UNION OF INDIA Vs. V C THANKAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in all these cases is with regard to the qualifying service to be reckoned for the purpose of granting the pensionary benefits, especially with regard to the casual service rendered by the respondents prior to getting the temporary status and also with regard to the extent of temporary service which could be reckoned along with the regular service in this regard.

(2.) All these O.P.s have been preferred at the instance of Railways who were the respondents before the Tribunal. Challenge in O.P. (CAT) Nos. 160, 195, 206, 209, 216, 311 and 320 of 2017 is against the verdict passed by the Tribunal in the O.As. and also in R.A.s modifying the earlier orders passed by the Tribunal in the O.A.s. holding that, apart from 50% casual service 100% of temporary service was also liable to be reckoned for granting pensionary benefits. In O.P.(CAT) Nos. 237, 238, 246, 247, 265, 292, 297 and 298 of 2017, challenge is against the order passed by the Tribunal in the O.A.s holding that 50% of the casual service as well as 100% of temporary service were to be reckoned for granting pensionary benefits. O.P.(CAT) No. 160 of 2017 is treated as the lead case and arguments were addressed with reference to the materials on record.

(3.) Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the Railways and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.