JUDGMENT
Vijender Jain, J.
1. It is contended by the counsel for the
petitioners that the petitioners are IVth grade employees
and serving in different trades like Cooks, washerman and
Cleaners etc. The petitioners are enrolled members of
the Railway Protection Special Force. It is the case of
the petitioner that in exercise of the powers conferred
by Section 21 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957,
the Central Government has framed the Railway Protection
Force Rules 1987. Chapter VI of the said Rules deals
with the Pay Remuneration and duration of service. Pay
scales of the enrolled members of the Force have been
given in Rule 78.1, which is to the following effect:
“Ancillary staff shall draw the same
scales of pay as is admissible to other
enrolled members holding that rank”.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the
petitioners were called Ancillary Staff. As such they
are also entitled to draw the same scale of pay as is
admissible to the enrolled members holding the same
rank.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that in similar circumstances the Madras High
Court in 18 R. Gandhi & Ors. Vs. The Chief Security
Commissioner, Railway Protection Force & Ors.,
(C.W.P.No. 13322/90), decided on 1.12.98, on the basis
of Rule 78.1 of the RPSF Rules, 1957, that petitioners
were entitled to the same scales of pay as admissible to
other enrolled members holding that rank.
4. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the
respondent on last date of hearing took time to file
additional affidavit. However, the same has not been
filed. Counsel for the respondent says that she does
not want to file additional affidavit and the matter can
be argued straightway. She has contended that Fourth
Pay Commission has recommended the replacement scales as
regards the Ancillary staff of the force, and did not
recommend the same pay scales for the ancillary staff
that of the other enrolled members of the force.
5. The Central Government, accepted the
recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission and issued
Notification dated 19.9.86 framing “Railway
Service(Revised Pay) Rules 1986”, which were framed by
the President of India in exercise of the powers
conferred by the provisions of Article 309 of the
Constitution of India. On the basis of the aforesaid
Notification, it has been contended by the counsel for
the respondent that the petitioners are not entitled to
the same pay scale as that of enrolled members of the
Force.
6. I have given my careful consideration to the
arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties. In
view of the fact that counsel for respondent has
contended that Notification was issued in September,
1986 and the Rules have been framed by the respondent in
1987, wherein according to Clause 78.1 under Chapter VI
of the said Rule, which has been framed by the Central
Government under Section 21 of the Railway Protection
Force Act 1957, it does not reflect the contents of
Notification issued in September,1986 based on the
recommendation of the Fourth Pay Commission. Therefore
it is the rules which will govern the field and not the
notification which was prior in time than the rules.
Therefore, following judgment of the Madras High Court
in 18 R.Gandhi (supra), this writ petition is allowed.
The prayer of the writ petition is granted. The
respondents are directed to comply with the order within
three months.
7. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.