IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13600 of 2008 UNION OF INDIA Versus DEG LAL & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Milind Kumar Mishra, Advocate ---------------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --------- Dated, the 18th September, 2008. Mr. Milind Kumar Mishra, Advocate appears and prays for time. It transpires from the proceeding that on 9th September, 2008 on behalf of the petitioner, time was sought for and matter was adjourned for one week. We are, therefore, not inclined to accede to the request for adjournment. We asked Mr. Milind Kumar Mishra, Advocate to argue the matter but he submitted that he has instructions to seek adjournment only. 2. In the circumstances, we perused the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the matter thus: - “5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no reasonable nexus in the decision of the Railway to take into account only 50% of service rendered by the applicant after conferment of temporary status, because after conferment of temporary status an employee gets all the benefits like that of a regular employee. As such counting of 50% service of such employee is not justified. It has further been pointed out that since the Railway itself has taken a decision to take into consideration of 50% of the service rendered after - 2 - conferment of temporary status making an employee to get pension, there is no rhyme and reason not to count 100% service rendered as casual labour on temporary status. The learned counsel has relied upon the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 2004 [2] ATJ 23[G.M; South Central Railway A.P. vs. Shaik Abdul Khader] and another judgment of CAT. Cuttak Bench reported in 2002 [2] ATJ 415 [Sachi Pristy vs. Union of India & Others]. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that once a casual labour is granted temporary status and later regularly absorbed in service, he is entitled to count full service for the period of temporary status till regularization for the purpose of pension. The CAT, Cuttak Bench has also taken the same view in the case referred above[Supra]. 6. In the case of State of Kerala and Others vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair reported in AIR 1985 SC 356, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the government to its employees on their retirement but are valuable rights and property in their hands. An employee earns pension in lieu of his service rendered to the society during his youth. Retiral benefit is grounded on consideration of Station obligation to its citizens who having rendered service during the useful span of life must not be left to penury in their old age. 7. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that a similar decision given in OA 492 of 05 dated 1.3.06 by Patna Bench of this Tribunal has been upheld by High Court of Judicature at Patna in CWJC No.9604 by order dated 12.12.07. 8. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court as well as CAT, Cuttak Bench, and Patna bench, there is no basis/ground to take a different view. In the result, the OA is allowed. The respondents are directed to re-calculate the pension with arrears from the due date [the date of superannuation] with all incidental benefits after counting the full service from the date of grant of temporary status i.e. 1.1.1981. These exercises should be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to the costs.” 3. The consideration of the matter by the Tribunal is - 3 - in accord with the law, justifying no interference by us. 4. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-