Administrative tribunals must ensure that the calculation of pension eligible service counts both casual and temporary employment, aligning with judicial precedent.

ORDER

Per: Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (Administrative)

The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to claim the following reliefs:

“8(1) Call for the records of the case from the respondents.

(2)quash and set aside the order of the respondent dt.27.07.2015 (Ann.A.2) & order dt.17.12.2019 (Ann.A.1) (3) Direct the respondent No.2 to modify the order dt.17.04.2014 (Ann.A.3), by treating the applicant, deemed to have been regularized w.e.f. from the year 1996, instead of w.e.f. 21.02.2003.

(4) Direct the respondents to start monthly pension to the applicant w.e.f. 30.06.2011 i.e. from the date of deemed retirement and to pay the arrears of pension from 30.06.2011 till it is actually disbursed along with 12% p.a. accrued interest thereon.

(5) Also direct the respondents to pay other retiral dues and other benefits as admissible, since she retired on superannuation w.e.f. 30.06.2011, such as railway passes, railway medical facility etc.

(6) Any other relief deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may kindly be granted.

(7) Allow the application with cost.”

2 . This is the fourth round of litigation. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the applicant was engaged as a Hot Season Water Woman (Casual Labour) by the respondents on 17.04.1983 by Nagpur Division of Central Railway. 229 workmen including the applicant acquired temporary status on completion of 120 days of service as per Railway Board’s letter dated 21.01.1985. The applicant claims to have acquired temporary status in 1985 on completion of 550 working days.

2.1 The respondents prepared seniority list of these temporary status workers to absorb them in regular class IV after holding screening as per Railway Board’s letter dated 24.07.1979. The applicant’s name appeared at serial No.123. Since there was no action for absorption, the applicant and the others went on hunger strike from time to time. After several round of litigations in the court of CGIT Jabalpur, CGIT Nagpur and the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Nagpur, the CGIT Nagpur passed an award on 30.04.2012 for regularisation of 18 employees including the applicant from the date of immediate junior of each workman as per seniority including the applicant.

2.2 Pursuant to the award passed by the CGIT Nagpur, the respondents issued order dated 17.04.2014 and applicant was deemed to have been regularised w.e.f. 21.02.2003 in pay band of Rs.5200-20200/- + Grade Pay of Rs.1800. The applicant is deemed to have retired on 30.06.2011. However, she was not granted any pension. She made representation on 01.09.2014 which was not decided. Therefore, she filed OA No.211/00100/15 which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 01.05.2015 to implement the order dated 17.04.2014. On 27.07.2015, the respondents regretted the claim of the applicant on the ground that qualifying service of applicant is 08 years 4 months and 9 days which is less than required 10 years as per Rule 18 of Railway Pension Rules.

2.3 Aggrieved by order dated 27.07.2015, the applicant filed OA No.2293/2016. The Tribunal observed that the applicant has to seek relief challenging the date of regularisation w.e.f. 21.02.2003 and permitted to withdraw the OA with liberty to submit detailed representation. The applicant made representation before the respondents on 19.08.2019 which was rejected by the respondents on 17.12.2019 on the ground that she has not completed 10 years of qualifying service. Aggrieved by the above action of the respondents, the applicant has filed the present OA.

2.4 It has been averred that in the impugned order dated 17.12.2019, Shri Tulsidas Mishrilal is stated as senior to applicant whose name stated to appear at serial No.228 and was granted regularisation w.e.f. 21.02.2003 and name of the applicant is stated to be at serial No.229. This is factually incorrect as per the seniority