1. Whether the termination of service of a Railway employee, effected prior to the commencement of the Constitution of India, could be interdicted by the Tribunal in an Original Application filed decades after arising the cause of action, that too in a matter where there is no challenge against the termination of service, but for seeking to grant pension by the Railways ?-is the point for consideration.

2. Heard Mr. C.S. Dias, learned Standing Counsel for the Railways and Mr. M.P. Krishnan Nair, who entered appearance on behalf of the additional respondents impleaded pursuant to the order dated 02.11.2017 in I.A. No. 15289/2012 by virtue of the demise of the original applicant/respondent. The O.A. was filed with the following prayers:

“i. Declare that the applicant is entitled to get pensionary benefits and direct the respondents dispose of his Annexure A1 representation within a time frame; and

ii. Pass such other appropriate order or orders or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

3. The claim was contested seriously by the Railways both by raising the plea of limitation and also pointing out that the termination of service was pursuant to the terms as contained in the service agreement; adding that the Pension Scheme was brought into existence only much later with effect from 16.11.1957 and hence that the claim for Pension is not sustainable. Reliance was also sought to be placed on the verdict passed by the Supreme Court in C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining ((2008) 2 SCC L&S 961). After hearing, the Tribunal passed Ext.P8 order, holding that the question of limitation was not applicable to the case in hand; in turn directing the respondents/Railways to work out the benefits towards the arrears of pension for the period mentioned therein and to disburse the same with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 26.2.2006 till date of payment and continue to effect the payment of pension. This made the Railways to challenge it by way of the present Original Petition.

4. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, the applicant in the O.A. took his last breath, pursuant to which steps were taken by the petitioners/Railways to implead the legal heirs in the party array. On filing I.A. No.15289/2012, notice was ordered therein and despite completion of service of notice, the additional respondents sought to be impleaded did not choose to enter appearance. The matter was adjourned on different occasions and today, when the case was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel who was appearing on behalf of the respondents made a submission with reference to a ‘g mail’ communication (dated 6.11.2017) issued to him by one of the legal representatives, requesting to address the Court on his behalf. We found it appropriate to hear the learned counsel and the merit was considered accordingly.

5. The sequence of events described in the Original Petition shows that the applicant in the O.A. was initially appointed as an 'Office Boy' in the Railways Workshop on 10.4.1945 and was later elevated to the status as a 'Labourer' in 1948. As per the relevant Norms/Rules of engagement, he was to attain the age of retirement on 30.4.1987. While so, there was an illegal strike, as put forth by the applicant, on 7th/8th of March 1949. The Railways contended that the applicant and another employee had placed some iron pieces in the 'lathe machine' with intend to cause damage to the same, in connection with the strike. This led to a criminal case registered against the applicant and he was arrested on 4.4.1949, in respect of the offence u/S.101 of the Railways Act and S.287 of the Indian Penal Code. Even prior to the apprehension of the accused/applicant, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he was placed under suspension on 8.3.1949. The applicant was subsequently terminated from the service on 28.3.1949.

6. About two decades after the termination of se