UNION OF INDIA Vs. PREM PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy involved in these two proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution arising from two separate orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 06.02.2014 and 29.05.2014 in O.A. No.3745/2012 and O.A. No.1921/2014 respectively, is the admissibility of pension by reckoning the period of casual/temporary employment of those working in the Railways. The facts are brief. The respondents/applicants approached the CAT for fixation of pension. The stand of petitioner/Railways was that in both cases, the applicants were ineligible because at the point of time when the retirement of the railway employees occurred, the requisite service prescribed in the rules for purposes of earning pension had not been put in by the concerned employees. The CAT, in both the cases, after considering the submissions of the parties especially para 2005 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM), Master Circular No.54 and the provisions of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 held that the applicant employees were entitled to reckon the entire period of their service as temporary employees, and half the period as casual labourers. In doing so, the CAT discussed and dealt with several judgments, including the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in General Manager, South Central Railway v. Shaik Abdul Khader : 2004 (1) SLR 214.

(2.) IT is contended on behalf of the Railways that the impugned order is erroneous and has serious ramifications. Learned counsel submitted that Rule 31 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, clearly entitled the employees - who are paid from contingencies, to only reckon part of that service. Consequently, para 20 of the Master Circular No.54 and para 2005 of the IREM had to be given due weightage. Instead the CAT relied upon the wrong provision, i.e. Rule 20 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules and held that the entire period of service of an employee as a temporary hand had to be reckoned, and half the service as casual employee - till the attainment of temporary status, had to be reckoned. Learned counsel submitted that the judgment in Shaik Abdul Khader (supra) was subsequently doubted and held to be inapplicable in another Division Bench ruling of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in General Manager SCR v. A. Ramanamma [W.P.(C) 10838/2001] and connected cases (decided on 01.05.2009). Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in General Manager North West Railway and Ors. v. Chanda Devi : 2008 (1) SCC (LS) 399. He emphasized that the latter decision of the Supreme Court took note of the very same circulars and analysed all previous decisions dealing with casual workers/temporary employees and the service benefits they were entitled to in the Indian Railway after regularization. Learned counsel highlighted that Chanda Devi (supra) stated that casual and temporary service would not be pressed into service for the purpose of entitling the pension under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules.

(3.) ON the subject of pension, para 20 of the Master Circular No.54 states as follows: