advocatemmmohan
railway board
Allowance in lieu of kilometerage (ALK). = whether the respondent, a medically decategorised Driver of the Indian Railways, working as a Crew Controller with stationary duties, is entitled to allowance in lieu of kilometerage (ALK). = only a specific category of employees in the Railways like Drivers, Motormen, Firemen, Guards, Assistant Guards etc. who constitute the running staff and such staff who are directly connected with the movement of trains perform running duties. Running Allowance under the Rules is required to be paid only to the running staff who are engaged in the performance of duties directly connected with the movement of trains and such allowance includes kilometerage allowance or allowance in lieu of kilometerage (ALK). While kilometerage allowance is to be paid for performance of actual running duties, the allowance in lieu of kilometerage (ALK) is to be paid to such members of the running staff who are temporarily required to perform stationary duties. The rules also make it clear that 30% of the basic pay of the running staff is required to be treated as representing the pay element in the Running Allowance. Those members of the running staff who are employed on non-running duties are paid the aforesaid 30% of the basic pay if such non-running duties are performed at the headquarters whereas in case such non-running duties are performed by the running staff at outstations they are required to be paid ALK at the rates prescribed by Rule 907(b). It is thus clear that no Running Allowance i.e. either kilometerage allowance or allowance in lieu of kilometerage 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 members of the 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 respondent does not fall in either of the above two categories.- We, therefore, hold that the High Court was not justified in issuing the impugned directions for grant of ALK to the respondent. The order of the High Court dated 20.06.2011 is therefore set aside and the appeal is allowed.
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40728 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7298 OF 2013 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No.3446 of 2012) Union of India & Ors. … Appellant(s) Versus B. Banerjee … Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T RANJAN GOGOI, J. … Continue reading
in terms of Section 7(3) and Section 7(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), Gratuity is required to be paid within a period of thirty days from the date on which it becomes due and if it is not paid within that period, then interest is required to be paid at the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment on long term deposits. 9. In the present case, the Circular issued by the petitioners goes well beyond the statute and gives six months’ time for the petitioners to make payment. But, unfortunately, even this period has not been adhered to by the petitioners. The Tribunal was justified, on the facts of this case, to direct the petitioners to pay interest to the 1st respondent.
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR Writ Petition No. 1389 OF 2012 DATED:24-01-2012 Between: Union of India Represented by its Secretary, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi and others. … Petitioners And K. Radha Krishna and others. … Respondents … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 