50% casual labour service counts for pension, excluding interruption periods, but not for MACP financial upgradation.

ORDER

Applicant is a retired Lascar from the office of the Senior Section Engineer, Works, Nagercoil Junction in Trivandrum Division of Southern Railway. He retired from service on 31.08.2021. According to him, even though he had started his career as Casual Mazdoor on 15.04.1977, when his pension and pensionary benefits were granted, the entire period of service was not reckoned as per law. The qualifying service was taken only for 24.5 years, which is incorrect. According to him, pension should have been granted taking into account 50% of the service, starting from 15.04.1977, when he started his career as a Casual Mazdoor. If that period was also reckoned, he would have service of more than 30 years and would have earned the benefit of the 3^rd MACP, which has been denied. Therefore, he seeks a declaration that he is entitled to reckon 50% of the casual labour service from 15.04.1977 to 09.07.1992 as qualifying service and to direct the respondents to reckon the same with all consequential benefits, to direct the respondents to revise his retirement benefits and to grant the 3^rd financial upgradation under MACP scheme on the basis of the above declaration with all consequential benefits.

2. According to the applicant, even though he had commenced casual labour service from 15.04.1977, on 20.12.1984 he was retrenched from service illegally on the ground of medical decategorisation. He challenged that order before this Tribunal through O.A.151/1991, which was allowed on 22.11.1991. On that basis he was re-engaged in March 1992 and thereafter regularised on 25.02.1997, he was granted temporary status only from 09.07.1992 and thus continued in service upto 31.08.2021, till the date of retirement. Therefore, basing on the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Union of India (UOI) and others. v. Rakesh Kumar and others [AIR 2017 SC 1691] he is entitled to add to his credit 50% of the entire casual labour service; if that is credited, his total service would far exceed 30 years and he would become eligible to get 3^rd MACP. Therefore, denial of such benefits is illegal, arbitrary and unlawful. He had given representations before the respondents immediately before and after retirement, but those representations were not considered, that he is entitled to get the above stated reliefs.

3. The respondents have disputed the claims of the applicant. According to them, the very O.A. is not maintainable. On verification of the records of the applicant, it is found that he was initially engaged in the construction department as Khalasi with effect from 15.04.1977 to 05.07.1984 and then he was transferred to Permanent Way Inspector's Office in open line on 18.07.1984. Later on 03.12.1984 he was terminated from service due to medical unfitness in B1 medical category prescribed for Gangman. During 1992 he was re-engaged as CPC/CL Khalasi with medical classification B2 in compliance with the direction of the Tribunal in O.A.151/1991. But there is no entry with regard to the same in the Service Register of the applicant. There is no rule which permits counting of pre-temporary status prior to 01.01.1981 for construction casual labourers. Moreover, referring to paragraph 2005 of IREM they say that 50% of casual labourer service after attaining temporary status on completion of prescribed days of continuous employment alone can be reckoned, which has been done.

4. According to the respondents, total qualifying service of the applicant has been found to be 24.5 years and all the retirement benefits have b