Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 12652
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ALEXANDER THOMAS, K. Babu, JJ
UNION OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
K.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN – Respondent
OP (CAT) 56 2015
SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY, SMT.T.N.SREEKALA, SRI.A.DINESH RAO, SC, RAILWAYS
Medically declassified employees retaining their original roles upon voluntary retirement are entitled to full pension benefits applicable to those roles, not limited by supernumerary status.
Headnote:
Pension - Loco Pilots - Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993; Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 - 17, 49, 47 - The court reinforced that medically declassified staff, opting for voluntary retirement, are entitled to the full benefits applicable to their original posts despite temporary transfers to supernumerary posts.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants, Loco Pilots, were medically declassified and subsequently accepted voluntary retirement but were denied emoluments of running staff on retirement, leading them to challenge the decision in the Tribunal which ruled in their favor.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicants, after being medically declassified and placed in supernumerary posts, were still entitled to pension benefits of a Loco Pilot upon voluntary retirement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that medical declassification does not negate the entitlement to benefits of the original position if the employee has opted for voluntary retirement without alternative appointments.
Final Decision: The original petitions were dismissed, maintaining the Tribunal's order to compute pensionary benefits with full emoluments as Loco Pilots.
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
