UNION OF INDIA Vs. SACHI PRUSTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit.

(2.) The simple question, that arises in this batch of writ petitions, is, if 50% of service rendered after completion of six months of initial casual service, should be reckoned to determine the minimum qualifying service period of Railway employees for the purpose of pensionary benefits.

(3.) Opposite party No. 1 in each of the writ petitions have been engaged as casual labour on various dates. Thereafter, for a certain period they have been given casual work. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in Indra Pal Jadav v. Union of India, 1985 2 SCC 648, they were conferred temporary status on 01.01.1981 and were granted permanent Construction Reserve status on 01.04.1988. On their retirement on superannuation, the opposite party No. 1 in each of the writ petitions except Bhaskar Parida, (opposite party No. 1 in W.P.C. No. 3136 of 2002) were not given any pensionary benefit on their superannuation on the ground that they have not completed ten years of qualifying service in the Railways. Only Bhaskar Parida was reckoned to have completed more than ten years and was given a monthly pension of Rs. 375/. While calculating the service tenure or qualifying services, the Railway authorities did not include the period the employees had served as casual labour prior to the date they were conferred temporary status. Out of the period between conferring of temporary status and absorption in permanent cadre, 50% of the total service rendered has been taken into account. Challenging such action, this opposite party No. 1 (in each of the writ petitions) initiated Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench (hereinafter referred to as the "learned tribunal" for brevity). In all the cases, the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that 50% of days worked as casual worker should also be taken into account while reckoning the number of years of qualifying service. Learned Tribunal further ordered that accordingly, the pension of these employees be fixed by the Railways. The Railways, has preferred these writ petitions assailing such judgments of the learned Tribunal.