Central Administrative Tribunal

Principal Bench, New Delhi

OA No. 3052/2017

Reserved on:20.12.2018

Pronounced on:24.12.2018

Hon’ble Ms. Praveen Mahajan, Member (A)

Jagdish

S/o Late Shri Chand

Ex. Khalasi, Age about 63 years

R/o Vill-Khera Khurampur

Post – Farukhnagar

Distt. Gurgaon (HR)

... Applicant

(By Advocate: Shri Lalta Prasad)

VERSUS

1. Union of India through

General Manager

Northern Railway

Baroda House, New Delhi.

2. Divisional Railway Manager

Delhi Division, Northern Railway

State Entry Road, Pahargang

New Delhi.

.

...Respondents

(By Advocate: Shri A.K.Shrivastava)

O R D E R

The applicant in the OA was engaged as casual labour with

the respondents in 1977 and worked till 1978. After that the

employee stopped going to work. Subsequently, he was again

appointed on temporary casual basis on 15.11.1985 in the pay

scale of Rs.200-250 on the post of Gangman. The facts which

are not in dispute are that after 4^th CPC recommendation his pay

2

was revised in the scale of pay Rs.775-1025 and fixed at

Rs.2850/- w.e.f.01.01.2006. After implementation of 5^th CPC the

pay of the applicant was revised in the pay scale of Rs.2610-

3540/- and fixed at Rs.2850/-. In 2006, implementing the

recommendation of 6^th CPC respondents revised the pay of the

applicant in the scale of Rs.5200-20200 with grade pay of

Rs.1800 and his pay was fixed at Rs.8410/-.

2. On 31.03.2012, the applicant was medically de-categorised

and posted as Khallasi. He retired from service on 31.05.2014.

The applicant states that his full service has not been counted for

the purpose of pensionary benefits. His grievance is that period

from 15.11.1985 to 16.08.1989 has not been treated as regular

service.

3. The respondents in their counter affidavit state that the

applicant has been given the benefits as per rules of the

establishment. The applicant was regularised on 17.08.1989 after

which due benefits as per law had been given to him including

counting of half of his qualifying service during his temporary

service from 15.11.1985 to 17.08.1989 for the purpose of

pension.

4. I have gone through the facts of the case carefully. It is

not in dispute that the applicant, who was initially appointed as

casual labour in 1977 stopped work in 1978. Thereafter, he was

3

appointed only on 15.11.1985 on temporary casual basis. The

respondents regularised him on 17.08.1989. For the purpose of

pension, the qualifying service of the applicant has been counted

from the day he was regularised on 17.08.1989. Half of

qualifying service during the period when he was working on

temporary service i.e. from 15.11.1985 to 17.08.1989 has been

counted for purpose of pension. This is clear from the calculations

available at Annexure A-2. Thus, it would appear that the

pension of the applicant has been fixed correctly as per law.

5. In view of these facts, I find no reason to intervene in the

PPO of the applicant issued by the respondents. The OA is

dismissed being devoid of merits. No costs.

(Praveen Mahajan)

Member (A)

/uma/