6in. ^^- ^f^g ^^&^&^,^.a,W^^ f-^J WRIT PETITION,SN03-S'l5' ^of 200_7_ .^•1. Union of India, through the Chairman, P^ailway Board, New Delhi. 2.The Genera! Managsr, South Eastern Railway, 11, Garden R.each R.oad, Calcutta-3, Now after bifurcatlor. Gensra! Managar, South Eastern Centra! Railvvay, Bilaspur. ,3.The Divisionat Railway Manager, South Eastsrn ^y^ A'.-'^.^T^..^ -^M^ X5^; ,'^.f'r'tl^~ ^' •t/'"r^' ISaspur. Railv.,'ay, Novx' after bifurcation Manager, G- c S^ i e3» South Csntral Raiiway, Bilaspur. M ^s ^ P % r?^ % ,"( n r^ !—i'<Si. f^.CS i'i i . 2? U i i U Jeevan Ram, ag about . 65 years, resident of Sahu Tent House, G. Cabin, Charoda, District Bhiiai iT r: 'i •^-.IJ.J "i-i-f^ S?TTr"5 F /'3 '^'^' ^. g ^l^'Sa. 3-t / ^,, 1& J THF s . ^ s a>^ ^B^ .^.JT^.AL^.^^L^. —^.—-" '^'^•Sessasvst^^v^G^S^S^SSf^^^.^f^^vs^^^s'^si^i's^ •«> ^ t,\ .•^?T?-5t.. 'u Y^^/^ w H!GH COURT OF CHHATT! W.P.?S)No.3515of 2007 b!t Un'on of 'nd'a 8- Others Writ Petltion under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution nf DB: Hon'ble Shri Justlce I.WI. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. AqapA'ai. t ————————————— Present : Shri Abhishek Sinha, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Advocate for the respondent. ORAL' on 12th day ofAugust, 2018) l^ ^?I 1. This writ petition has been fiied against th.e impugned judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'CAT'), Jaba'pur Bench, Circuit Court sitting at Bi'aspur, on 26.04.2005 in OA No. 427/03, allowlng the OA, directing the instant writ petitioner to grant a)l pensionary beneffls to the <- respondent on the basls of fui! seroice rendered by him by treating him as permanent from three years after the date of his initial appointment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent was appointed as casual iabourer under the petitioner's department on 11.09.1961 and heworked tjl! 1973, and thereafter he engaged and worked till 31.03.1998. The respondent was superannuated on 31.03.1998 after completion of 58 years and was paid Rs. 37,599/-as provident Tund on 06.09.1998. Thereafter, he .^Tias-^ '^^^ ~<^ ^- submitted severa! representations before the authorities for grant of pensionary benefits, but the authorities have not considered the same and thereafier he fited Original Application before the learned CAT and the learned CAT aliowed the application. The facts remained that, the respondent never ga'ned the status of permanent employee and throughout remained cgsual and temporary. He was given temporary status from 07.08.1984. His engagement was also not regular. He worked from 11.09.1961 till 1973 and thereafter again engaged and workedtill31.03.1998. Rule 31 (d) of the Railway Servtee (Pension) Rules, provides as under: "31. Counting of sen./ice paid from contingencies- (a) XXX XXX XXX XXX (d) the service paid from contingencies has been continuous and foiiowed by absorption in regular employment without a break; Provided that the weightage for past service paid from contingencles shal! be iimited to the period after 1 January, 1961 subject to ths condition that authentic records of service such' as pay bi!l, leave record or service books is available. Note: (1) the provisions ofthis rule shai! a!so apply to casual labour paid from contingencies. (2) The expression "absorption in regufar empioyment" m.eans absorption against a regutar ^ '•^•SSS»\ li ^^y—v^fci Sts ^^ ^ ^•o 5. In view of above provisions, unless a contingency pald employee becomes regular empioyee, he cannot • get pensionary benefits. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in case of Ram Kumar & others v. Union of l.ndla and Others In whsch the Apex Court has observed in para 15 as under: "15. For over ten years, litigations of th's type have been coming to the court. About three vears back, this court directed a scheme for absorption in Yadav case which has been framed and is operative. Casual labour seems to be the requirement of the Railway Administration and cannot be avoided. The Raiiway Establjshment Manual has made provisions for their protection but implementation is not effective. Severai instructions issued by the Railway Board and the Northern Railway Headquarters were placed before us to show that the Admlnistration Is <• anxious to take appropriate steps to remove the difficulties faced by the causal iabour but there is perhaps slackness in enforcing them. We hope and trust that such an unfortunate situation wii! not arise again and in the event of any such allegation coming to the court, obvioysiy the Administration wi!l have to be blamed." But in para 12, the Apex Court ha.s observed that the retiral benefit of pension is not admissible to either category of employees. Para 12 of the said judgment reads as under: ' 1988 (1) SCC 306 '^:^. ^:. ^^'.^ .^ -y 7. 8. 9. 10. "12. It te the stand of the learned Addit'onal Solicitor General that no pensjonam benefits are admissibie even to temporary raiiway servants and, therefore, that retiral advantaoe Is not available to casual labour acquiring temporary status. We have been shown the different provisions in the Railway Establishment Manual as also the different orders and direction issued by the Administration. We agree with the learned Additionai Solicitor General that retiral benefit of pension is not admisslble to either category of empioyees." In view of abovementioned facts of the case, it is ctear thgt the respondent, who was not absorbed in a reguiar post and was not regularized in sen'ice, is not entitted to pensionary benefits, In view of above, the impugned order passed by the CAT is not sustainable in the eye of law. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 26.04.2005, passed by the CAT is set aside. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Sdf- Dr, l.M. Quddusi judge Sd/- N.K. Agarawal Judge Sahu