the original applicants on performing extra duty hours in extra time.

¶170

The learned CAT relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and others v. Tarsem Singh 1 and M.R. Gupta v. Union of India 2 came to the conclusion that the Railway Department has calculated the overtime of the applicants in the year 2012 and ultimately rejected their claim in 2015 by order

¶171

1 (2008) 8 SCC 648

¶172

2 (1995) 5 SCC 628

¶173

Page 10 of 15

¶174

(WPSNo.2325/2021 and thirteen other connected cases)

¶175

dated 4-3-2015 which was communicated to them on 4-6-2015, as such, the cause of action arose on 4-6-2015 and ultimately, the original applications were filed before the CAT on 18-4-2017. It has also been held by the learned CAT that claim for overtime allowance of the original applicants has been calculated on the basis demonstrable from the documents filed as Annexure R-1 and the original applicants are entitled for overtime and ultimately directed for payment of overtime allowance as claimed within 60 days against which review applications have been filed on behalf of the Union of India which have been dismissed finding no merit and against which this batch of writ petitions has been filed.

¶176

Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the petitioners herein/Union of India, would submit that the learned CAT is absolutely unjustified in granting overtime allowance to the respondents herein, as their claim suffers from delay and laches as apparent from the order dated 4-3-2015, though it has been processed by the Department of Personnel, and therefore it could not have been granted by the CAT by the impugned order which is liable to be set aside. The respondents are not entitled for overtime allowance as per Rule 7(3) of the Railway Servants (Hours of Work and Period of Rest) Rules, 2005 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2005’) and therefore the writ petitions deserve to be allowed and the impugned orders deserve to be set aside.

¶177

Mr. Sudeep Johri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents herein, would submit that the only ground that has been

¶178

Page 11 of 15

¶179

(WPSNo.2325/2021 and thirteen other connected cases)

¶180

pressed into service by the Railways by order dated 4-3-2015 is on account of claim being older and belated, the respondents’ claim for overtime allowance has been rejected, whereas overtime allowance is calculated by the Railways itself and therefore new ground cannot be invented while filing writ petitions before this Court. He would further submit that the learned CAT is absolutely justified in granting the applications and question of delay would not come in the way, as in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh’s case (supra), it is a continuing wrong on the part of the Railways not to make payment of overtime allowance and the claim has been rejected only on the ground of being older and belated. As such, the ground taken relying upon Rule 7(3) of the Rules of 2005 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that view of the matter, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.

¶181

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record thoroughly as well as meticulously.

¶182

It is the case of the respondents herein that they had applied for grant of overtime allowance for the period from 2007 to 2010, they had already retired from service in between 2010 and 2015, and the overtime allowance for the period from 2007 to 2010 of as many as 19 railway servants is outstanding which was considered by the Department of Personnel of South East Central Railway which was quantified as ₹ 40,22,837/- and processed by the Department, however, it was referred to the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,

¶183

Page 12 of 15

¶184

(WPSNo.2325/2021 and thirteen other connected cases)

¶185

Raipur who refused the same on the ground of being older and belated claim which was communicated on 4-3-2015 by the Divisional Personnel Officer to the Senior Divisional Engineer (CoOrd), SEC Railway, Raipur to be informed to the respondents herein/ concerned railway staff and which states as under: -

¶186

Ø% E/PB/R/BIL/2012/102

¶187

fnukad% 04-03-2015

¶188

izfr

¶189

The Sr Divisional Engineer (Co – Ord) S.E.C. Railway, Raipur

¶190

fo"k;% Non – Payment of Over Time Allowance for the period from Year – 2007 to 2010 to the staff of SSE/W/WS/BMY.

