CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.15106 OF 2005 (In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) ****** 1. Union of India through the General Manager, S.E.Rly, Garden Reach, Kolkata. 2. Chief Personnel Officer, S.E.R.Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata 3. Divisional Railway Manager, S.E.Railway, Chakradharpur. 4. Senior D.P.O., S.E.Railway, Chakradharpur. 5. Senior D.A.O., S.E.Rly, Chakradharpur. --- -- Respondents/Petitioners Versus 1. Shri K.Lal, son of late Satya Narayan Lal, resident of village and P.O. Jhaji Hat, P.S. Pupri, District/ Sitamarhi ---- Applicant/Respondent ****** For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshari, Advocate. For the Union of India : Mr. Abu Haidar (CGC) P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ****** K.K.Mandal,J. Challenge in this application is to the order dated 18th March, 2005, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna ( in short ‘Tribunal’) in O.A.No. 511 of 2003 (Shri K.Lal vs.The Union of India & Ors.), whereby the learned Tribunal directed the Railway authorities (writ petitioners herein), to count the period of service w.e.f. 05.04.1948 to 03.11.1959, rendered by the respondent herein under the State Government for the purpose of pension. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The respondent herein served the State 2 Government as Assistant Teacher between 05.04.1948 to 03.11.1959. On 07.11.1959, he joined the Indian Railways as Assistant Teacher and started functioning as such. He continued till 28.02.1982, and he demitted his office on attaining the age of superannuation. It appears that the respondent made a representation before the Railway authorities to count his service rendered under the State Government. The matter remained pending which prompted the respondent to approach the Tribunal by filing O.A.No. 586 of 2002. By order dated 24.07.2002, the original application was disposed of by directing the respondent to make a representation, and the authorities had to dispose of the same by a reasoned order. The respondent accordingly made a representation before the railway authorities which was considered and rejected by an order dated 16.01.2003 (Annexure-2), which was impugned before the Tribunal. 3. We heard the parties and perused the materials on record. It appears from the order dated 16.01.2003 (Annexure-2), and the order passed by the learned Tribunal, that the claim of the respondent was resisted on the ground that the notification under which the respondent made the claim was issued by the appropriate Government on 31.03.1982, whereas the respondent had superannuated from service on 28.02.1982. Learned Tribunal in paragraph nos. 6 and 7 of its order observed as under:- “6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case reported in 1996 Vol. 33 ATC 338-M.C.Dingra Versus the Union of India & Others has held that the restriction imposed in clause 4 of the said circular is violative of Article 14 and further held that the persons retired much earlier than the cut-off date are also entitled to pro rate pension for the previous services from the said date. 7. Therefore, this point should not detain me 3 any longer as the issue has already been decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court finally. It is now clear that this circular has its retrospective effect and the person who retired before 31.3.1983 is also entitled to get the benefit of previous services rendered in State/ Central Government for the purposes of pensionary benefits.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted before this Court that the said ground in view of the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Dhingra vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 1996(33) ATC 338 ~ AIR 1996 SC 2963, is no longer available to the writ petitioners. 5. Mr.Ashok Kumar Keshari then submitted that there is discontinuity in the service as the respondent on being relieved by the State Government did not join the Railways immediately thereafter. It appears that he was relieved on 03.11.1959, and joined the Railways on 07.11.1959. We take judicial notice of the fact that for joining a post, a reasonable time is afforded to an employee. This delay of four days therefore does not result in break of service. 6. In that view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Tribunal meriting interference by this Court. This writ petition has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. I agree S.K.Katriar,J Patna High Court, Dated the 19th April,2010 Sym/NAFR (Kishore K. Mandal, J.) (S.K.Katriar,J)