Antedated absorption of casual labourer to 03.11.2003 for pension eligibility despite delay and minority service, per 360-day rule.

ORDER

Applicant, at the time of filing the Original Application, was a Track Maintainer-II in Trivandrum division of the Southern Railway. She has since retired from service on superannuation on 31.05.2023. Earlier, the applicant was a casual labourer having 481.5 days service and considering her eligibility for regularisation her name was included in the live register maintained by the Trivandrum division. Her serial number in the register was 2244. She was called for regularisation and screening; she appeared before the authorities, but was not absorbed and that made her to approach this Tribunal with O.A.766/2004. Then as directed by the Tribunal on 07.03.2006 she was absorbed on 23.08.2006, as evident from Annexure-A1. The grievance of the applicant is that even though similarly placed employees who were regularised on subsequent point of time whose date of absorption was antedated at the intervention of this Tribunal, same treatment was not granted to her. She also sought such a relief from the respondents but that was not considered. She had given a representation on 22.04.2022, but it has not yet been considered and that made her to approach this Tribunal to seek declaration that she is deemed to be absorbed with effect from 03.11.2003 and that the period from that date is eligible to be reckoned as qualifying service for pension and other retirement benefits with all consequential benefits and for a direction to that effect.

2. The claim of the applicant is that by virtue of her seniority in the live register, at sl.No.2244, she should have been considered for absorption from 03.11.2003, the date on which some of the juniors were regularised. If she was also considered for absorption when called for verification of documents, she would have been absorbed during the currency of the Old Pension Scheme itself. But because of the delay in regularisation, which is attributable to the laches on the part of the respondents, she was regularised only with effect from 23.08.2006, which has caused her considerable hardships and monetary loss. It is submitted that the date of absorption of the similarly placed employees was antedated to 03.11.2003 as directed by this Tribunal which stands confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court. If same treatment was extended to her, she would have fallen within the scope of the Old Pension Scheme and would have been able draw pension as provided under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules. Since she was shown absorbed after 01.01.2004, she has been included in the National Pension Scheme, which is highly prejudicial to her, similarly placed employees have been given absorption with retrospective effect from 03.11.2003 and therefore, she wants a similar treatment from the respondents.

3. The 3^rd respondent filed a reply on behalf of all the respondents, disputing the contentions of the applicant. According to him, the O.A. is not maintainable, seeking absorption with effect from 03.11.2003 has no legal basis.

4. Referring to Rule 20 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, it is submitted that period of service will be reckoned only from the date one takes charge in the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity. The applicant was appointed as a Group-D staff only on 23.08.2006 and therefore, she is not entitled to get notional date of absorption from 03.11.2003. The respondents have admitted that she had put in 481.5 days of service as casual labourer and her seniority position in the merged live regi