D. P. Mohapatra, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The appellants who were appointed as Traffic Apprentices in Southern Railway prior to May 15, 1987, have filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short the CAT) dated October 4, 1996 in O.A. No. 1096 of 1996 dismissing the case with the observation that it would be appropriate for the applicants to approach the Supreme Court for any clarification/review of the judgment in the case titled Union of India vs. M. Bhaskar, (1996) (4) SCC 416. The controversy which arose in that case was regarding the claim of Traffic Apprentices appointed prior to 15-5-1987 that they should be given the scale of pay of Rs. 1600-2660, benefit of which was available to Traffic Apprentices recruited after 15-5-1987. Similar claims were raised before different benches of the CAT. There had been divergence of opinion between the different benches, some accepting the claim of pre-1987 Traffic Apprentices for the higher scale of pay, some other benches taking a contrary view. The Ernakulam Bench of CAT had quashed the memorandum dated 15-5-1987 issued by the Railway Board in which it was provided that the higher scale of pay would be admissible only to the Traffic Apprentices recruited after the date of the memorandum. These conflicting views taken by different benches of the CAT came up for consideration by this Court in the case of Union of India vs. M. Bhaskar (supra), in which a Bench of three learned Judges held inter alia (i) that Rule 1-A of the Indian Railway Establishment Code which had come to be made pursuant to the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution permitted the Railway Board to issue necessary instructions regarding recruitment in the lowest grade and the memorandum dated 15-5-1987 having been issued in exercise of that power, the Board had valid authority to issue the memorandum; (ii) that since the recruitment of apprentices under the impugned memorandum was to man the posts, not of Assistant Station Masters, Assistant Yard Masters etc. as before, but of Station Masters and Yard Masters and the standard of examination for the apprentices to be recruited after 15-5-1987 was required to be higher than that which was prevailing, giving them higher pay scales or reducing the period of their training, could not be said to be discriminatory, arbitrary or unreasonable. (iii) That the cut off date 15-5-1987 is not arbitrary since the Court felt satisfied that the date is of relevance and the memorandum as given came to be issued in the circumstances noticed in the judgment. This Court upheld the validity of the memorandum. The conclusions arrived at by this Court were summed up in paragraph 17 of the judgment which reads as follows : "17. All the appeals, therefore, stand disposed of by setting aside the judgments of those Tribunals which have held that the pre-1987 Traffic/Commercial Apprentices had becomes entitled to the higher pay scale of Rs. 1600-2660 by the force of memorandum of 15-5-1987. Contrary view taken is affirmed. We also set aside the judgment of the Ernakulam Bench which declared the memorandum as invalid; so too of the Patna Bench in appeal @ SLP (C) No. 15438 of 1994 qua respondent 1. We also state that cases of respondents 2 to 4 in appeals @ SLPs (C) Nos. 2533-35 of 1994 do not stand on different footing."
(3.) In paragraph 18 of the judgment this Court considering the hardship which may be caused to the appellants concerned directed Union of India and its officers not to recover the amount already paid. The said paragraph is quoted hereinbelow : "18. Despite the aforesaid conclusion of ours, we are of the view that the recovery of the amount already paid because of the aforesaid judgments of the Tribunals would cause hardship to the respondents/appellants concerned and, therefore, direct the Union of India and its officers not to recover the amount already paid. This part of our order shall apply (1) to the respondent/appellants who are before this Court; and (2) to the pre-1987 apprentice in whose favour judgment had been delivered by any CAT and which had become final either because no appeal was carried to this Court or, if carried, the same was dismissed. This benefit would be available to no other." ;