Summary
Commission vendors on Northern Railway, paid by commission on sales, were absorbed into regular Group C posts in 2015 under a Delhi High Court direction. Most then retired with less than ten years of regular service. The Delhi High Court directed that half their earlier service as commission vendors count as qualifying service for pension. The Railways argued that commission vendors could not claim parity with casual labourers and that the cost would be heavy. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals on parity and stare decisis. Similarly placed vendors in the Western, Eastern, Southern and South-Eastern Railways already received this benefit under High Court decisions that had become final after the Supreme Court dismissed special leave petitions, some on merits. Employees of one employer cannot be treated differently across zones, and negative equality does not apply.
Issues
- Whether commission vendors of the Northern Railway absorbed into regular service are entitled to count 50% of their prior service as commission vendors as qualifying service for pension, as similarly situated vendors in other Railway zones had been allowed.
Provisions considered
- Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of IndiaCommission vendors in different zones serve the same employer, the Railway Board, and denying the Northern Railway vendors the benefit given in other zones would be discriminatory. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- Rules 14, 24 and 31, Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993The Railways' contention that these rules and Rule 2005 of the IREM confine the 50% benefit to casual labourers was not accepted against the vendors, given the final decisions in other zones. (¶¶ 3.8, 3.10, 4.13, 5)
Held
- Decisions of Tribunals and High Courts granting commission vendors in four other zones 50% of pre-absorption service for pension have attained finality, the special leave petitions against some having been dismissed on delay and on merits. (¶¶ 5, 6)
- Employees of the Railway Board in its different zones must be treated alike; the Railways cannot repeat arguments already rejected elsewhere, and denying the benefit only in the Northern Railway would violate Articles 14 and 16. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- The plea of financial burden cannot justify denial when similarly situated vendors are already paid pension on this basis, and negative equality has no application where the adverse decisions were confirmed by this Court. (¶¶ 9, 10)
Result
Appeals dismissed applying parity and stare decisis; the respondents held entitled to count 50% of their service before regularisation as qualifying service for pension, like commission vendors in other Railway zones; no costs.