¶191

The outstanding Over Time Allowance for the period from 2007 to 2010 in favor of 19 staffs of SSE/W/WS/BMY amounting ₹ 40,22,837/- was processed by the Personnel Branch in the light of existing provisions. The details are as under:

¶192

Devanand S/o Ravi, FPOM 11. K. Bhaskarudu, FPOM

¶193

Devanand S/o Rati Ram, Sr VO 12. Ramnath, FPOM

¶194

Dasarath, Helper Gr.I 13. Raghunath, FPOM

¶195

Sukhan, Helper Gr.I

¶196

B Krishna Murthy, Helper Gr.I

¶197

Kislal, Helper Gr.I

¶198

Benar, Sr VO

¶199

Guha, Sr VO

¶200

Arjun, FPOM

¶201

Suresh, VO

¶202

Kameswar, VO

¶203

Govind, FPOM

¶204

Manohar Majhi, FPOM

¶205

Balak Ram, FPOM 19. Viswanath, Helper Gr.I

¶206

B.K. Biswas, FPOM

¶207

The instant claim has been regretted by the Competent Authority (Sr DPO/R) due to being older and belated claim for which remedies are not practical and hence could not be feasible for further processing.

¶208

This may kindly be intimated to the concerned staff through proper channel from your end.

¶209

lgh@& ¼laxzke lksjsu½ eaMy dkfeZd vf/kdkjh d`rs ofj"B eaMy dkfeZd vf/kdkjh

¶210

Page 13 of 15

¶211

(WPSNo.2325/2021 and thirteen other connected cases)

¶212

10.The aforesaid order dated 4-3-2015 was received by the respondents herein on 4-6-2015 which led to filing of original applications by them before the CAT. The aforesaid question of delay was considered by the CAT in paragraph 19 of its order and it has been held that “there is a continuous wrong which is being done by the respondent-department” by observing as under: -

¶213

“19. The applicant has relied upon the judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Union of India and others vs. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648, State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Yogendra Shrivastava (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 251; M.R. Gupta vs. Union of India and others (1995) 5 SCC 628; wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if there is continuous wrong being done by the respondents then denial of benefits occurs every month when the salary is paid. So in the instant case there is a continuous wrong which is being done by the respondent-department. Moreover, the respondent-department has calculated the overtime of the applicant in the year 2012 and which has been put before the concerned higher official and ultimately rejected in 2015. So, fresh cause of action arose on 04.06.2015.”

¶214

In Tarsem Singh’s case (supra) relied upon by the respondents herein, the Supreme Court has clearly held that if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties, and observed as under: -

¶215

“7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an

¶216

Page 14 of 15

¶217

(WPSNo.2325/2021 and thirteen other connected cases)

¶218

exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.”

¶219

In the instant case, the railway authorities themselves have processed

¶220

the claim case of the respondents herein for payment of overtime allowance, however, on the ground of delay and laches, the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Raipur recorded the claim of the respondents being older and belated claim, which was challenged in the original applications in which the learned CAT has rightly held that it is a continuous wrong which is being done by the Department and thus recurring cause of action arose and therefore since nonpayment of overtime allowance is a recurring and continuous wrong, the Department i.e. the railway authorities are not justified in refusing to make payment of overtime allowance, as the only ground for refusal is older and belated claim. Since the Railways themselves are responsible for not making payment, as already held, it is a recurring and continuous wrong, the learned CAT is absolutely justified in holding that the respondents herein are entitled for overtime allowance and delay in making claim by them or delay in

¶221

Page 15 of 15

¶222

(WPSNo.2325/2021 and thirteen other connected cases)

¶223

making payment would not come in the way of making payment and the plea based on Rule 7(3) of the Rules of 2005 is not available to the petitioners as by order dated 4-3-2015, the claim of the respondents was refused only on the ground of older and belated claim. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in these writ petitions. The writ petitions are liable to be and are hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, the Railway authorities are directed to further process the claim of the respondents herein for payment of overtime allowance and would make payment within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No cost.

¶224

Sd/Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE

¶225

Soma

Union of India v. Revati Karwa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Revati Karwa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajkamal Chandrakar Vs Smt. Nisha Chandrakar

A. Somshekhar Vs Smt. a. Sandhya

Smt. Bhemeshwari Vs Ramsharan Painkra

Union of India Vs Raghunath

Union of India, Vs Devanand

Union of India Vs Ramnath (Died) Through Legal Heirs-