SITA RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH CENTRE RAILWAY, HEQDQUARTERS OFFICE, BARODA HOUSE, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant has challenged order dated 27.07.2011 with the directions to respondents to count the entire service i.e. 15.07.1981 to 01.07.1986 for the purpose of pensionary benefits and further direct the respondents to recalculate the pension of applicant and pay all benefits including arrears of pay, differences, after counting the entire service without any discrimination or alternatively to direct the respondents at least count the half service from 15.7.1981 to 01.07.1986 for the purpose of pensionary benefits and recalculate the pensionary benefits with all consequential benefits. They have further sought a direction that this honourable Tribunal may graciously be pleased to extend the same benefit to the applicant, which were extended to Shri Gurdial Singh, Sheikh Abdul Khadir and Shri Raj Kumar cases and others similarly situated persons without any discrimination.

(2.) The brief facts, as stated by the applicant, are that he was initially engaged as casual labour on 31.8.1980. Temporary status was granted on 15.7.1981. After the screening test was held 14.9.1987, he was regularized. He was given further promotions as Helper Safaiwala with effect from 18.1.1990, as Fitter Grade -III on 24.6.2000, as Technician Grade -II in May, 20004 and as Technician Grade -I in November, 2009. He retired from service on 31.1.2010 and gave a representation on 14.3.2011 to count the entire period from temporary status to the date of regularization for the purposes of computing his pensionary benefits on the basis of judgment given by the Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of Union of India Vs. Gurdial Singh decided on 12.12.2007 (W.P. No.2528/2007) and General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad, A.P. & Another Vs. Shaik Abdul Khader decided by Andhra Pradesh High Court on 23.6.2003 (W.P. No. 10837/2001). However, no order was being passed, therefore, applicant had filed OA No.1681/2011 which was disposed of on 6.5.2011 by directing the respondents to consider his grievance and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order (page 56 at 57). In compliance with the directions given by the Tribunal, respondents have passed order dated 27.7.2011 rejecting the claim of the applicant on the ground that the earlier judgments of the Tribunal cannot be implemented suo moto as each and every case has to be dealt on merits. Since the instructions of Railway Board hold good and have not been revised, the judgments given by the courts have only persuasive value and has not been declared as law of land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India (page 24).

(3.) It is this order, which has been challenged by the applicant in the present OA and the relief has been sought, as mentioned above.