IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI.

Original Application. No. 2239 OF 2017 Dated this Thursday, the 08th day of January, 2026. Coram: HON’BLE MR. SHRI KRISHNA, Member (A)

HON’BLE MR. SHRI UMESH GAJANKUSH, Member (J)

Ashok Baliram Bhaisare, Aged 56 years, ex-employee of SECR, Nagpur, R/O, Maitry Colony, Plot No. 55 Nari Road, Nagpur- 440026. .. Applicant (By Advocate Shri B. Lahiri)

Versus

1. The Union of India, through, General Manager, S.E.C.R, Bilapur, Chattisgarh- 495004.

2. Divisional Railway Manager, South East Central Railway, Near Railway Station, Nagpur- 440001.

3. Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, South East Central Railway, Near Railway Station, Nagpur- 440001.

..Respondents

ORDER

Per: Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)

The present O.A. has been filed by the applicant seeking following reliefs:

(a) Quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 20.10.2016 passed by respondent no. 3 (Annex. A1) and in the same order direct/command the respondents to correctly compute applicant’s pension by including full temporary status casual service rendered by the applicant from 23.12.1987 towards the qualifying service and make payment of the resultant arrears with interest @18% p.a.

(b) Grant any other relief deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including costs.

2. Brief facts of the case as stated in the O.A. are that the applicant was initially appointed as C/Khalasi in the Railway Electrification, Nagpur on 19.12.1986. On completion of 360 days of continuous service, he was granted temporary status after being declared medically fit on 23.12.1987.

3. On 04.04.1996, the Applicant was declared suitable by the Screening Committee for absorption in the Open Line in Group ‘D’

post in S.E. Railway.

Railway Board holding that it would be necessary to modify the existing condition to provide that 100% of temporary status casual labour service will be allowed to be reckoned for the purpose of determining the qualifying service for grant of pensionary benefits. 5. It is submitted that on 11.08.2016, the Applicant has taken Voluntary Retirement from service under the LARSGESS-2016 w.e.f. 11.08.2016.

6. Therefore, on the basis of aforesaid O.M. dated 25.11.2014, the Applicant has made representation dated 06.09.2016 to respondent No. 3 to consider his full temporary service for counting his qualifying service. However, while issuing the pension payment order on 08.03.2017, his qualifying service was shown as ‘20.5’ years for the purpose of granting retirement benefits, whereas applicant has in fact completed ‘28.8’ years of service from the date he was granted temporary status.

7. The aforesaid representation of the Applicant was rejected by impugned communication dated 20.10.2016 (Annexure A1) on the ground that there is no relevant rule which was circulated from DOPT/New Delhi, in absence of relevant rule it is not possible to count of 100% temporary status casual service rendered by the submitted that similar issue was subject matter before the Hon’ble High Court of Patna in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11695 of 2015, The Union of India & Ors. vs. Subhash Chandra Prasad Singh and batch of the cases. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna vide its order dated 18.08.2015 was pleased to dismiss the writ petitions filed by the respondents i.e. Railways upholding the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench. Further the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of Ram Saran vs. Union of India & Ors. in OA No. 2639/2013, decided on 25.04.2014 O.A. No. 4286/2013, Ishwar Dass Vs. Union of India decided on 17.02.2015 and O.A. No. 1925/2015 decided on 25.05.2015 in case of Ashok Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. held that this issue has already been settled by this Tribunal by observing that 50% of casual service and 100% of temporary service followed by regularization shall be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. It is submitted that Applicant is similarly situated employe