JUDGMENT

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.—

1. The question that arises for consideration in these cases is whether the Rule 2423-A of the Indian Railway Establishment Code as amended, which provides for adding certain period of service, to the qualifying service for superannuation pension, would be available to those who retire from service after 31st March, 1960, irrespective of the fact whether the recruitment rules at the time of their appointment had contained such a specific provision or not.

2. The Railway Administration took up the stand that only if the recruitment rules conferred such a provision the benefit of added years of service, for superannuation pension, would be available. The High Court in all these cases took a consistent view that what is relevant is the date of retirement, not the date of entry in service.

3. Rule 2423-A as it originally stood, stated that an officer appointed to his service or post on or after 1st April, 1960 was eligible to add to his service qualifying for superannuation pension, the actual period not exceeding 1/4th of the length of his service or actual period by which his age at the time of recruitment exceeded 25 years or a period of five years whichever is less provided the post held by him is one for which post graduate research or specialized qualification or experience in scientific technological or professional field is essential and to which candidate of more than 25 years of age are normally recruited. Rule was again amended on 15.11.1976 adding a proviso stating that the concession shall be admissible only if the recruitment rules in respect of a service/post contain such a provision. Rule was again amended stating that the benefit of added years of service under Rule 2423-A/R-II would be admissible to all those who retire from service or posts after 31.3.1960 and who were otherwise eligible under Rule 2423-A/R-II which was made effective from 28th October, 1997.

4. In Civil Appeal No. 523 of 2005, the respondent joined service on 4.8.1959 as Court Inspector in the Western Railway and he retired from service on superannuation as Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer from Central Railway on 31.12.1989. The respondent claimed the benefit of added years of service, the same was, however, denied to him. The reason for denial was that the recruitment rules did not contain such a provision. Further it was also stand of the Railway Administration that the recruitment rules of law inspector were amended only in the year 2000 and the provision in respect of addition of service was effected only then by the time the respondent had retired from service and hence he would not get benefit of Rule 2423-A/R-II.

5. Aggrieved by the stand taken by the Railway Administration, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench filing O.A. No. 473/2002. The Tribunal allowed the application and directed the Railway Administration to fix the pension of the respondent adding to his service, the period by which the respondent at the time of recruitment exceeded 25 years of service or a period of five years whichever is less for the purpose of calculating the pension. The Railway Administration took up the matter in appeal before the Bombay High Court. The High Court endorsed the view taken by the Tribunal and reiterated that in view of the provisions contained in Rule 2301 of the Indian Establishment Code, the pensionable Railway servants claims to pension is regulated by Rules enforced at the time when he resigns or is discharged from service from the Government. The Bench also noticed that Rule 2423 as it originally stood was found incongruous and consequently it was amended on 4.12.1987, whereby it was decided the benefit of added years of service under the Rule 2423-A/R-II was made admissible to all those who retire from service or posts after 31st March, 1960 and who are otherwise eligible under Rule 2423- A/R-II. It was, therefore, held that the Rule as stood after modification is