UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs. ANANDRAO SHANKARRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) BY this petition, the petitioners impugn the common order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in four Original Applications, filed by the respondent, seeking a direction to the petitioner -Union of India to pay arrears of pension to the respondents and also monthly pension with effect from 12.09.1995. Few facts giving rise to this petition are stated thus :

(3.) SHRI Sundaram, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in allowing the Original Application filed by the respondent. It is submitted that before directing the petitioners to grant pensionary benefits to the respondent and before holding that the respondent was entitled to pension, the Tribunal did not consider the relevant Rules. It is stated that Rules 2(23), 14 and 20 of the Rules of 1993 were not considered by the Tribunal while considering half of the services rendered by the respondent as a casual labourer and full services rendered by him as MRCL. It is submitted that on a reading of Rule 2(23) of the Rules of 1993, it is clear that a casual labourer cannot be considered as a 'railway servant'. It is stated that as per Rule 20 of the Rules of 1993, the commencement of the qualifying service would be reckoned only when an employee gets MRCL status. It is submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously relied on the judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Delhi High Court, reported in, 2004(1) SLR 214 (General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nialyam, Secunderabad, A.P. and another vs. Shaikh Abdul Khader); and, 2013 (3) SLR 296 (Delhi) (Union of India and another vs. Manash Sarkar), respectively. It is stated that the said judgments are distinguishable on facts. Great reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on paragraph 32 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, North West Railway and others vs. Chanda Devi, reported in : (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 108 to canvas that the Rules of 2013 are not applicable to the casual employees. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in : (1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 580, (Union of India and others vs. Rabia Bikaner and others).