2001 (1) TMI 982 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the memorandum dated 15-5-1987 issued by the Railway Board regarding pay scales of Traffic Apprentices.
2. Applicability of higher pay scales to Traffic Apprentices appointed prior to 15-5-1987.
3. Directions issued by the Supreme Court in paragraph 18 of the judgment in Union of India vs. M. Bhaskar & Ors.
4. Power of the Supreme Court u/s Article 142 of the Constitution.

Summary:

1. Validity of the memorandum dated 15-5-1987 issued by the Railway Board:
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the memorandum dated 15-5-1987, which provided higher pay scales only to Traffic Apprentices recruited after the said date. The Court held that the Railway Board had valid authority to issue the memorandum u/s Rule I-A of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, made pursuant to the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution.

2. Applicability of higher pay scales to Traffic Apprentices appointed prior to 15-5-1987:
The Supreme Court affirmed that the higher pay scales of Rs. 1600-2660 were not applicable to Traffic Apprentices appointed prior to 15-5-1987. The Court noted that the recruitment standards and the posts for which the apprentices were being trained had changed post the memorandum, justifying the differential pay scales.

3. Directions issued by the Supreme Court in paragraph 18 of the judgment in Union of India vs. M. Bhaskar & Ors.:
The Court addressed the hardship that might be caused to the appellants due to the recovery of amounts already paid. It directed that no recovery should be made from the amounts already paid to pre-1987 apprentices who had received judgments in their favor from any CAT, which had become final. This direction was intended to bring uniformity among all similarly placed employees.

4. Power of the Supreme Court u/s Article 142 of the Constitution:
The Supreme Court invoked its power u/s Article 142 to ensure complete justice. It clarified that this power, while wide, cannot override express statutory provisions but can be used to balance equities and address extraordinary situations. The Court reiterated its authority to issue directions for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it, as demonstrated in various precedents.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with the clarification that any amount already drawn by the employees in the higher pay scale or promotional posts would not be required to be refunded. The Court emphasized maintaining equality and fair play among similarly placed employees, ensuring that unjust advantages gained by some do not stand.