:1: :1: :1: srp. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 190 OF 2006. WRIT PETITION NO. 190 OF 2006. WRIT PETITION NO. 190 OF 2006. 1. Union of India, Through: ] General Manager, Western Railway, ] Headquarters Office, Churchgate, ] Mumbai - 400 020. ] ] 2. The Chief Catering Manager, ] Western Railway, ] Headquarters Office, Churchgate, ] Mumbai - 400 020. ] ..Petitioners. V E R S U S 1. Paschim Railway Karmchari ] Parishad, A registered Trade Union] having its Branch Office at: ] Catering Department, ] Mumbai - 400 608. ] ] 2. Mr. Ignatius Fernandes, ] working as Bill Issuer, ] R/a: Nawar Chawl, Room No.1, ] 2nd floor, Near Church Pakhadi, ] Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400099. ] ..Respondents. --- Mr. Sureshkumar for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Marne for the respondents. CORAM: S.B.MHASE & SHINDE, JJ. CORAM: S.B.MHASE & SHINDE, JJ. CORAM: S.B.MHASE & SHINDE, JJ. DATE : April 21, 2008. DATE : April 21, 2008. DATE : April 21, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.B.Mhase,J.). ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.B.Mhase,J.). ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.B.Mhase,J.). 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 24th June 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai ("the CAT", for short) in O.A. No. 238 of 2004 and order dated 30th November 2005 :2: :2: :2: passed in Review Petition No. 30 of 2005. 2. The factual matrix are as follows: . The respondent no.1 is an association / trade union of the employees of the Railway. The Respondents have filed the above referred O.A. before the CAT representing the grievance of the employees shown in Exhibit-G. All these employees represented by the Respondent-Union are/were the commission vendors and their services have been regularised in view of the Apex Court judgment reported in 1988 (Supplementary) SCC 437 1988 (Supplementary) SCC 437 1988 (Supplementary) SCC 437 in the case of T.I. Madhavan, General Secretary, All in the case of T.I. Madhavan, General Secretary, All in the case of T.I. Madhavan, General Secretary, All India Railway Catering Services Workers Union v/s. Union India Railway Catering Services Workers Union v/s. Union India Railway Catering Services Workers Union v/s. Union of India and Others. of India and Others. of India and Others. However, the grievance of the Respondent - Union and its members is that 50% of the service rendered by them as commission vendors shall be calculated towards the pension along with the services rendered by them as regular employees of the petitioner. In order to claim the said benefit, the respondents have filed O.A. No. 238 of 2004 before the CAT. The CAT has accepted the contention of the respondent relying the order passed by the CAT in O.A. No. 538 of 1996 and the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 499 of 2002. 3. Learned counsel Mr. Sureshkumar who appeared for the Petitioner submitted that the CAT has erred in :3: :3: :3: relying upon the order passed by the CAT in O.A. No. 538 of 1996. He submitted that in the said matter though there was direction to frame a scheme for calculating 50% of the service of the commission vendors, such scheme was not framed. He submitted that even the Contempt Petition No. 56 of 2006 which was filed before the CAT by the applicant in that petition was rejected. He submitted that in the earlier petition, being Writ Petition No. 499 of 2002, the 50% of the services of the Commission Vendors was calculated in view of the concession given by the Counsel for the Railway and it has been specifically observed that the said order shall not be treated as precedent. Therefore, he submitted that the decision given by the CAT in O.A. No. 238 of 2004 which is based upon the said decision of the CAT in O.A. No. 538 of 1996 and decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 499 of 2002 is not just and proper. He submitted that the reliance placed by the CAT on these decisions was uncalled for, because these were the orders passed on concessions ultimately. 4. Learned Counsel Mr. Sandeep Marne appearing for the respondents submitted that the employees to whom the respondent no.1 is representing in this matter were all commission vendors like that of commission vendors involved in O.A. No. 538 of 1996 and Writ Petition No. 499 of 2002. He submitted that it is fact admitted by the petitioner that the 50% services of the earlier group :4: :4: :4: of employees as commission vendors have been calculated towards pension by the petitioner and thus in view of the admission given by the respondent the earlier lis has been decided. However, he submitted that the fact remains that similarly situated employees was given the benefit which is being claimed by the present respondents. He submitted that the Railway being "State" is under obligation to treat its similarly situated employees in the same manner, and Railway cannot apply different yardsticks for a similarly situated employees and fix up the pension. 5. After careful consideration what we have found that in earlier O.A. No. 538 of 1996 and Writ Petition No. 499 of 2002, the employees involved were the commission vendors employed by the Railway Administration. Their services were regularised by the Railway Administration and while fixing their pension the 50% of the service rendered by them as commission agents/ vendors was taken into consideration by the petitioner. Thus, what we find is that the respondents - employees are similarly situated with the employees involved in the O.A. No. 538 of 1996 and Writ Petition No. 499 of 2002. If they are similarly situated in every respect, they are entitled to the similar benefits which were extended by the petitioner to the employees involved in O.A. No. 538 of 1996 and Writ Petition No. 499 of 2002. We do not find any justifiable reason to :5: :5: :5: discriminate between the two sets of workers who are similarly situated with each other. The argument that in earlier Writ Petition No. 499 of 2002 the petitioner had given concession and that concession cannot be taken to be precedent is not acceptable to us. If such an argument is allowed, we allow the petitioner to discriminate between the two sets of employees who are similarly situated with each other and thus ultimately we allow them to violate the principles of equality enshrined in the Constitution. Therefore we find that O.A. No. 238 of 2004 has been rightly decided by the CAT and there is no case made out for any interference by this Court in the impugned order. Therefore the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. (S.S.SHINDE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) :2008/sss/..