CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD HYDERABAD, this the 13^th day of March, 2025 Hon’ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member

1. T. Satyanarayana, Aged 64 years, S/o. Sri T. Laxma Reddy, Group 'C', Retired Senior Technician, Hyderabad Division, H. No. 3-4-15/20/36/1, Laxman Enclave, Turka Palli, Bolarum, SECUNDERABAD-500 010, TS.

2. M. Ramulu, aged 64 years, S/o. Sri Mallaiah, Group 'C', Retired Track Maintainer, Hyderabad Division, H. No. 1-27/1, Narsingi Mondel, SHANKHAPUR-502 248, TS

3. Shankaraiah, aged 68 years, S/o. Sri Pochaiah, Group 'C', Retired Track Maintainer, Hyderabad Division, H. No. 3/70, Pagadala Palli, TOOPRAN-502 334, TS.

....Applicants (By Advocate: Mr. S. Srinivasa Rao)

Vs.

1. Union of India, Rep. by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, SECUNDERABAD-500 025, TS

2. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, S. C. Railway, Hyderabad Division, Sanchalan Bhavan, SECUNDERABAD - 500 025, TS.

.... Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. A. Vijaya Bhaskar Babu, Addl. CGSC)

-----

ORAL ORDER

(As per Hon’ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member)

By this OA, the applicant has sought the following relief:

“……..a) It is prayed to call for the records pertaining to the case.

b) It is prayed to set aside the impugned order: No. SCR/P-

HYB/695/Sett. /DPG/2023 dated 06.04.2023:

c) It is prayed to issue an order or an appropriate direction to the 2nd Respondent to recompute the gratuity benefit as per the Statutory provisions as mentioned in the grounds para and arrange the differential amount of gratuity along with 10% statutory interest as per the enclosed statement within a reasonable time.”

2. All the applicants have retired as railway employees on attaining their age of superannuation. Their grievance is that the authorities have not considered the statutory provisions of the payment of gratuity Act, 1972, while computing the gratuity benefit, which has resulted in denial of their statutory right as well as less receipt/payment of gratuity benefit. The applicants submitted their representations for regarding payment of gratuity under Gratuity Act, 1972, and the same has been rejected vide order dt.

06.04.2023. Hence, they filed this application.

3. After Notice, respondents have appeared through their counsel and filed a detailed reply opposing the relief, stating that the applicants were paid gratuity amount as the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, which is applicable to the Railway servants. Therefore, the payment of gratuity under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 would not arise.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents while arguing the matter, tendered the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in Writ Appeal Nos.1130,1141 and 1181 of 2016, Writ Petition No. 46004/2016, 10983/2018, 5564 of 2020, 30041/2023 & 30045/2023.

5. However, learned counsel for the applicants insisted on a hearing on the ground that the order of this Tribunal has been set aside and this Tribunal has passed some orders in favour of the employees and some in favour of the department.

6. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the material and the order cited by the parties. When the department has taken up the order of this Tribunal in Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana and the employees against the dismissal order of this Tribunal, upon hearing both sides, the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana, vide judgment dt. 31.01.2025, has set aside the order of this Tribunal, which was passed in favour of the employees and allowed the Writ Petition filed by the department while dismissing the petition filed by the employees in Writ Appeal Nos.1130,1141 and 1181 of 2016, Writ Petition No. 46004/2016, 10983/2018, 5564 of 2020, 30041/2023 & 30045/2023. We have carefully gone through the order of the Hon’ble High Court and the relevant observations made in the said order are as follows:

“14. Before going into merits of the case, it is appropriate to refer to amendment to Section 2