Point of Law: Employment and Service matter – Pension - While considering Tribunal Rules of 2020, which were notified held Chairpersons, Vice-Chairpersons and Members of Tribunals appointed prior, shall be governed by parent Statutes and Rules as per which, they were appointed.

JUDGMENT :

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

“The Petitioner, therefore, prays that in the facts and circumstances of the present case this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:-

(a) issue writ of mandamus/certiorari or any other appropriate writ or Direction in the like nature to the Respondent Direct the Respondents to grant the benefit of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in a judgment LPA 286/2019 titled as Union of India Vs. Shankar Raju & Government of NCT Delhi Vs. All India Young Lawyers Association (Registered)” (2009) 14 SCC 49” and take into account 10 years of practice for the purposes of calculating the pension in addition to qualifying service of the applicant as Member Judicial of the Railway Claims Tribunal for pension; and

b) issue writ of mandamus/certiorari or any other appropriate writ or Direction in the like nature to the Respondent And further to direct the respondents to grant the pension so calculated after taking into account the practice period from the date the petitioner demitted office i.e. 21.04.2020; and

c) pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. It is the case of the petitioner and so contended by him that he was enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Delhi on April 24, 1990. He also cleared the exam for Advocates on Record and was duly enrolled as such on October 15, 1998. On April 20, 2015, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Member (Judicial) Kolkata Bench of Railway Claims Tribunal (‘RCT’, for short). He joined the said post on April 22, 2015. He continued to work in the Kolkata Bench of the RCT till January 18, 2016. On January 19, 2016, the petitioner was transferred to the Secunderabad Bench of the RCT where he worked till January 19, 2018. Thereafter, on June 10, 2019, he was transferred to the Gauhati Bench of the RCT where he worked till he completed his five years’ tenure on April 21, 2020.

3. It is the submission of the petitioner that his appointment was governed by the Notification dated September 10, 1989, of the Ministry of Railways by which the Railway Claims Tribunal (Salaries and Allowances and Conditions of Services of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members) Rules, 1989 (‘Rules of 1989’, for short) were notified. He stated that in terms of Section 5 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (‘Act of 1987’, for short), which stipulates qualifications for appointment as Chairman, Vice-Chairman and other Members; a person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Member (Judicial) unless he is, or has been, or is qualified to be a Judge of a High Court. According to him, in view of the said provision, he was selected for the post of Member (Judicial) RCT being found as qualified to be a Judge of a High Court and as per Article 217 of the Constitution of India, the qualifications needed for appointment to the post of a Judge of a High Court, is that one must have at least 10 years of practice as an Advocate. He stated that since the issue of gratuity is pending before the Supreme Court, he is not making a prayer with regard to the said claim.

4. According to him, the claim in this petition is primarily with regard to counting of 10 years of practice as an Advocate for the purpose of calculating pension in addition to qualifying service of the petitioner as Member (Judicial) of the RCT, for pension. In support of this claim, the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Union of India and Anr. v. Shankar Raju, LPA 286/2019, and also of Supreme Court in Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. v. All India Young Lawyers Association (Registered) and Anr., (2009) 14 SCC 49.

5. He stated the above judgments fundamentally relate to grant of benefit of 10 years of practi