Temporary employees paid from the Contingency Fund are entitled to count only 50% of their service for pension calculation under Rule 31 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.

ORDER :

[Order of the Court is made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records from the file of the 2nd respondent in O.A.No.700 of 2018 dated 28.06.2022 and quash the same.

The order of the Central Administration Tribunal dated 28th June, 2022 in O.A.No.700 of 2018 is sought to be assailed in the present writ proceeding.

2. The Union of India, represented by the General Manager, Southern Railways is the writ petitioner before us. The 1st respondent was initially engaged as Casual Labour/Substitute in the Chennai Division in Southern Railways and was subsequently granted temporary status with effect from 21.10.1980.

3. The temporary services of the 1st respondent ended with an order of regularisation with effect from 28.03.1992 against a substantive vacancy in the time-scale of pay. The 1st respondent subsequently retired from service on 31.01.2015 on attaining the age of superannuation.

4. A dispute arouse regarding the calculation of qualifying services for retirement benefits. The petitioners have calculated 50% of the temporary status services rendered by the 1st respondent from 21.10.1988 till 23.03.1992, and 50% of the service alone was reckoned for the purpose of calculating the qualifying service.

5. Not satisfied with the said calculation of the 50 % of the service, 1st respondent filed O.A.No.700 of 2018. The Tribunal allowed the original application and directed the writ petitioners to calculate the entire temporary services in full for reckoning the qualifying service to settle the pensionary benefits. Aggrieved by this order, the Union of India has preferred the present writ petition.

6. The learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners would submit that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Rakesh Kumar and Others, (2017) 13 SCC 388, has been erroneously interpreted by the Central Administration Tribunal. Consequently, the relief granted in favour of the 1st respondent is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Rule 31 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.

7. The 1st respondent was initially engaged as a casual labourer, and temporary status was subsequently granted to him. He continued to work as a temporary employee, and his salary was paid from contingency fund of India. His salary was not paid from the consolidated fund of India. As per the rules, he is therefore entitled for counting of 50% of service rendered for reckoning the qualifying service for the payment of pension.

8. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent would oppose by stating that the temporary status granted to the 1st respondent is sufficient to establish that he is a regular employee. Once the temporary status was granted and the 1st respondent was allowed to continue his service, resulting in regularisation, the 1st respondent is entitled for counting of entire temporary services in full for reckoning the qualifying services. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly considered the issues, and therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be rejected.

9. Considered the arguments as advanced between the respective learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties to the lis on hand.

10. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The 1st respondent was initially engaged as a casual labourer on 21.10.1980, and was subsequently granted temporary status after four months of service. The said temporary service ended with an order of regularisation with effect from 28.03.1992. He was later allowed to retire from service on 31.01.2015.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rakesh Kumar cited supra considered the issues relating to the regularisation of temporary status employees, pensionary benefits and calculation of qualifying service.

12. In paragraph 53.1, the Apex Court held that “The casual wo