Delve into the legal analysis surrounding the pension entitlement of Commission Vendors in Indian Railways. The court’s in-depth scrutiny of the case highlights crucial aspects such as non-discrimination and the financial impact of granting pension benefits. This examination underscores the complexities involved in determining entitlements for Commission Vendors within the legal framework of Indian Railways.
Facts
- Commission Vendors were paid commission on sales turn over instead of regular salaries.
- Railway Board suggested absorbing Commission Vendors as Railway Employees.
- Original writ petitioners were absorbed in Group ‘C’ posts in 2015.
- CAT case for counting total service prior to absorption for retirement benefits.
- Catering service in Northern Railways managed by private contractors before 1955.
- Court directions in 1983 and 1987 for progressive absorption of Commission Bearers/Vendors.
- Further direction for absorption of Bearers/Vendors in Central and South-Central Railways.
- Absorption to happen in vacancies on platforms as per memorandum.
- Litigations on absorption of Commission Vendors in Railways ongoing.
- Departmental catering and vending services started with former private contract staff as Commission Vendors.
- Special Leave Petition (SLP) No. 25019/2013 against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court was dismissed.
- CAT Calcutta Bench declined the claim of Commission Vendors/bearers working in the South-Eastern Railway in OA No. 758/2007.
- High Court affirmed the CAT’s decision regarding Commission Vendors/bearers.
- High Court allowed absorption of Commission Vendors in Group ‘C’ posts if they hadn’t crossed 59 years, in Writ Petition No. 5175/1998.
- High Court allowed writ petitions of Commission Vendors for absorption and dismissed Northern Railways’ petition.
- Union of India (Northern Railways) appealed against the High Court’s decision on counting past service for pension benefits.
- CAT ruled in favor of Commission Vendors/bearers in the Eastern Railway.
- Special Leave Petition filed by Railways against CAT’s decision was dismissed by the Calcutta High Court in 2011.
- Similar judgment in favor of Commission Vendors/bearers by the High Court of Kerala was confirmed.
- High Court of Calcutta held that Commission Vendors/bearers are entitled to count 50% of their pre-regularization service for pension benefits.
- Union of India appealed against the CAT’s decision in OA No. 4079/2016 for counting service as Commission Vendors for pension benefits.
- High Court heard and dismissed three writ petitions together relating to pensionary benefits of Commission Vendors.
- CAT dismissed OA based on previous decline of regularization prayer, but later allowed OA No. 4079/2016 for pensionary benefits.
- Railways filed a special leave petition against Kerala High Court’s decision on counting contract service for pension, which was dismissed due to delay.
Also Read: Quashing of Enhanced Tuition Fee in Private Medical Colleges
Arguments
- Commission Vendors who are subsequently absorbed are not entitled to seek parity with regularised casual labourers for pensionary benefits.
- Rule 14(v) and Rule 24 indicate that the period of employment as Commission Vendors does not count for pensionary benefits.
- Commission Vendors have not completed a mandatory 10 years of service for pensionary benefits as per Rule 31 of the 1993 Rules.
- Absorption of Commission Vendors into regular service was a concession, not a right, and cannot be used to claim additional benefits not intended for them.
- Commission Vendors were engaged on a purely contractual basis and different rules apply to them compared to Casual Labourers.
- Various judgments have accepted 50% of service rendered by Commission Vendors before absorption for pensionary benefits, but it is subject to specific conditions.
- Denying benefits to Commission Vendors in one zone while granting them in others would be discriminatory.
- The difference in status and mode of appointments between Commission Vendors and Casual Labourers highlights the reasons for differential treatment.
- Dismissal of previous Special Leave Petitions does not justify perpetuating an erroneous legal position.
- Illegality cannot be perpetuated simply because it has been condoned or committed in other cases.
- Commission Vendors insisted on being absorbed in specific Group ‘C’ posts rather than Group ‘D’ posts.
- 50% of past service rendered as commission vendor/bearers counted for computing qualifying service for pensionary benefits
- Financial burden on public exchequer estimated to be significant
- For Delhi Division alone, financial burden of more than Rupees 10 crores approx
- Total qualifying service for pension calculated as 19 Years 8 months and 23 days
- Example of Mr. Om Prakash, a Commission Vendor engaged on 17.02.1977 and absorbed in Railway on 27.07.2015
Also Read: Final Decision and Disclosure in Collegium Meetings
Analysis
- The issue pertains to Commission Vendors working in the Northern Railway and their entitlement to pension benefits.
- Commission Vendors who were absorbed in regular service are seeking to count 50% of their pre-absorption service as qualifying for pension benefits.
- Different orders have been passed in favor of Commission Vendors in various railways, granting them the 50% service counting benefit for pension.
- The Railways have repeated arguments previously rejected by Tribunals and Courts, leading to delays in the case.
- There were letters and directives issued by the Railway Board for absorption and regularization of Commission Vendors in permanent vacancies.
- The court emphasized on non-discrimination among similarly situated employees under the same employer – Railway Board, across different Zones/Divisions.
- The case involved multiple Writ Petitions, delay in absorption, and the focus on providing pensionary benefits to Commission Vendors on par with other railway employees.
- It was highlighted that Commission Vendors are not entitled to any remuneration apart from the commission on sales.
- The Court referred to specific rules and provisions regarding Casual Labour and their entitlements compared to Commission Vendors.
- The financial implications of granting pension benefits to Commission Vendors across all zones of Indian Railways were discussed.
- The Union of India’s appeals were opposed, emphasizing the need for parity in treatment for Commission Vendors regarding pension benefits.
- Various letters, judgments, and directions from the Railway Board were cited to support the case of Commission Vendors for pension entitlements.
- The importance of adhering to rules, non-discrimination, and the financial impact of granting pension benefits to Commission Vendors were key points of discussion.
- Commission vendors work on commission basis
- Either party can terminate the agreement with one month’s notice
- Termination can be done without assigning any reason or compensation
- The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam held in favor of the Commission Vendors/bearers in the Southern Railway case.
- The concept of negative equality as raised by the learned ASG is deemed not applicable in this case.
- Referring to the State of Punjab case, the court emphasized that the obligation to bear financial implications falls on the government when a decision affects such matters.
- The CAT, Ernakulam Bench’s order in OA No 440/2003 ruled in favor of the Commission Vendors/bearers, stating that the government is obligated to bear financial implications of decisions.
- The State cannot avoid constitutional obligation based on financial inabilities.
- Negative equality concept not applicable in this case as decisions against the appellants have been confirmed by the Court.
- Application of the doctrine of stare decisis in dismissing the appeals.
- Commission Vendors/bearers in Northern Railway entitled to same benefits as those in other zones/divisions.
- Denial of similar benefits would be discriminatory and violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
- Financial burden on Railways due to pensionary benefits not a valid reason to deny benefits.
- Commission Vendors/bearers in Northern Railway already receiving similar benefits, so there is no justification for denial.
Also Read: Quashing of High Court Order in Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation v. Tourism Corporation Case
Decision
- The Tribunal’s decision in OA No. 538/1996 was confirmed by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 190/2006.
- Special Leave Petition No. 24166/2009 was dismissed by this Court on grounds of delay and merits.
- A decision against the Railways by the Calcutta High Court regarding Commission Vendors/bearers in Eastern Railway is the subject of Special Leave Petition No. 25730/2009.
- The appeals related to Commission Vendors/bearers for pension benefits were all dismissed.
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA Vs. MUNSHI RAM (2022 INSC 1141)
Case Number: C.A. No.-002811-002811 / 2022
