THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Writ Petition No.20859 of 2024

ORDER:

(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

Aggrieved by the order dated 11.01.2024 passed in O.A.No.761 of 2018 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), the present Writ Petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri Hemanth Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti appearing for the petitioner and Sri R. Anurag learned counsel representing learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondents.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that the petitioner was initially engaged as a casual labourer in Zonal Training School, South Central Railway, Moulali, Hyderabad during August, 1978 and he was continued without any break till 1979. Thereafter, he was disengaged and was later re-engaged with effect from 15.05.1983 in Zonal Training School mess, South Central Railway, and he was continued as casual labourer in the mess run by the respondents. Learned counsel had further contended that the staff of Railway Zonal Training School mess are treated on par with the regular staff of the Railways. In spite of vacancies arising in Group-D posts during 1998, 1999 and 2000, the services of the petitioner were not regularised and finally, the services of the petitioner were regularised on 03.12.2005 . After being regularised as a Group-D employee, the petitioner had retired from services on 31.01.2018. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted his representation requesting the respondents to count his casual service rendered from 1983 till his regularisation for the purpose of pensionary benefits, however, the respondents rejected his request. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.761 of 2018, contending that the casual services rendered by him should be counted for pensionary benefits in accordance with the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar, 2017 (13) SCC 388, but the Tribunal has dismissed the O.A., without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the issue was squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar’s case (supra 1), wherein, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the casual workers, who are appointed to any post either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity are entitled to pensionary benefits It was also held that 50% of the casual service rendered on a temporary post should be counted for pension purpose. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner was working as causal worker in the mess of Zonal Training School run by the respondents. Therefore, he is entitled to have 50% of his casual service counted for pensionary benefits. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by setting aside the order, dated 11.01.2024 passed in O.A.No.761 of 2018 by the Tribunal and further direct the respondents to count 50% of casual service rendered by the petitioner from

1983 to 2005 for pensionary purpose.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents had contended that the relief sought by the petitioner before the Tribunal was that his services should be regularised from the date on which vacancy had arose i.e., in 1998, 1999 and 2000. The Tribunal has rightly dismissed the O.A. on the ground of delay and latches. It is only after retirement that the petitioner had approached the Tribunal, contending that his services should be regularised from 1998, the day on which, Group-D vacancy arose. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. This Court, having considered the submissions made by both the parties, is of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the O.A. preferred