UNION OF INDIA Vs. BRIJ LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the Union of India is directed against order dated 28.4.2009 (P.2) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal') in OA No. 751 HP of 2007 whereby the Tribunal has issued direction to the petitioners to reckon the service rendered by the respondent as Casual Labourer from 9.9.1969 to 14.1.1977 as qualifying service for pensionary benefits.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent was initially appointed as a Project Casual Labourer-Helper on 9.9.1969 with the Railways in the Construction Organisation. His services were regularised on 15.1.1977 as Gangman (Group 'D') and he superannuated on 31.3.2007. The petitioners was given retiral dues in respect of regular service for the period 15.1.1977 to 31.3.2007. However, the period of more than seven years spent by the respondent as a casual labour- Helper was not considered as qualifying service. Aggrieved by the refusal to count the service rendered as casual labourer- Helper as qualifying service for the purpose of retiral benefits, the respondent-applicant approached the Tribunal with a prayer for issuance of directions that the whole service rendered by him from 9.9.1969 to 14.1.1977 be considered as qualifying service. The Tribunal recorded a categorical finding that the instructions dated 11.9.1986 (R.1) relied upon by the petitioner were not attracted as those instructions were confined to such persons who have retired on or before 1986. It is admitted as a fact that the respondent-applicant was not ever conferred with the temporary status. The Tribunal placed reliance on the Railways Services (Pension) Rules 1993 (for brevity 'the Rules') and recorded the following finding in paras 9 and 10 of its order:

(3.) It is pertinent to mention that after recording the finding that the petitioners would be entitled to reckon half of the service spent as casual labourer-Helper the Tribunal committed an error while granting the relief in para 11 as whole service has been ordered to be considered as qualifying service. The aforesaid para of the Tribunal reads as under: