ORDER

The applicant claims that he had initially joined the Railways in 1969 as a casual labourer and worked as such till 1971. Then he was discharged for want of work; he was re-engaged on 01.11.1978 under the Inspector of Works, Special Works, Egmore of the open line organisation of the Southern Railway. He was later transferred to the construction organisation under the 4th respondent and was granted status of temporary employee with effect from 01.01.1983. He was promoted as Fitter Grade-

II in the scale of Rs.1200-1800 from 26.07.1990. He was regularly absorbed as Gang Man in 1997 and retired on superannuation on 31.01.2007 as Fitter Grade-II. As he was not paid pension, he moved this Tribunal with O.A.284/2008 and obtained a favourable order and thus pension is being paid to him. However, his qualifying service only 50% of his service has been reckoned for the period from 01.01.1983 to 10.03.1997 on which date he was deemed to have been regularly absorbed .

Now, he has understood from Annexure-A2 common order of this Tribunal in O.A. Nos.4/2014, 399/2014 and 164/2015, where this Tribunal has directed to reckon the whole of the period of service as temporary status for retirement benefits. Based on the same, he filed a representation before the 3rd respondent, but he has not been given any reply. Even though he has total service of 29 years, only 17½ years service has been reckoned for pension. So he asserts that he is entitled to reckon the period from 01.01.1983 to 31.01.2007 as qualifying service. Thus he seeks a declaration that the entire service from 01.01.1983 to 31.03.2007 is liable to be reckoned for the purpose of pension and other retirement benefits, and a direction to the respondents to grant him the said benefits forthwith.

2. On behalf of all the respondents, the 2 nd respondent filed a detailed reply. According to him the application is bad under the principles of constructive res judicata. This is the third round of litigation conducted by the applicant. These contentions ought to have been raised in the earlier litigations and therefore he is estopped from claiming further reliefs from the Tribunal. The applicant was engaged as Project Casual Labour in the construction organisation as Fitter on 01.11.1978 and was granted temporary status on 01.01.1983 in accordance with Inder Pal Yadav's Scheme. He was issued an order of empanelment and for regularisation in Group-D post in Chennai Division. But he submitted an unwillingness letter on 28.03.1997 and chose to remain as Project Casual Labour. After retirement, he made a representation and claimed that he should be treated as a regular employee and not as a Project Casual Labourer. When that request was rejected, he moved this Tribunal with O.A.284/2008, which was allowed by the Tribunal on 01.04.2009. In compliance with the direction, pensionary benefits were granted to the applicant reckoning the period of service from 01.01.1983 to 31.01.2007. Based on Rule 31 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, he had a qualifying service of 17 years. He had also filed O.A.820/2009 seeking benefits under the Railway Employees Liberalised Health Scheme which was allowed by this Tribunal. He was working in the construction field as Project Casual Labourer from 01.01.1978, on completion of five years he was granted temporary status with effect from 01.01.1983 and entire settlement benefits were paid to him. Even the service certificate indicates that his period of service from 01.01.1983 to 31.01.2007 was reckoned. He had also filed O.A.1220/2012 claiming that he is entitled to get temporary status from 01.05.1978 onwards which was considered and rejected by Annexure-R3 order.

3.According to the respondents, the application is barred by limitation. Moreover, referring to the O.M. relied on by this Tribunal in Annexure-A2 order, it is submitted t