The main legal principle established is that statutory rules pertaining to pension should be construed liberally in favor of the employees, and office orders cannot diminish the benefits granted under the rules.

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. A common question arises for consideration in the two captioned writ petitions which challenge two separate orders, but on the same subject, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing OA No.665/2011 and OA No.3041/2011 filed by the respondents of the two captioned writ petitions.

2. The undisputed facts are that both respondents had joined the Indian Railway as Casual Labour (not Project Casual Labour) and having rendered the requisite service were brought on the list as employees acquiring temporary status followed by their services being made permanent and on retirement the issue cropped up as to what was the pensionable service rendered by the two. The Indian Railways reckoned only half of the service rendered after the respondents had acquired a temporary status and adding the same to the service rendered after they were made permanent sanctioned the pension. Following the decision rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in WP(C) No.10837/2001 G.M.South Central Railway v. Shaikh Abdul Kadar against which Leave to Appeal was refused by the Supreme Court and a non-speaking decision of this Court following the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in WP(C) No.2528/2007 UOI v. Gurdial Singh, relief has been granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal to the respondents.

3. Conceding before us that the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which was followed by this Court would require the two writ petitions to be dismissed, contention urged is that as far as this Court is concerned, when WP(C) No.2528/2007 was decided this Court had not independently applied its mind and thus the decision in the said writ petition would not operate as res judicata. As regards the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is concerned, it is urged that the decision is per incuriam inasmuch as two relevant office orders were not placed before the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The first is an office order dated October 14, 1980 which reads as under:-

“Sub: Counting of the period of service of Casual Labour after their attainment of temporary status, on completion of 120 days’ continuous service, as qualifying service for pensionary benefits on absorption as regular railway employees.

As a result of representations from the recognized labour unions and certain other quarters, the Ministry of Railway has been considering the demand that the period of service in the case of casual labour (i.e.) other than casual labour employed on projects) after their attainment of temporary status, on completion of 120 days continuous service, should be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits, if the same is followed by their absorption in service as regular Railway employees. The matter has been considered in detail in consultation with the Ministry of Home Affairs (Deptt. Of Personnel and Administrative Reforms) and the Ministry of Finance. Keeping in view the fact that the aforesaid category of employees on their attainment of temporary status in practice enjoy more privileges as admissible to temporary employees such as they are paid in regular scale of pay and also earn increments, contribute to P.F. etc. the Ministry of Railways have decided with the approval of the President that the benefit of such service rendered by them as temporary employees before they are regularly appointed should be conceded to them as provided in the Ministry of Finance O.M. No.F.12(1)-EV/66 dated 14th May 1968 (Copy enclosed for ready reference). The concession of counting half of the above service as qualifying for pensionary benefits, as per the O.M. of 14th May, 1968, would be made applicable to casual labour on the Railway who have attained temporary status. The weightage for the past service would be limited from 1.1.1961 in terms of condition (e) of the O.M. ibid. past cases of retirements before the date of this letter will not be re-opened.

2. Daily rates c