The court upheld the decision to count prior service for pension eligibility as per precedent, reinforcing employee rights.

JUDGMENT

P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J This Original Petition is filed by the respondents in O.A.No.180/467/2022, challenging the order dated 28.11.2023, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, allowing the original application filed by the respondent herein.

2. The respondent herein/applicant joined the Southern Railway as a Commission Bearer on 09.08.1983. Pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in T.I. Madhavan, Gen. Secy., All India Rly. Catering Services Workers' Union v. Union of India [1988 Supp SCC 437], he was absorbed as a Railway employee on 26.02.2001. Subsequently, he retired from service on 31.08.2022. Since the Railways did not consider his past service as Commission Bearer towards qualifying service for pension, he approached the petitioners by filing a representation. The said representation was rejected by Annexure-A1 order dated 25.07.2022. It is aggrieved by the said order, the respondent herein filed the afore O.A.

3. The learned Tribunal, after considering the materials on record and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Munshi Ram [ 2022(15) SCALE 550 ], allowed the O.A. and directed the petitioners to reckon 50% of the period of engagement of the respondent as commission bearer as qualifying service for his pension benefits.

4. Heard Adv. K. Shrihari Rao, the learned CGC appearing for the petitioners and Adv. K. Janardhana Shenoy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the decision inMunshi Ram's case (cited supra) relied on by the Tribunal is contrary to another decision of the Apex Court in Union of India and others v. K.V.Baby and others [ (1998) 9 SCC 252 ] and that the said decision has not been considered inMunshi Ram's case (cited supra). Hence, according to the learned counsel, the decision in K.V.Baby's case (cited supra) has to be relied upon and if done so, the O.A. is liable to be dismissed.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the decision in Munshi Ram's case (cited supra), being the latest decision and which specifically answers the issue in the instant case, is to be followed and therefore, this OP(CAT) is liable to be dismissed.

7. The short question that arises for consideration in this original petition is whether the service rendered by the respondent herein/applicant as commission bearer, prior to his absorption on 26.02.2001 is liable to be reckoned for granting pensionary benefits to him. It is to be taken note that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Munshi Ram's case (cited supra) has specifically considered the very same point and has held that the commission bearers working in the Railways are entitled to have 50% of their services rendered prior to their regularisation, to be counted for pensionary benefits. The afore decision has been passed by the Apex Court on 31.10.2022, much after the decision in K.V.Baby's case (cited supra). That apart, it is to be taken note that the question, which was considered in K.V.Baby's case (cited supra) is not exactly the same as in the Munshi Ram's case (cited supra), since the question was whether such employees are entitled for the very same salary as regular employees, pending regularisaion of their service. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal allowing the O.A., by relying on Munshi Ram's case (cited supra)

Ergo, we find no merit in this Original Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/-