IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13476 of 2016 ======================================================

1. The Union of India through the General Manager, E.C. Railway, Hajipur, Bihar.

2. The General Manager, Eastern Central Railway Zone, Hajipur, Bihar.

3. The Divisional Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Mugalsarai. 4. The Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway, Mugalsarai.

5. The Assistant Engineer, Eastern Railway, Dehri-On-Sone, Rohtas at Sasaram.

6. The Railway Inspector, Eastern Railway, Dehri-On-Sone, Rohtas at Sasaram.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus Ramashish Yadav, Son of late Nathuni, R/o village- Tineri, P.S.- Aanti, District- Gaya.

... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Dr. Iti Suman, CGC For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dhaneshwar Pd. Gupta, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)

Date: 10-03-2026 The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the order dated 25.02.2016 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CAT’) in OA No.050/00617/2015, whereby and whereunder the petitioners herein have been directed to pass necessary order on the admissibility of pension to the original respondent in light of the judgment rendered by the Ld. CAT, Patna Bench, Patna in similar matters vide order dated 07.11.2014, as upheld by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in a series of writ petitions i.e. CWJC No. 11695 of 2015 and other analogous cases vide judgment dated 18.08.2015, whereby and whereunder the Railways have been directed to count 100% service towards pensionary benefits, if otherwise admissible, from the period of temporary status till regular absorption and thereafter till superannuation and to count 50% for the period of continued service rendered as casual labour till counting of temporary status.

2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the parties have jointly referred to a judgment dated 24.03.2017 rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Rakesh Kumar and Others (Civil Appeal No. 3938 of 2017 and other analogous cases), paragraph Nos.55 and 56, are reproduced herein below:-

“55. In view of foregoing discussion, we hold :

i) the casual worker after obtaining temporary status is entitled to reckon 50% of his services till he is regularised on a regular/temporary post for the ii) the casual worker before obtaining the temporary status is also entitled to reckon 50% of casual service iii) Those casual workers who are appointed to any post either substantively or in officiating or in temporary capacity are entitled to reckon the entire period from date of taking charge to such post as per Rule 20 of Rules, 1993.

iv) It is open to Pension Sanctioning Authority to recommend for relaxation in deserving case to the Railway Board for dispensing with or relaxing requirement of any rule with regard to those casual workers who have been subsequently absorbed against the post and do not fulfill the requirement of existing rule for grant of pension, in deserving cases. On a request made in writing, the Pension Sanctioning Authority shall consider as to whether any particular case deserves to be considered for recommendation for relaxation under Rule 107 of Rules, 1993.

56. In result, all the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgments of Delhi High Court are set aside. The writ petitions filed by the appellants are allowed, the judgments of Central Administrative Tribunal are set aside and the Original Applications filed by the respondents are disposed of in terms of what we have held in para 55 as above.”

3. Thus, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the casual workers after obtaining temporary status as also bef