-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4191 OF 2001 1. Union of India, ) General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai CST ) 2. Chief Personnel Manager, Central Railway, ) Mumbai CST )..Petitioners versus 1. Mrs. K.S. Sarode, Working as Librarian ) Headquarters Office,Central Railway, ) Mumbai CST ) 2. P.D. Desai, working as Assistant Librarian ) Headquarters Office,Central Railway, ) Mumbai CST ).Respondents Mr. Suresh Kumar for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Marne for respondents. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE: JUNE 29, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.) The Railway administration has challenged the order dated 19th April, 2001, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Original Application No. 936 of 1994. By the impugned order, the Tribunal, after following the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M.M.R. Khan and others vs. Union of India and others1 granted relief to the original 1 1990 (Supp) SCC 191 -2- applicants, respondents herein, by directing the petitioners to grant benefit of past service rendered by the respondents prior to their absorption i.e. 20-7-1987. 2. The respondents were absorbed in the Railway Administration on 20th July, 1987. Prior to the said date, they were serving as Librarian and Assistant Librarians in the Railway Library and at the time of absorption, they had rendered 15 years service in the library which is being run and managed by the Railway Administration. Since their past services were not considered by the Railway Administration for the retiral benefits such as pension, etc. they approached the Tribunal by way of the aforesaid Original Application. 3. The Tribunal, after considering the judgment in M.M.R. Khan (supra), directed the Railway Administration to count the past services rendered by the respondents for their pensionary benefits. It is the aforesaid order of the Tribunal which is challenged by the Railway Administration by way of this petition by invoking our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that so far as the judgment of M.M.R. Khan (supra) is concerned, it was in connection with only certain category of employees i.e. the employees -3- working in the statutory and non-statutory canteens and, therefore, the said judgment cannot be made applicable to the respondents. In the aforesaid case the Supreme Court has held that no distinction can be made between the employees of statutory canteens and those of non-statutory canteens and the only difference is that the statutory canteens are established wherever the railway establishments employ more than 250 persons which is mandatory under the provisions of Section 46 of the Factories Act whereas non-statutory canteens are required to be established under the Railway Establishment Manual where the strength of the staff is 100 or more. It is submitted by Mr. Suresh Kumar that the said judgment applies only to a particular category of employees mentioned by the Supreme Court and so far as respondents are concerned, since they were serving in the Library which was never managed by the Railways but was managed through the contribution from the employees of the Railways by way of subscription fees which used to be paid to the concerned respondents. It is not in dispute that the management of the said library vests with the Railway Administration and General Manager, Deputy General Manager and the Financial Advisor and CAO are the members of the Library Committee. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the view of the Tribunal and submitted that the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in M.M.R. Khan (supra) has rightly been adopted by the -4- Tribunal while giving relief to the present respondents. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. We have also gone through the judgment of the Tribunal. 7. It is no doubt true that the judgment in M.M.R. Khan’s case was in connection with the employees of the statutory and non-statutory railway canteens and that the employees from the library category were not before the Supreme Court. However, as pointed out earlier, the library is also managed and controlled by the Railway Officers. In fact, on behalf of the Railway Administration, no evidence has been led before the Tribunal that the Library is run by any private contractor or private organization. In any case, Mr. Suresh Kumar has fairly submitted that he is not in a position to point out whether this library is established as per the Railway Manual or not. In our view, the Tribunal by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M.M.R. Khan has given appropriate reasons and we therefore see no reason why the same benefits should not be extended to the respondents. The Tribunal in para 7 of the judgment has held that the management committee was managed by General Manager, Deputy General Manager and Additional FA & CAO and other members. Considering the aforesaid aspect, the said benefit has been extended to the present respondents. -5- 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, North West Railway & Ors. vs. Chanda Devi1. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court after considering the scheme regarding casual labour came to the conclusion that the casual labour with status of temporary employee is not entitled to family pension as temporary employee. So far as the said judgment is concerned, it was based on the scheme framed by the Railway Administration. So far as the present matter is concerned, it is in connection with giving benefit to respondents at par with those similarly placed employees who are serving in statutory and non-statutory canteens. The learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to point out any other infirmity in the judgment of the Tribunal for us to interfere in our writ jurisdiction. 9. In view of the reasoning of the Tribunal and in view of what is stated above, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a case in which this Court would like to interfere with the reasoned order of the Tribunal in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.M. SAVANT, J. 1 2007 DGLS (Soft) 1283