SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Rakesh Kumar & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 3938, 3939, 3940, 3941, 4384, 3944 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23723, 23725 of 2015; 3382, 28597 of 2016; 821 & 3719 of 2017) & C.A. No. 3943 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 8365 of 2017 @ CC No. 1516 of 2017)
Decided On : 24-03-2017
(2008) 2 SCC 108 – Relied upon
O.A.No.1921 of 2014; 2004 (1) SLR 2014; Writ Petition(C) No. 10838 of 2001; (1985) 2 SCC 648 – Referred
(b) Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 – Rule 20 r/w para 2005, IREM – Rule 20 applies only when a person is appointed to a post in substantive or officiating or temporary capacity – A casual labour upon being granted temporary status is not appointed to a post in any capacity – Such an employee entitled only to benefit of para 2005 of IREM for counting half of his service upon being granted temporary status for purpose of pensionary benefits. (Para 41, 42, 44)
Writ Petition(C) No. 10838 of 2001 (AP) – Cited with approval
(2004) 3 SCC 317; CWP No.2371 of 2010 – Distinguished
(1988) 5 SLR 27 (P&H) – Referred
(c) Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 – Rule 31 – Casual labour granted temporary status – Counting of 50% of service for pensionary benefits – Includes period of service as casual labour also. (Para 44, 45, 46, 48)
(d) Rule 107 – Railway servants not eligible for grant of sanction under the Rules – But having mitigating circumstances – Sanctioning authority may forward case(s) to Railway Board for grant of relaxation. (Para 50)
Facts of the case:
The respondents were initially appointed as casual labour in the Northern Railway, after working for one or more years, they were granted temporary status and subsequently regularised against regular posts.
All the Respondents raised the same grievance i.e. giving full service benefit for the period during which they were working, having temporary status. Respondent Nos.1 to 24 filed O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi.
The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by the respondent.
Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by appellants.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment is not sustainable.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Ashok Bhushan, J.
These appeals have been filed by the Union of India, Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway alongwith few other Railway Authorities challenging judgments of Delhi High Court by which writ petitions filed by the appellants have been dismissed. All the appeals raise similar questions of law and are based on almost identical facts. It shall be sufficient to note the facts of C.A. No.3938 of 2017 arising out of SLP (C) No. 23723 of 2015 in detail for appreciating the issues raised in this batch of appeals.
CA NO. 3938 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO. 23723 OF 2015)
2. The respondents to the appeal were initially appointed as casual labour in the Northern Railway, after working for one or more years, they were granted temporary status and subsequently regularised against regular posts. For example, the Respondent No. 1 was engaged on casual basis from 27.06.1984 and w.e.f. 22.06.1985 he was granted temporary status. Subsequently, w.e.f. 31.12.1996 he was regularised against a post and has been working in such capacity at New Delhi Railway Station. Respondent No. 1 raised a grievance regarding granting him full service benefit from 22.06.1985 to 31.12.1996 instead of 50 per cent service benefit. Similarly, Respondent Nos.2 – 24 were engaged initially on casual basis and after one or two years were granted the temporary status and thereafter were regularised w.e.f. 31.12.1996. All the respondents raised the same grievance i.e. giving full service benefit for the period during which they were working, having temporary status. Respondent Nos.1 to 24 filed O.A.No.2389 of 2014 before the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi.
3. Before the Tribunal the applicants claimed for following reliefs:-
"(a) To direct the respondents to count the services rendered by the applicants in the capacity of casual labour as 50% after counting 120 days and 100% from the date of temporary status till their regularisation for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits and other benefits as a qualifying service.
(b) To direct the respondents to extend the benefits of judgment and order passed in Shyam Pyare & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors. which is on the basis of Shaikh Abdul Khadar's Judgment for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits as well as other consequential benefits, accordingly the respondents be directed to examine the cases of the applicants in accordance with law.
(c) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the applicants.”
4. The Tribunal relying on its earlier order dated 29.05.2014 in a similar case being O.A.No.1921 of 2014, Shri Prem Pal vs. Union of India and Ors. allowed the Original Application filed by the respondent. Tribunal in its order dated 18.07.2014 referred to various orders passed by it wherein Tribunal had held that a casual labour after having been granted temporary status is entitled to reckon 100 per cent period of service with temporary status for the pensionary benefit.
5. Tribunal disposed of the Original Application by issuing following directions:-
“In view of the above position, we dispose of this OA at the admission stage itself with the direction to the respondents to examine the cases of the applicants in the light of the aforesaid Orders of this Tribunal. If applicants' cases are also covered by the said Orders, they shall also be accorded the same benefits. In any case, the respondents shall pass appropriate order in this case within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. There shall be no order as to cost.”
6. The Union of India and Railway Authorities aggrieved by the aforesaid directions of the Tribunal filed writ petition before Delhi High Court being Writ Petition No. 7783 of 2014. The case of the appellants before the High Court was that only 50 per cent of the temporary status of service can be counted for the purpose of the pens
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.