Eastern Naval Command Employees Union rep by its President SABBAM KIRAN KUMAR vs EASTERN NAVAL COMMAND on 14 October 2026

ORAL ORDER

(As per Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Judicial Member)

The instant O.A. has been filed by the applicants, seeking the following relief: “In view of the reasons mentioned, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to declare the inaction in the matter of payment of Over Time Allowance computing it with by including the House Rent Allowance as part of the wages to 326 Members of Naval Civilian Employees Union, Visakhapatnam as illegal, arbitrary and bad in law and violation of Article 14, 16 read with Article 39 (d) of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the Respondents to include House Rent Allowance for purpose of computing Over Time Allowance to the Members of the Applicants’ Union working in Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam under the control of 4th Respondent and to make the payment in respect of the Over Time earned by the said Members during the period from 2017-18 onwards along with an interest @12% per annum on the difference in payments till the payment is made and grant all other consequential benefits, duly paying the Over Time Wages in future by including HRA for the purpose of calculation of Over Time Allowance and all other consequential benefits to the applicants herein and to pass such order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. An Application [MA/20/368/2026] has been moved by the applicants seeking to expedite the hearing of the O.A. based on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.5185-5192 of 2016 titled Union of India & Others vs Heavy Vehicles Factory Employees’ Union & Another [2026 INSC 74].

3. It is borne out from the record, more specifically from the averments made in the reply statement, that the respondents have opposed the O.A. on the ground that the SLP filed by the Union of India on a similar issue is pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is noted that SLP DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor,

Location:

Nos.12485-12852/2012 have been re-numbered as Civil Appeal Nos.5185- 5192 of 2016, which came to be dismissed vide the judgment dated 20.01.2026 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the plea of the respondents that the SLP is pending is no longer available inasmuch as the said issue has already been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under: “15. As observed by the High Court, the core of the controversy rested upon the interpretation of Section 59(2) of the Factories Act, 1948, which defined the "ordinary rate of wages" as basic wages plus "such allowances" as the worker for the time being is entitled to. The High Court has rightly opined that it is well-settled principle of statutory construction that the Legislature never wastes its words. Notably, when the statute provides for only two specific exclusions: bonus and wages for overtime work, in the absence of any formal rules governing the exclusion of other entitlements, the Executive cannot, through a mere Office Memorandum, read additional exclusions into the Act that the Legislature did not contemplate. The High Court further noted that the employees had been in receipt of overtime allowances calculated by including HRA, TA, SFA, etc., for a considerable duration. The sudden exclusion of these allowances via the Office Memorandum dated 26.06.2009, lacks legal authority and is contrary to the literal mandate of Section 59 of the 1948 Act.

16. We also came across a judgment of Kerala High Court in V.E. Jossie & Ors. Versus The Flag Officers Commanding in Chief Headquarters, which has taken a view contrary to the view being expressed by us in the present judgment. The Kerala High Court was considering correctness of an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench which upheld the orders passed by the respondents therein discontinuing overtime allowance on HRA, City Compensatory Allowance, TA, SFA, etc. The High Court has upheld the view expressed by the Tribunal therein while upholding the order passed by the authority. The same being contrary to the view expressed by this Court, we hold that the aforesaid judgment does not lay down the correct law.

17. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any case is made out for interference with the impugned DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor,

Location:

judgment of the High Court. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.

18. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of, with no order as to costs.”

4. In view of the same, the relief sought is to be adjudicated in the light of the aforesaid decision, as nothing has been made out in the counter affidavit that the case of the applicants is distinguishable from the facts of the case i.e., Heavy Vehicles Factory Employees’ Union & Another [2026 INSC 74](supra).

5. The respondents shall implement the aforesaid decision in respect of the members of the applicants’ Union by passing appropriate orders in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. The O.A. is disposed of accordingly. Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

7. (VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI) (MANISH GARG) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

/pv/ DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor,

Location: