Non-Payment Of Overtime Allowance Constitutes Continuing Wrong, Not Barred By Delay & Laches: Chhattisgarh HC

Background Facts

The respondents were railway employees. They performed overtime duties between the years 2007 and 2010 while working in the Engineering Department of the South East Central Railway, Bilaspur Zone. They raised a claim for the payment of overtime allowance for the aforementioned period after their retirement between 2010 and 2015. The Personnel Branch of the Railway Department processed the claims of 19 employees. It quantified the total outstanding amount to be ₹40,22,837. However, the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer rejected the claims citing the reason that the claims were older and belated.

Being aggrieved, the employees filed Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal in 2017. The CAT allowed the applications. It was held that non-payment of overtime allowance constitutes a continuous wrong, and thus, the claim was not barred by delay. The CAT directed the Railways to make the payment within 60 days. The review applications were filed by the Union of India against the order which were dismissed by the CAT on 07.12.2020.

Aggrieved by the same, the Union of India and the Railway authorities filed the writ petitions before the Chhattisgarh High Court, challenging the direction to pay the overtime allowance.

It was submitted by the petitioners that the Tribunal was unjustified in granting the overtime allowance to the respondents, as their claim suffered from an inordinate delay and laches. The petitioners submitted that the claim was rejected by the Department on 04.03.2015, and thus, the Tribunal should not have entertained the belated application. It was further submitted that the respondents are not entitled to the overtime allowance as per the provisions of Rule 7(3) of the Railway Servants (Hours of Work and Period of Rest) Rules, 2005.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondents that the question of delay does not arise in the case. The respondents relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh, wherein it was held that the non-payment of overtime allowance constitutes a continuing wrong on the part of the Railways.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the Court that the Railway authorities themselves had processed the claim of the respondents. They have quantified the outstanding overtime allowance amounting to ₹40,22,837/- for 19 employees. The claim was rejected because it was an older and belated claim.

The judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh was relied upon by the court wherein it was held that if a grievance is related to a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay as it creates a continuing source of injury.

It was found by the court that the non-payment of due allowance like overtime constituted a continuing wrong. It was further observed that the plea raised by the petitioners regarding Rule 7(3) of the Railway Servants (Hours of Work and Period of Rest) Rules, 2005, was not applicable. It was noted that the original rejection order was based solely on the ground of delay and laches.

Hence, the findings of the Tribunal were upheld by the court. It was held that the Railways were not justified in refusing payment solely on the ground of the claim being old and belated, since the Railways themselves were responsible for not making payments.

It was concluded that the non-payment of overtime allowance constituted a continuing wrong, and claims cannot be barred by delay or laches; further each denial created a fresh cause of action.

Consequently, no merit in the writ petitions was found by the court. The orders of the Tribunal were affirmed, and the petitioners were directed to further process the claims of the respondents and make payment of the overtime allowance within a period of 45 days. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions filed by the Railway authorities were dismissed by the court.

Case Name : Union of India & Ors vs Raghunath

Case No. : WPS No. 2325 of 2021

Counsel for the Appellant : Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General of India, Rishabhdeo Singh, Advocate and Bhupendra Pandey, Central Government

Counsel for the Respondents : Sudeep Johri and J.K. Gupta, Advocates