Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Rajesh Shankar, dismissed a writ petition challenging the denial of running allowance benefits in pension computation for a retired railway employee medically re-categorized before retirement. The court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) decision, stating that pensionary benefits for stationary duty do not warrant inclusion of running allowance, in line with Supreme Court precedent.

The petitioner, Yunus Hussain, aged 65 years, had initially joined Indian Railways as a cleaner and rose through the ranks to serve as a Loco Pilot (Mail) at Barwadih under the East Central Railway, Dhanbad Division. Following a medical diagnosis of oral cancer, he underwent treatment from 28.08.2014 to 20.08.2015. Post-recovery, Hussain was medically examined and declared fit under Category A-1, but with restrictions barring him from train running and train passing duties.

Also Read: "Impleadment Cannot Be Denied Where Proper Adjudication Requires Presence: Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order Restricting Defendant’s Participation"

A screening committee convened on 05.10.2015 recommended his absorption into an alternative post. He was accordingly reassigned to the stationary duty role of Drafted Crew Controller, and this recommendation was approved by the competent authority on 06.10.2015. Hussain assumed charge of this role on 16.10.2015 and continued until his superannuation on 31.01.2017.

Subsequent to retirement, Hussain represented before the respondent railway authorities seeking pensionary benefits as a member of the running staff, including the 55% pay element associated with running allowance. However, the authorities calculated his pension on the basis of 30% pay element applicable to stationary duty, citing his reassignment due to medical de-categorization.

The petitioner challenged this decision before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ranchi Circuit Bench, Patna in O.A. No.051/0100/2022. The Tribunal, by order dated 14.11.2024, rejected the petitioner’s claim, leading to the present writ petition before the High Court.

The petitioner argued that:

• He had served over 40 years as a member of the running staff and had not been provided any formal intimation or notice regarding his medical de-categorization.

• His re-designation at the fag end of his career was an administrative move that should not affect his entitlement to benefits as a running staff.

• He had received an Accident-Free Award of Rs. 82,230 on 31.01.2017, which could not have been granted to a medically unfit staff.

• The Tribunal failed to account for his prior continuous service in a running post and unjustly denied him pensionary computation based on 55% pay element.

• Other similarly situated employees retained running staff benefits despite being in stationary roles.

The Union of India, represented through its counsel, countered that:

• Hussain was reappointed to a post involving stationary duty after medical de-categorization and thus did not qualify for running allowance.

• The Tribunal rightly denied the benefit by applying the binding precedent of Union of India & Others vs. B. Banerjee [(2013) 10 SCC 265], which clarified that running allowance is payable only for actual train running duties.

The Division Bench recorded that the Tribunal had carefully considered the precedent laid down by the Supreme Court in B. Banerjee.

It quoted the relevant portion from the Tribunal's findings:"No running staff including erstwhile members of the running staff permanently engaged in the performance of stationary duty can be given running allowances. The running allowances are to be paid to the running staff only for performing actual running duty."

The High Court further cited the Supreme Court's holding in B. Banerjee, stating: "No running allowance i.e. either kilometrage allowance or allowance in lieu of kilometrage is contemplated for any staff, including erstwhile members of the running staff, permanently engaged in performance of stationary duties. Running allowance of either description is required to be paid only to the members of running staff who are directly engaged in actual movement of trains or such staff who are temporarily assigned stationary duties but who are likely to go back and perform running duties."

The Bench found that:

• The petitioner was absorbed in a stationary duty role by a duly constituted screening committee and did not challenge that reassignment.

• He voluntarily accepted the reassignment and continued in that role until his retirement.

• He was not reassigned to any train running duty after his medical de-categorization.

Also Read: No Liability Without Privity | Bombay High Court Rules AAI Maliciously Sued Aircraft Lessor | Exemplary Costs Stayed | Bank Guarantee Cancellation Enforced

In response to the petitioner’s argument regarding similarly situated employees, the Bench clarified: "Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not envisage negative equality, but has only a positive aspect."

The court stated that: "Even if few other similarly situated persons have been granted certain benefits inadvertently or by mistake, such situation does not confer any legal right on others to get the same benefit as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be permitted to be perpetuated."

The High Court found no legal error or irregularity in the impugned CAT order dated 14.11.2024 and stated: "We do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ranchi Circuit Bench, Patna."

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mrs. Khalida Haya Rashmi, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI; Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, CGC

Case Title: Yunus Hussain v. Union of India & Others

Neutral Citation: 2025: JHHC:13418-DB

Case Number: W.P.(S) No.1501 of 2025

Bench: Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Justice Rajesh Shankar

[Read/Download order]