1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.508 OF 2005 1.Running Staff Association & ors. ...Petitioners. vs. 1.Union of India through Ministry of Railways & anoher. ...Respondents. --- Mr.Rahul G. Walia, for Petitioners. Mr.Sureshkumar, for Respondents. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED: 25th June, 2008. P.C.:- 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 16.9.2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Original application no.461 of 2001. That original application was filed by the petitioners for setting aside the notification dated 5.12.1988. It is common ground that the same notification was considered by the Supreme Court in the judgment in the case 2 “Chairman, Railway Board and others Vs. C.R.Rangadhamaiah and others, 1997 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 1527”. That matter went to the Supreme Court as an appeal from the decision of the full bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The full bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal had set aside the notification only to the extent that it gave retrospective effect to the amended provisions. This application was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal by the employees who had retried after 1988 whereas the rule was amended by the notification dated 5.12.1988. The submission of the petitioner was that the notification laying down the quantum of pensionary benefits payable to the employees who retire in future is also illegal. The Tribunal relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court held that the validity of the circular has been upheld by the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal which was challenged before the Supreme Court in the appeal, but the Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the full bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the appeal whereby the full bench had upheld the validity of the notification save and except that part of the notification by which retrospective effect has been 3 given. In the result, the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the original application. That order is challenged in this petition. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides. We have gone through the judgment of the Supreme Court. Perusal of the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph (1) and (34) of its judgment shows that the Supreme Court had judged the validity of the entire circular as was done by the full bench of the Tribunal and the Supreme Court found that only that part of the circular giving retrospective effect is bad. So far as the employees who retried after that notification came into force is concerned, the relevant observations have been made by the Supreme Court in paragraph (34) of the Judgment, which read as under:- “As indicated earlier, Rule 2301 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code prescribes in express terms that a pensionable railway servant's claim to pension is regulated by the rules in force at the time when he resigns or is discharged from the service of the Government.” It is thus clear that as the members of the petitioner on behalf of whom the original 4 application was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal were admittedly in the employment on 5.12.1988, in terms of Rule 2301 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, their pension will be regulated by the provisions that are in force on the date of their retirement. The learned Counsel submits that even assuming that is to be so they can challenge the validity of this provision. In our opinion, in view of the judgment of the Full bench of the Tribunal which has been confirmed by the Supreme Court even that challenge is not possible. The Supreme Court in paragraph 34 of the its judgment referred to above has observed thus:- “The Full Bench of the Tribunal has, in our opinion, rightly taken the view that the amendments that were made in Rule 2544 by the impugned notifications dated 5-12-1988, to the extent the said amendments have been given retrospective effect so as to reduce the maximum limit from 75% to 45% in respect of the period from 1-1-1973 to 31-3-1979 and reduce it to 55% in respect of the period from 1-4-1979, are unreasonable and arbitrary and are violative of the rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.” From the above observations it is clear that before the Full bench the entire amendment was challenged 5 and the Tribunal held that the amendment is invalid partially and the Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the Tribunal in toto. We have also gone through the judgment of the Full bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the case of “C.R.Rangadhamaiah and others Vs. Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi and others, (1994)27 Administrative Tribunals Cases (FB) 129”. We find that the entire notification was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, but the Central Administrative Tribunal found the notification to be invalid only to the extent it gives retrospective effect. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioners fairly pointed out to us the judgment of the Division bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case “Rattan Singh & others Vs. Union of India & others, decided on 3.5.2006 in Writ petition no. 15161-C of 1997. the Punjab & Haryana High Court has also taken a view that the Supreme Court by its judgment in the case of ““C.R.Rangadhamaiah and others Vs. Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi and others” has held the notification to be valid save and except that part of the notification which gives retrospective effect. Perusal of that judgment shows that the Punjab & Haryana High Court has also relied on the 6 observations of the Supreme Court found in paragraph 34 referred to above. We find ourselves in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. 3. In the result, therefore, we find no fault with the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal which is impugned in the petition. Petition therefore, fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.Y.GANOO,J.) ---