Eastern Naval Command Employees Union rep by its President SABBAM KIRAN KUMAR vs EASTERN NAVAL COMMAND
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
OA/714/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
(Circuit Sitting at Vijayawada)
OA/020/714/2024
th
VIJAYAWADA, this the 14 day of October, 2026
HON’BLE Mr. MANISH GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE Mr. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. Eastern Naval Command Employees Union
(Reg.NO.83/2014) rep. by its President,
Sri Sabbam Kiran Kumar, S/o. Sri S. Lakshman Rao,
aged 44 years, Occ: Master Craftsman(MCM),
C.No.113, Emp. No.19666Y, Dept. of Engineering Dept.,
Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam-530008, Andhra Pradesh.
2. S.Ramesh, S/o Sri S.Peda Demudu, aged 41 yrs,
E.NO: 22752, MRAC, SK Dept, Naval Dock Yard,
Visakhapatnam, R/o. 70-1-28/1, Veduruvanipalem
Mandal and Post Gajuwaka, Visakhaptnam-530012.
... Applicants
(By Advocate: Mrs. A V S Laxmi)
Vs.
1. The Union of India represented by the Secretary,
Ministry of Defense, South Block, New Delhi-110011
2. The Chief of Naval Staff, Naval Headquarters
South Block, New Delhi-110011.
3. The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief
Head Quarters, Eastern Naval Command,
Vishakhapatnam 530014.
4. Admiral Superintendent
Naval Dock Yard, Visakhapatnam-530 014.
… Respondents
(By Advocate: Mrs. B. Gayatri Varma, Sr. CGSC)
Page 1 of 4
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, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone=12d84631fad4985ed436f8e9bed43bf11c66dc25e028e9218a4d1d0fb79d7fe3, SERIALNUMBER=
b9e3d3951b505950304a85c817eadedfffbcf53466121ac580715b2596ee45c4, [email protected], CN=PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU Location: Date: 2026 10 26 17:32:58-08'00'
OA/714/2024
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,
th
Visakhapatnam under the control of 4 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
Page 2 of 4
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, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone=12d84631fad4985ed436f8e9bed43bf11c66dc25e028e9218a4d1d0fb79d7fe3, SERIALNUMBER=
b9e3d3951b505950304a85c817eadedfffbcf53466121ac580715b2596ee45c4, [email protected], CN=PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU Location: Date: 2026 10 26 17:32:58-08'00'
OA/714/2024
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
Page 3 of 4
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, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone=12d84631fad4985ed436f8e9bed43bf11c66dc25e028e9218a4d1d0fb79d7fe3, SERIALNUMBER=
b9e3d3951b505950304a85c817eadedfffbcf53466121ac580715b2596ee45c4, [email protected], CN=PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU Location: Date: 2026 10 26 17:32:58-08'00'
OA/714/2024
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/
Page 4 of 4
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, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone=12d84631fad4985ed436f8e9bed43bf11c66dc25e028e9218a4d1d0fb79d7fe3, SERIALNUMBER=
b9e3d3951b505950304a85c817eadedfffbcf53466121ac580715b2596ee45c4, [email protected], CN=PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU Location: Date: 2026 10 26 17:32:58-08'00'