Employees of a national transport entity are civil servants of the Union holding posts in connection with the affairs of the Union. Specific service rules do not negate this status, and benefits previously granted based on past government service cannot be arbitrarily revoked by an employer.

JUDGMENT :

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

THE APPEALS

1. These appeals by the appellant - Bency John - by special leave, are unusually directed against multiple orders of a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.

2. W.A. No.1155 of 2017 (Kerala State Electricity Board Limited & ors. v. D. Vishnu Nampoothiri) was allowed by the Division Bench vide a short order dated 19th August, 2019 spread over 3 (three) pages containing only 5 (five) paragraphs. The judgment and order dated 8th February, 2017 of the Single Judge in W.P. (C) No.13862 of 2014 was set aside. On the same day, i.e., 19th August, 2019, the Division Bench dismissed W.A. No.1895 of 2017 (Kerala State Electricity Board Limited & ors. v. Bency John) by a short two paragraph order, referring to its earlier order in W.A. No.1155 of 2017. As a result, the judgment and order dated 21st March, 2017 passed by the Single Judge allowing the appellant’s writ petition [W.P. (C) No.18225 of 2013] stood set aside. Appellant applied for a review (R.P. No.1095 of 2019) of the order dated 19th August, 2019 whereby the appeal of the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited¹[Board] was allowed. Though not a party to W.A. No.1155 of 2017, the appellant also applied for a review (R.P. No.280 of 2020) of the order dated 19th August, 2019 whereby such appeal stood allowed. By its order dated 6th March, 2020, the Division Bench dismissed both the review petitions.

3. Thus, these 4 (four) appeals challenge the orders of the Division Bench allowing W.A. No.1155 of 2017 and W.A. No.1895 of 2017 of the Board and dismissing R.P. No.1095 of 2019 and R.P. No.280 of 2020 of the appellant.

4. Dismissal of review petitions do not accord a ground to carry the same in an appeal. Thus, we shall confine our examination to the validity of the orders of the Division Bench dated 19th August, 2019, allowing the writ appeals of the Board referred to above.

BRIEF FACTS

5. The basic facts, lying in a narrow compass, are not in dispute.

6. Appellant joined the Indian Railways²[Railways] as a Junior Draftsman on 9th August, 1990. After rendering more than 10 (ten) years of regular pensionable service with the Central Government, he was relieved on 24th February, 2001 to join the Board. He joined as a Sub-Engineer on 26th February, 2001.

7. Upon his joining the Board, the Railways remitted a sum of Rs.2,16,429/- towards pro-rata pension liability against a demand of Rs.1,50,597/- made by the Board. This was duly recorded in the appellant’s ‘Service Book’, acknowledging that the service rendered in the Railways is liable to be reckoned for pension.

8. The Board itself, through its order bearing B.O. 2119/96 dated 9th January, 1996³[Annexure P-5], had explicitly provided that "regular pensionable Central Government Service followed by Board Service" would be counted for the purpose of "computing qualifying service for weightage".

9. Further, Long Term Settlements entered into between the Board and its employee unions in 2000⁴[Annexure P-6] and 2007⁵[Annexure P-10] consistently provided that "former Government service followed by Board servi