UNION OF INDIA Vs. ISHWAR DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition, the petitioners have sought quashing of the order dated 17.02.2015, passed in OA No.4286 of 2013 as also the order dated 23.01.2018, passed in Review Application No.259/2016, whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, has allowed the Original Application (OA) filed by the respondent with a direction to the petitioners to re-determine the qualifying service of the respondent by counting 50% of his casual service and 100% of his substitute service as a store Khallasi and pay him the arrears with interest at the rate of 9% per annum within a period of two months.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as noted by the Tribunal are that the Respondent (Applicant before the Tribunal) having been appointed as a casual labour in Railway Electrification, Tilak Bridge, New Delhi on 28.05.1976, worked there till 09.08.1981 in the same capacity, where after, he was deployed in the Horticulture Department of the Northern Railways where he worked for a further period of 128 days upto 16.12.1981. On 26.12.1981, the respondent was absorbed as a substitute Store Khallasi in the Diesel Shed, Tugalakabad after undergoing the regular selection process and was thereafter promoted as a Clerk on 01.01.1995, from which post he had superannuated on 30.04.2013.

(3.) While the respondent was still in service as a Clerk, a circular dated 28.02.2010 was issued by the Railway Board providing for the entire service of employees as a 'substitute' to be counted for determining the qualifying service for pensionary benefits. Upon his superannuation on 30.04.2013, a Pension Payment Order sanctioning pension to the respondent was issued, according to which his qualifying service as a store Khallasi was counted w.e.f. 30.04.1987 and not from 26.12.1981, the date from which the respondent claimed to be working as a substitute Diesel Khallasi. Aggrieved by the non-inclusion of the period from 28.05.1976 to 16.12.1981 and 26.12.1981 to 30.04.1987 as his qualifying service, the respondent made representations to the petitioner which remained unanswered, leading to the filing of the OA.