UNION OF INDIA (UOI) REP BY THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, PERSONNEL BRANCH, SOUTHERN RAILWAY AND THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, PERSONNEL BRANCH, MADRAS DIVISION, SOUTHERN RAILWAY Vs. REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS BENCH AND A GOVINDASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed the present writ petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the records relating to the order made in O.A. No. 219 of 2006 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench.

(2.) The applicant, who joined the service of the Southern Railway as Fitter Grade II Casual Labour in the Signal Department, Egmore, on 13.07.1970, worked in the said Department during three spells, viz., from 13.07.1970 to 31.12.1970, 01.01.1971 to 31.08.1971 and from 01.09.1971 to 31.10.1971 except for the short break of two days in the year 1971. According to him, he was promoted as Fitter Grade II Casual Labour in the same Department on 30.06.1979 till he was absorbed and appointed directly on 24.09.1980. Thereafter, he retired from service only on 30.04.2005. The petitioners herein have reckoned the services of the 2nd respondent herein only from 25.09.1980 for the purpose of calculating the period of service and they have not taken into account the services of the 2nd respondent rendered as casual labour from 03.12.1971 to 24.09.1980. Hence, the 2nd respondent filed O.A. No. 219 of 2006 praying for a direction to the respondents therein to pass revised orders by including the period from 03.12.1971 to 24.09.1980 as period of qualifying service rendered by him in the service register and to grant all terminal benefits due for that period.

(3.) The respondents therein have filed a reply statement stating that there are no records to verify the genuineness of the Card submitted by the applicant and that the continuous service rendered by the applicant can only be a Project casual service, which commenced only from 01.01.1981. It is further stated that the applicant moved out of the Project casual service from the Signal Department and was appointed in the Mechanical Department as Diesel Khalasi not on the basis of the service rendered by him as casual labourer and it was a regular appointment in a different department. According to the respondents therein, the service rendered by the applicant in the Mechanical Department from 25.09.1980 to 13.04.2005, which works out to 24.5 years, only was taken into account for the purpose of computation of pension and hence, the applicant is not eligible for inclusion of his daily rated casual service of 8 years and 9 months as contended by him.