Non-Payment Of Overtime Allowance Is Recurring & Continuous Wrong: Chhattisgarh High Court Asks Railway Authorities To Process Employees’ Claims

The High Court was considering a service matter pertaining to 14 writ petitions questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit sittings: Bilaspur, by which the Union of India was directed to make payment of overtime allowance to the railway servants/respondents as claimed by them within 60 days.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal asserted, “In the instant case, the railway authorities themselves have processed the claim case of the respondents herein for payment of overtime allowance, however, on the ground of delay and laches, the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Raipur recorded the claim of the respondents being older and belated claim, which was challenged in the original applications in which the learned CAT has rightly held that it is a continuous wrong which is being done by the Department and thus recurring cause of action arose and therefore since nonpayment of overtime allowance is a recurring and continuous wrong, the Department i.e. the railway authorities are not justified in refusing to make payment of overtime allowance, as the only ground for refusal is older and belated claim.”

Deputy Solicitor General of India Ramakant Mishra represented the Petitioners, while Advocate Sudeep Johri represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

In the lead case, the respondent/original applicant was appointed on December 24, 1972 and stood retired on September 3, 2012, from the Department of Engineering. It was the case of the respondent/original applicant that after the stipulated period of duty, he had worked overtime between 2007 to 2010 for which overtime allowance was payable, but it was not paid, and thereafter, he, along with other original applicants, filed an application claiming overtime allowance. The same was processed by the Personnel Branch of the Office of the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, S.E.C. Railway, and the claim of 19 applicants for overtime allowance was denied due to being older and a belated claim. This led to the filing of original applications before the CAT on the ground that payment of overtime allowance was a recurring cause of action and therefore their claim was absolutely justified.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bench noted that the CAT had rightly held that the payment of overtime allowance is a continuous wrong which was being done by the Department.

“Since the Railways themselves are responsible for not making payment, as already held, it is a recurring and continuous wrong, the learned CAT is absolutely justified in holding that the respondents herein are entitled for overtime allowance and delay in making claim by them or delay in making payment would not come in the way of making payment and the plea based on Rule 7(3) of the Rules of 2005 is not available to the petitioners as by order dated 4-3-2015, the claim of the respondents was refused only on the ground of older and belated claim”, it held.

Thus, finding no merit in the petitions, the Bench dismissed the same.“However, the Railway authorities are directed to further process the claim of the respondents herein for payment of overtime allowance and would make payment within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”, it directed.

Cause Title: Union of India v. Raghunath (Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:46530-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Deputy Solicitor General of India Ramakant Mishra, Advocate Rishabhdeo Singh, Central Government Counsel Bhupendra Pandey

Respondent: Advocates Sudeep Johri, J.K. Gupta

Click here to read/download Order