UNION OF INDIA Vs. KESHAB LAL ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents herein were originally employees of Arrah Sasaram Light Railways (hereinafter referred to as 'ASL Railways) which was owned by a private party. This company closed down its operation with effect from 15th February, 1978. Termination notices were issued to the employees including the respondents, and the company paid the termination benefits as admissible in law.

(2.) With a view to mitigate the hardship to the retrenched employees of the ASL Railways it was decided that these employees may be appointed as fresh entrants in the Indian Railways. This decision was contained in the letter dated 17th March, 1978 written by the Ministry of Railways to the General Manager, Eastern Railway. The said letter contained the terms and conditions on which these erstwhile employees of ASL Railways were to be given appointment.

(3.) The respondents were thereupon appointed in the Eastern Railways pursuant to the aforesaid decision dated 17th March, 1978. According to the prevalent rules at that time an employee in the Indian Railways became eligible for pensionary benefits only after the employee had put in ten years of service. The respondents made a representation to the appellants to the effect that the service rendered by them in the erstwhile ASL Railways should be taken into consideration for the purpose of granting them pensionary benefits. This representation was rejected. Thereupon the respondents filed O.A. No. 113 of 1989 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, praying that they should be paid pensionary benefits by counting the entire service or at least same percentage or some years service rendered by them in ASL Railway so as to entitle them to get the minimum pension. In support of this plea the respondents contended that the Railway Board had allowed counting of previous service rendered by the erstwhile Kalighat-Falta Railway (hereinafter referred to as "K.F. Railways"_ for the purpose of pensionary benefits. It was submitted that by not extending the same benefits to the respondents they were being discriminated. The appellants' contention before the Tribunal was that the status of the ex-employees of the erstwhile private company, namely, ASL Railways and K.F. Railways was different. It was submitted that the assets of the K. F. Railways were taken over by the Government of India by making an outright purchase whereas ASL Railways had gone into voluntary liquidation and had not been taken over by the Government of India.