RAILWAY OVERTIME CAT BENCH CASE

RAILWAY OVERTIME CAT BENCH CASE

by

Post is about issue of Overtime in Indian Railways wherein OA preferred before CAT Chandigarh Bench & legal representation to be decided.

Overtime Indian Railways Case Chandigarh CAT Bench

Now let’s have the Judgment –

Judgment digest

Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench

Date of Decision – 5th March, 2021

Complainant:

  1. Joginder Lal, aged about 58 years, son of Sh. Tilak Raj, resident of H. No. 3218 Singhpura, Mohlla Barara, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala, Haryana- 133201
  2. Resham Singh aged about 58 years, son of Sh. Ishar Singh, resident of H. No. 123/A, Hira Nagar Road, Ambala City, Haryana – 134003.
  3. Jitender Sharma, aged about 55 years, son of Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma, resident of Vill & P.O. Hamidpur, Tehsil – Naraingarh, District Ambala, Haryana – 133104.

Also Read- P Satyanarayana vs M/O Railways on 23 July, 2018

Opposites:

  1. Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi – 110001.
  2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Ambala (N.R.) Ambala Cantt. Ambala, Haryana – 133104.
  3. The Senior Divisional Engineer-IV, O/o Divisional Office Northern Railway, Ambala Cantt, Ambala City, Haryana – 133104.

Quoram:

AJANTA DAYALAN, MEMBER

Also Read- Kapil Gurjar vs M/O Railways on 16 September, 2021

Facts of the Case:

  1. That the applicants have been working overtime beyond eight hours normal duty.
  2. However, they have not been granted overtime allowance.
  3. He states that the applicants made a representation dated 01.02.20219.
  4. However, there was no action on the part of the respondent department.
  5. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 04.11.2019 was also served.
  6. Still there is no response or action by the respondents and the grievance of the applicants stands.

Also Read- Overtime+allowance | India Judgments | Law | CaseMine

Arguments:

Mr. Lakhinder Bir Singh, learned counsel, appears and accepts notice on behalf of all the respondents.

 At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that he will be satisfied, in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the applicant, keeping in view the judgments relied upon by him, within some time bound manner.

The learned counsel for the respondents does not object to this limited prayer of the learned counsel for the applicants.

Case Citation:

Union of India & Others Vs. Om Prakash & Another

Dharambir & Others Vs. Union of India and Others

Also Read- Calculation+of+overtime | India Judgments | Law | CaseMine

Judgment:

In view of the above, I direct the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 01.02.2019 of the applicant, by taking into account the rules and instructions as well as the judgments relied upon by the applicants’ counsel, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

The order so passed shall be communicated to the applicants.

Needless to mention that the above order does not reflect an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

The O.A. is disposed of in the above terms.

Also Read- Shamim Ahmad vs M/O Railways on 27 February, 2019

For case specific advice, please contact Chandigarh Administrative Tribunal/Service Matter/Labour and Service/CAT/Legal Aid/Administrative/Senior/Service Employment Lawyers Advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur etc.

More on 99888-17966.

Call Us