UNION OF INDIA Vs. K.VASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question arising for consideration in this original petition is as to whether the casual labour service rendered by the respondent (original applicant) could be reckoned for the purpose of pension. The parties are referred as per their status in the original application. The applicant was initially engaged by the Railways as 'Casual Labourer' on 14.5.1983 and continued up to 17.8.1984. Later, the applicant was regularly appointed as 'Gangman' on 24.2.1999 and was superannuated on 31.8.2008. The period of service of the applicant as regular employee of the Railway establishment was 9 years and 6 months only, whereas the minimum period of qualifying service required to be eligible for pension is 10 years. The applicant represented before the Railways that, if 50% of his casual labour service is reckoned as qualifying service, in the manner provided under Rule 31 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, he would have the requisite qualifying service for pension. The representation was rejected by the Railways as per Annexure A6 on the premise that 50% of the casual labour service can be reckoned only if the casual service is followed by continuous regular service without break. Thereupon, the original application was filed seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) The Railways refuted the contentions and opposed the prayers. The stand taken in Annexure A6 was sought to be justified. It was submitted that as per the provisions in Chapter XXV of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) 1968th Edition, 'casual labour' refers to labour whose employment is seasonal, intermittent, sporadic or extends over short periods. The casual labour in Railways was submitted to be of two categories, viz; open line casual labour and project casual labour. In elaboration, it was submitted that the works which are required to improve the carrying capacity of Railways are project works and those which are required for day to day running of the railway are open line works. The casual labourers engaged in open line are called open line casual labourers and those engaged in project work are called project casual labourers. The applicant, it was submitted, was engaged as a project casual labour by the construction organisation of the Railways. It was contended that though open line casual labourers are entitled for temporary status and Central Pay Commission scales of pay on completion of 120 days of continuous service, that benefit was not extended to project casual labourers till the decision of the Apex Court in Inder Pal Yadav and others v. Union of India and others [(1985) 2 SCC 648]. On facts it was submitted that the applicant was granted temporary status with effect from 14.5.1984 after completion of 360 days of continuous casual labour service and was later appointed on continuous basis in accordance with his seniority among the list of casual labourers maintained by the Railways in the Live Casual Labour Register published on 17.9.1996, as directed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, in O.A.No.1706 of 1994. It was contended that 50% of the casual labour service of an employee who had attained temporary status could be counted as qualifying service only if the casual service is followed by regular service without break.

(3.) The Tribunal, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in L.Robert D'Souza v. the Executive Engineer, Southern Railway [(1982) 1 SCC 645] and its own decision in O.A.No.449 of 2011, declared that the applicant had acquired temporary status on completion of 120 days of casual labour service, ie; w.e.f. 14.9.1983. The findings of the Tribunal at Paragraph 8 of the order is extracted hereunder:-