Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 46292
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ALEXANDER THOMAS, K. Babu, JJ
UNION OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
U.BALAKRISHNAN KOYAN – Respondent
OP (CAT) 60 2015
ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY, ADV. SMT.S.SYAMALA DEVI, ADV. SRI.A.DINESH RAO, SC, RAILWAYS, ADV. SMT.T.N.SREEKALA
Medically declassified running staff retiring voluntarily are entitled to pension benefits equivalent to running staff emoluments under Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.
Headnote:
Pension - Railway Services - Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 - Rule 17 - Summary: The Tribunal ruled that medically declassified Loco Pilots, upon voluntary retirement without alternative placement, are entitled to full pension benefits including running staff allowances based on Rule 17(ii) and Railway Board's clarifications.
Fact of the Case:
Two Loco Pilots were medically declassified and placed on supernumerary posts. Upon voluntary retirement, they were denied running staff emoluments, leading to their challenge in the Central Administrative Tribunal, which ruled in their favor.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the original applicants should be considered as Loco Pilots for pension computations, having opted for voluntary retirement without alternative posts, in line with established Railway Board guidelines.
Issues: Whether medically declassified Loco Pilots opting for voluntary retirement are entitled to pension benefits that include running staff emoluments.
Ratio Decidendi: The entitlement for pension benefits under Rule 17(ii) prevails over the Railway Board's instructions denying full emoluments, as the applicants were deemed to have served as Loco Pilots until their retirement.
Final Decision: The original petitions are dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's direction to refix pension benefits for the applicants.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
-
The case involves the entitlement of medically declassified railway staff, specifically loco pilots, to pension benefits that include emoluments of running staff, even after voluntary retirement without alternative placement (!) (!) (!) .
-
The original applicants, who were loco pilots, were medically declassified during their service and placed against supernumerary posts, but they continued to be considered as loco pilots in their pension claims (!) (!) .
-
The central issue is whether these medically declassified loco pilots, opting for voluntary retirement, are entitled to pension benefits that encompass the full emoluments of running staff, including allowances, based on their service as loco pilots (!) (!) .
-
The relevant pension rules, particularly Rule 17 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, provide options for employees declared unfit, including the choice between the pension based on total service and the combination of invalidation and second spell of service, which is central to the case (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
The court upheld the view that the original applicants should be considered as having served as loco pilots until their retirement, and their pension should be refixed accordingly, taking into account the allowances and emoluments applicable to active loco pilots (!) (!) .
-
Instructions issued by the Railway Board, which restrict the fixation of pay and pension benefits for medically declassified staff, were relied upon by the respondents to deny full benefits, but the court found that the norms applicable to those who opt for voluntary retirement after decategorization should have governed the case (!) (!) (!) .
-
The court also considered the protections under the relevant disability legislation, emphasizing that employees who acquire disabilities during service should not be reduced in rank or discriminated against, and should be considered for suitable adjustments or kept on supernumerary posts until retirement (!) (!) (!) .
-
The court directed the authorities to re-examine and refix the pension benefits of the applicants in line with the applicable instructions and guidelines, within a specified period, and dismissed the petitions with these directions (!) (!) .
-
The case underscores that the benefits and protections for employees with disabilities and those medically declassified are to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the applicable pension rules and statutory protections, ensuring no discrimination or reduction in rank due to medical conditions (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case.
JUDGMENT
K.BABU, J.
These Original Petitions have been filed by the Union of India represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai and its officers who were respondents in O.A Nos.272/2014 and 266/2014 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench (hereafter referred to as “the Tribunal”). The respective applicants before the Tribunal are the respondents in the Original Petitions. As the issues involved are similar these two Original Petitions are disposed of by way of a common judgment.
2. The applicants were Loco Pilots working under the Southern Railway. During the periodical medical examination, the applicants were medically declassified. Subsequently they were charged against supernumerary posts pending grant of alternative appointment. The applicants submitted representation for permitting them to retire as running staff. Their applications, seeking voluntary retirement, were accepted. But they were not given the emoluments of running staff on retirement. The decision of the official respondents was challenged by the applicants before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the applications in their favour.
O.P(CAT) No.56/2015
3. The original applicant was a Loco Pilot (Mail) in the Indian Railways. In a periodical medical examination for adjudging his fitness, he was medically declassified as per Anx.A2 communication dated 24-09-2012. He was found fit only in Bee-one, whereas classification required for a Loco Pilot (Mail) was Aye-one. He submitted Anx.A3 representation dated 09-10-2012 to official respondent No.7 in the O.A requesting that he be allowed to retire as running staff.
4. His application for voluntary retirement was accepted with effect from 01-12-2012 as per Anx.A4 communication dated 19-11- 2012. No alternative appointment had been given to the applicant. Consequent to Anx.A4 communication, the applicant submitted Anx.A5 representation dated 06-12-2012 to the official respondent No.3 stating that his pension be fixed as if he retired as a running staff. The official respondents, however, issued Anx.A1 pension advice fixing his pay by adding 30% of his basic pay on being charged against supernumerary post. He expressed his option under Rule
17(ii) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.
O.P(CAT) No.60/2015
5. The applicant was a Loco Pilot (Shunting) in the Southern Railway. He was medically declassified in a periodical medical examination as per Anx.A2 communication dated 30-09-2013 finding that his ophthalmic condition is Bee-one (visual) category with glass. Subsequently, the applicant submitted Anxs.A3, A4, A5 and A6 representations requesting for permitting him to retire voluntarily and stating that, he did not like to be placed in any alternative appointment. On 04-11-2013, the official respondents issued Anx.A7 Memo “fitting” him against supernumerary post with effect from 30- 09-2013 pending alternative appointment. Thereafter he was issued with Anx.A8 office order accepting his request for voluntary retirement and informing that his service would stand terminated on 08-11-2013. On 18-12-2013, the applicant submitted Anx.A9 letter opting in terms of Rule 17(ii) of the Pension Rules. However as per Anx.A1 dated 22-01-2014 the applicant was denied the benefits of a running staff on the date of his voluntary retirement.
6. Both the applicants contended that as per Rule 49 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, they are entitled to the emoluments of a running staff, which is basic pay plus 55% of basic pay, on retirement.
7. The official respondents resisted the original applications and contended that, as the applicants were medically de-categorised they cannot be considered as running staff and accordingly they are not entitled to the benefits applicable to a running staff. The applicants are only entitled to 30% of the pay as pay element of running allowance. The official respondents relied on instruction No.RB/ESTT.No.138/2011 dated 05-10-2011 of the Railway Bo
