The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Rule 20 of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules 1993, specifically regarding the entitlement of casual workers to reckon their services for the purposes of calculation of pension.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records from the file of the 2nd respondent made in O.A. No.310/01623 of 2015 dated 27.02.2017 and quash the same.)

P.B. Balaji, J.

1. The Writ Petition is at the instance of the Department, aggrieved by the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras, directing the petitioners to revise the retirement benefits of the first respondent, taking into account his entire period of service under temporary status and 50% of service as casual labour as qualifying service.

2. The grounds of challenge to the said order of the Tribunal are that the Tribunal fell in error in noting the difference between casual labour and substitute; casual labour would be eligible to count only half of the period of service rendered by them after attaining temporary status; Rule 20 of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules1993, mandates qualification of service of a Railway Servant to commence only from the date of the employee taking charge of the post to which he was first appointed, either substantively or in an officiating or in temporary capacity, provided that such officiating or temporary service was without interruption and followed by a substantive appointment either in the same post or another service or post.

3. We have heard Mr.M.Vijay Anand for the petitioners. Though the second respondent has been served with notice in the above writ petition, there is no appearance. We have perused the records and also the order of the Tribunal.

4. In the course of submissions, the counsel for the petitioners brought to our notice the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors Vs. Rakesh Kumar and Ors in C.A. No.3938 of 2017 dated 24.03.2017 and placing reliance on the same, the counsel for the petitioners would submit that the facts of the case on hand were similar to the case that was dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the order of the Tribunal has to be necessarily reversed.

5. We have carefully perused the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the said case the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the following ratio:

i) A casual worker after obtaining temporary status is entitled to reckon 50% of his services tillhe is regularized on a regular/temporary post for the purposes of calculation of pension.

ii) The casual worker, before obtaining temporary status would also be entitled to reckon 50% of causal service for the purposes of pension.

Iii) Such casual workers who are appointed to any post either substantively or in officiating or temporary capacity shall be entitled to reckon the entire period from the date of taking charge to such post as per Rule 20 of the 1993 Rules.

6. Rule 20 of the Railway Service (Pension)Rules, 1993 also deals with commencement of qualifying service. It makes it clear that for a railway servant,for the purposes of qualifying service being reckoned, it would only be the date from which he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity. In the said Rule comes with a proviso which requires the officiating or temporary service to be followed, without interruption, by a substantive appointment in the same or another service or post. Though a further proviso was included in Rule 20, for the purposes of the present case, we are not concerned with the second proviso.

7. In the instant case on hand, admittedly the second respondent was engaged as a casual labour and was conferred with temporary status on 22.11.1984. He retired on 31.05.2013, as a senior ticket examiner, on obtaining the age of superannuation. The main contention of the second respondent before the Tribunal was that he being engaged as a casual labourer on 22.11.1983, the petitioners ought to have conferred his temporary statu