BHARAT PENSIONERS’ SAMAJ
(All India Federation of Pensioners’ Associations)
(Registered No. 2023 of 1962-63
Member International Federation on Ageing.
2/13-A-LGF Backside, Jangpura – ‘A’,
New Delhi – 110014
Rail Bhawan, New Delhi 110001
Ref: 1. RB lr. No.PC-III/2012/CTC-II/Idt. 18.10.2012 to GM/N.Rly
2. RB lr. No.PC-III/2013/CTC-I/4 dt. 01.02.2016 to GM/N.Rly
3. RB lr. No.PC-V/2001/CC/1/NR dt. 04.06.2001 to GM/N.Rly.
4. RB lr. No.PC-III/2008/CTC-II/1 dt. 24.02.2012 to all GMs
1. RB lr. cited (1 & 2) above, has advised GM/N.Rly, to implement Court Orders in respect of the applicants only i.e. erstwhile Mistries retired from JUDW, prior to re-designation of the Post of Mistry/Supervisor, as JE Gr.II, w.e.f 1.11.2003, oncadre restructuring. These Applicants, retired from post of Mistry, from scale Rs. 1400-2300/ Rs. 4500-7000, are issued revised VI PC PPO mentioning Pension Rs. 6750, based on scale Rs. 5000-8000/PB2+GP Rs. 4200.
2. RB lr. cited (3) above says “Mistry pay scale, however, is lower as compared to JE Gr.II. Allotment of pay scales as above to the MIstries took note of Supreme Court’s directive that the Supervised and the Supervisor should not be in the same scale of pay.
3. But, a JE Gr.II/Chgman B (Supervisor) retired from S.Rly. from scale Rs. 1400-2300 is getting min. pension Rs. 5585 in VI PC, based on PB1+GP Rs. 2800, whereas, a Mistry (Supervised) retired from JUDW getting min. pension Rs. 6750, based on PB2+GP Rs. 4200.
4. RB. lr. cited (4), refer to Delhi H.C. Judgment of 4.1.2012 in CP311/2009, arising from W.P.No. 566/2000 and directed all Zonal Rlys. to extend the benefit of this Judgment to all the Coach Attendants. Para 13 of H.C. Judgment reads “When relief was granted to petitioner No. 1 Association, it is obviously meant that the relief was granted to all its members and to all Coach Attendants, who were similarly situated.” (emphasis added)
5. Para 20 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgment in Darshan Lal Bali V/s Union of India (SLP 22402/2014) implies that all similarly placed pensioners should be given the benefit of the judgment.
6. Art. 141 of Constitution of India says “The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India. It will be agreed that purpose of Art. 141 is to reduce multiple litigations on the same subject in various Courts.”
7. In view of the above, We request RB to issue necessary instructions to Zonal Rlys, duly extending the benefit of P&H.C. Judgment in CWP Judgment in CWP 88563Jmmmj Judgments in CWP 9581/2011 & CWP 8563/2014 to all similarly placed Pensioners, withoutdriving, each one of them to the legal forums, seeking the same remedy. This will, to some extent, also help in reducing pendencyof cases in various Courts.
Thanking you and awaiting early action in the matter please.
Bharat Pensioners Samaj
Source – scm-bps.blogspot.in