En-cadre employees are entitled to PCO allowance to prevent discrimination between en-cadre and ex-cadre staff performing identical duties.

The respondents are employees of the S&T Workshop, Podanur, Southern Railway, who were "En-cadre" (permanent) staff in the Production Control Organisation (PCO) wing

While a 1984 Railway Board policy sought to make PCO posts "Ex-cadre" (tenure-based) to allow shop floor staff to rotate and earn a 15% Special Pay/PCO allowance, this policy was never implemented at the Podanur workshop

The respondents, having been promoted within the PCO cadre, sought the PCO allowance in 2017, which the Railway administration rejected on the grounds that such allowances are exclusive to Ex-cadre staff

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) ruled in favor of the employees, directing payment from the date of their representation

The Union of India challenged this via the present Writ Petition

1. Whether En-cadre staff of the PCO wing are entitled to the PCO allowance/Special Pay despite the administration's claim that it is reserved for Ex-cadre staff

2. Whether the non-implementation of the 1984 Railway Board's policy by the petitioners can be used as a ground to deny benefits to the employees

Sub-Clause 4.4 of Rule 103 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. I, which defines "Special Pay" as an addition to emoluments for duties of a special arduous nature or specific responsibilities

This Code was promulgated under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, giving it statutory force

The court also referenced the Railway Board Proceedings dated 13.09.1984, which enhanced PCO Special Pay to 15%

Article 14 of the Constitution, regarding the principle of non-discrimination

The Court reasoned that "Special Pay" (PCO allowance) is fundamentally linked to the nature of the duty performed rather than the administrative classification of the employee

Since both En-cadre and Ex-cadre staff perform the same arduous duties in the PCO wing, denying the allowance to En-cadre staff constitutes arbitrary discrimination

The Court further noted that the failure to convert the Podanur PCO posts to Ex-cadre was an administrative lapse by the Southern Railway; therefore, the petitioners cannot penalize the respondents for a situation created by the administration's own non-implementation of the 1984 Board orders

The Court dismissed the Writ Petition and upheld the CAT's order, confirming the respondents' entitlement to the allowances

No order as to costs was made