Medically decategorised railway staff are entitled to additional pension benefits, including a 55% pay element, as per Railway Board directives and protections under disability rights legislation.

JUDGMENT

K. V. JAYAKUMAR, J

The OP(CAT) is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.318/2016 whereby the Tribunal had rejected the following claim of the petitioner.

‘A direction to the respondents to revise his pension by adding an additional quantum of 55% of the basic pay drawn by him under the Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules 2008 to the pay in the pay band at the time of his retirement for the purpose of computation of his pension and other retirement claims and consequential benefits there from.’

2. Succinctly, the facts in brief are as follows: The petitioner was the applicant in O.A.No.318/2016 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The issue raised in the Original Application before the Tribunal was that, the petitioner who retired from the Railways while holding the post of Passenger Guard (Supernumerary) is entitled to reckon the retirement benefits as applicable to the running staff or not.

3. A retired running staff is entitled for additional benefits of adding on 55% of pay element while computing the retirement benefits, including the monthly pension. The Tribunal as per order dated 19.09.2018 has rejected the claim of the petitioner in the following manner:

“14. The facts of the case and the pleadings made by both the learned counsel have been considered in detail. The applicant, on being medically decategorized, was accommodated temporarily in a supernumerary post unconnected with the "performance of duties directly connected with charge of moving train" (Rules 902). His pay was fixed adding 30% of the basic pay representing pay element in the Running Allowance and this was added to his pay. The categories in which he functioned is different from that of the appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. But both were fulfilling only the stationary duties at the time of retirement. While category such as the applicant herein is entitled to an allowance in lieu of kilometerage, he is not entitled to running allowances per se as clearly stated in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In so far as the compliance with the Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act , 1995 is concerned also the Apex Court has ruled that addition of 30% of the basic pay amounts to compliance. I am not getting into the controversy whether the orders of this Tribunal had been per incuriam but it remains a fact that the judgment of the Apex Court on the relevant subject had not been brought before this Tribunal nor considered by it while allowing the O.As referred to.

15. After having considered the issue in proper perspective this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the O.A has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. No costs.”

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant submitted that the impugned order is legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Per contra, Adv.T.V.Vinu, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents submitted that the Central Administrative Tribunal is justified in passing the impugned order.

5. We have heard the counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner Adv.Martin G. Thottan submitted that, whenever an issue of this kind arose before the Tribunal, particularly in O.A.Nos.272/2014, 505/2017, 381/2015, the Tribunal has allowed the claims of the petitioner. However, in this particular case, the Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioner without assigning justifiable reasons.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant invited the attention of this Court to the judgment of this Court in OP(CAT) Nos.56/2015 and 60/2015. We will be failing in our duty if we do not extract the relevant portion of the judgment.

“10. It is common ground that the original applicants, who were running staff, were charged against supernumerary posts after medical decategorisation. It is also common ground that they were not appointed in an