JUDGMENT
1. In the instant writ petition, the petitioners before us is the Union of India and certain officials of Northern Frontier Railway challenging an order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, holding that the petitioner is entitled to pension for his service rendered to the said Railways.
2. The admitted position is that the petitioner was initially appointed as a casual worker on 5th February, 1982 and continued as such till he was granted temporary status with effect from 1st January, 1984. His service was regularized on 15th September, 1992. Under the relevant provisions of law, a railway servant becomes entitled to pension only upon completing service for a period of 10 years. In the present case the main dispute revolves around the methodology for computation of this period of 10 years. The Tribunal in this Judgment has held that since the petitioner was granted temporary status from 1st January, 1984 he should have been treated to be in service from that date continuously, followed by his regular appointment in Group ‘C’ post. On this basis, the Tribunal has come to a finding that total period of service rendered by him comes to more than 10 years and he is thus entitled to pension as per rules.
3. Ms. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Railway authorities has taken us through three decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, being Inder Pal Yadav v. Union of India reported in 1985 (2) SLR 248, Ram Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. and Union of India and Ors. v. K.G. Radhakrishana Panickar and Ors. .
4. Ms. Nandini Mitra, learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner/respondent on the other hand has relied on a decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of General Manager, Southern Central Railway v. Seikh Abdul Kader reported in (2004) 2 Administrative Total Judgments. In this Judgment, the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court held in a case in which the issue of grant of pension to a similarly situated person:
If this sub-para is read with para-20 and also with Rule 31, there remains no doubt that on absorption whole of the period for which a casual labour worked after getting temporary status would have to be counted and half of the period has to be counted of the period for which a casual labour worked without being absorbed. Once he is given temporary status that means that he has been absorbed in the department. Even para 2005(a) has been drafted in the same way because of the fact that even such casual labour who have attained temporary status are followed to carry forward the leave at their credit in full to the new post on absorption in regular service. Therefore, we have no doubt in our mind that once temporary status is granted to a person who is absorbed later on the regular service carries forward not only the leave to his credit but also carries forward the service in full. Half of the service rendered by him as casual labour before getting the temporary status has to be counted.
5. We shall now briefly discuss the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respective parties.
6. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Pal Yadav (supra) appears to be the decision on the basis of which the then existing the scheme of the Railway Ministry pertaining to regularization of casual labourers was modified, entitling them to certain benefits on the aspect of regularisation. In this Judgment, four categories of casual labourers were considered and as regards those casual labours, who had completed 360, days but less than three years of service as of 1.1.84 were required to be treated as temporary from 1.1.1986 as per the prevailing scheme. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed modification of the take-off date from 1.1.84 to 1.1.81 to bring within the compass of the prevailing scheme larger number of casual labourers. Thus the petitioner came within the scope of regularization, as admittedly he was appointed as project casual labour on 5.2.1982. In the decision of Ram Kumar v. Union of India (supra), the learned Counsel appearing for Union of India relied on in support of his case. The relevant portion on which reliance was placed is reproduced below:
He is also conceded that on eventual absorption in regular employment half the service rendered with temporary status is counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits.
7. In the case of Union of India and Ors. v. K.G. Radhakrishanu Panickar and Ors. (supra) again, the main issue was as to when the project casual labour would be treated as temporary under the scheme referred to in the case of Inder Pal Yadav. In this case also it has been held:
It was thus a new benefit which was conferred on Project Casual labour under the scheme as approved by this Court in Inder Pal Yadav and on the basis of this new benefit Project Casual Labour became entitled to count half of the service rendered as Project Casual Labour on the basis of the order dated 14.10.1980 after being treated as temporary on the basis of the scheme as accepted in Inder Pal Yadav.
8. So far as the present writ petition is concerned, the resolution of the controversy primarily revolves on construction of paragraph 2005 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol. 2. The relevant portion of this paragraph is reproduced below:
Casual labour including Project casual labour shall be eligible to count only half the period of service rendered by them after attaining temporary status on completion of prescribed days of continuous employment and before regular absorption, as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. This benefit will be admissible only after their absorption in regular employment. Such casual labour, who have attained temporary status, will also be entitled to carry forward the leave at their credit to new post on absorption in regular service. Daily rated casual labour will not be entitled to these benefits.
9. It is contended by Ms. Banerjee that in the present case the petitioner’s service between 1st January, 1984 and 14th September, 1992, that is a day prior to his regularisation can be computed only in half for the purpose of deciding the period of qualifying for service pension. If such a computation is made, then admittedly the petitioner does not complete 10 years of service even upon adding to his service tenure the date between his regularisation and retirement.
10. Having considered rival submissions we are of the view that upon plain reading of paragraph 2005(A) of the IREM, to which reference has been made in the earlier part of this Judgment, the manner in which computation is to be made in respect of the period served by an employee in “temporary status”, comes out quite clearly. The construction of this provision, in our opinion, is that the period till which an employee serves in temporary status, before regularization cannot claim computation of this entire period in full as qualifying service for pension. On this point we are in respectful disagreement with the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
11. In the present case, the period the petitioner had served as casual labour, even if is added for calculating his qualifying service, he does not get a total of ten years of qualified service.
12. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed and the impugned Judgment of the Tribunal is set aside.
There shall be no order as to cost.