UNION OF INDIA Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION is directed against the order dated 22. 06. 1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench Jodhpur, allowing the Original Application No. 126/92 filed by the respondent No. 1 in the Jodhpur Bench of C. A. T. on 19. 3. 97.

(2.) THE respondent has filed the application before the Tribunal alleging that the applicant was appointed as a casual labour on daily wages basis on January 20, 1962. From the date of appointment to 13. 09. 1986, the applicant held number of posts. He was appointed on regular post of Trolley Man after qualifying the prescribed screening test by order dated June, 15, 1977. By order dated September 13, 1986, the applicant was promoted as Permanent Way Mistry and he worked on that post till he superannuated on 31. 07. 1996. However, he was not paid his pension as the pension payable to him has not been determined for want of his lien on any post in the service. THE applicant claimed that his lien should be fixed in department on permanent establishment against 40% vacancies reserved for such employees. THE other reliefs claimed in the petition are fixing the pay w. e. f. 13. 09. 1986 in scale of 380 to 560 applicable to Permanent Way Mistry by counting 50% period of the service rendered as casual labour before appointment on regular basis for the purpose of counting gratuity and for qualifying service for pension. THE post on which he is said to have worked before his regular appointment as Trolley Man are stated as Mate, Permanent Way Mistry, Permanent Way Mistry and Blacksmith, Store man, Blacksmith and Store Man. It has also been stated in the application that the Construction Division is a temporary division and as such the permanent employees working in the Construction Division are having their lien upto the extent of 40% in various divisions. He has placed on record the document Ex. 3 showing that as per the rules the applicant was granted lien in Delhi Division while he was working as Trolley Man on that post. On his retirement his pension was fixed in the Grade of 200-250 which was payable to a Trolley Man and not in the pay scale which he was drawing at the time of his retirement on the post of Permanent Way Mistry in the pay scale of 380-560 which he was drawing from September, 1986. His case for giving lien on the post of Permanent Way Mistry was not considered and decided.

(3.) FROM the aforesaid averments, it is apparent that the applicant-respondent was working in the Construction Division of the Railways as casual workman. The Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Basant Lal (2) has stated that a casual labour employed in construction Division of Railways on completion of 120 days service is entitled to get salary as the temporary employees and the rule that a project employee is entitled to the salary on completion of 360 days in not applicable to the casual labour in Construction Division. In view of this later decision of Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that in the state of affairs of the pleadings, the contention raised by the petitioners must fail. The contention is found on Indrapal Yadav's case (supra), under which a scheme was devised under the directions of the Supreme Court to treat project employees in temporary service on completion of 360 days. The said principle in view of a clear declaration by the Supreme Court in Basantlal's case (supra) that persons employed in construction division are not project employees cannot be applied to the present case.