ABDUL MANNAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29/06/2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Camp at Nagpur in Original Application No. 321/1998, by which the Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application filed by the original applicant petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner is a retired Railway employee. The petitioner was appointed as a Apprentice Telecom Inspector on 23/12/1964 by respondent no.1 and was required to join the apprenticeship on 05/01/1965. He completed the said apprenticeship period of two years successfully on 23/02/1967. After completion of apprenticeship, he was required to be absorbed on the regular basis. It is the case of the petitioner that after completion of apprenticeship, due to non availability of vacancy, the petitioner was posted against working post on 10/04/1967 i.e. after 45 days. The petitioner subsequently made a representation on 15/10/1993 to the Chief Personnel Officer, requesting therein to update his service register and for taking into account the period of apprenticeship as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The petitioner also pointed out that his colleague namely, Shri R.C. Trigunayat, whose case was similar to that of the petitioner, was also given the same benefits as sought by the petitioner. Since the Railway Department had not taken favourable decision, the petitioner filed Original Application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that since there was a gap of 45 days in giving the posting order to the petitioner after completing the apprenticeship, no relief can be given to the petitioner on the ground of discrimination and dismissed the Original Application.

(3.) Mr. M.W. Harsulkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has relied upon the Circular of Railway Board dated 17/04/1984, issued by the Government of India (Bharat Sarkar), Ministry of Transport (Pariwahan Mantralaya), Department of Railways (Rail Vibhag), Railway Board and submitted that since the petitioner has been appointed immediately within a short period after completion of apprenticeship, the period in question, should also be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The circular reads as under :