Union Of India & Ors vs V.D. Dubey (D) By Lr

5. Aggrieved by the stand taken by the Railway Administration, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench filing O.A. No. 473/2002. The Tribunal allowed the application and directed the Railway Administration to fix the pension of the respondent adding to his service, the period by which the respondent at the time of recruitment exceeded 25 years of service or a period of five years whichever is less for the purpose of calculating the pension. The Railway Administration took up the matter in appeal before the Bombay High Court. The High Court endorsed the view taken by the Tribunal and reiterated that in view of the provisions contained in Rule 2301 of the Indian Establishment Code, the pensionable Railway servants claims to pension is regulated by Rules enforced at the time when he resigns or is discharged from service from the Government. The Bench also noticed that Rule 2423 as it 4 originally stood was found incongruous and consequently it was amended on 4.12.1987, whereby it was decided the benefit of added years of service under the Rule 2423-A/R-II was made admissible to all those who retire from service or posts after 31st March, 1960 and who are otherwise eligible under Rule 2423- A/R-II. It was, therefore, held that the Rule as stood after modification is that those who retire from service or posts after 31.3.1960 would get the benefit of adding to their service the period as may be admissible for calculation of pension.

6. In Civil Appeal No. 1024 of 2005, the respondent joined Railways as Assistant Surgeon on 23.10.1942 after having crossed the age of 25 years. While in service he took his master degree in general surgery. On 2.1.1959 he was appointed as D.M.O. Class-I Medical Officer through Union Public Service Commission and the respondent rejoined service in Central Railway. Respondent also claimed the benefit of the Rules which we have referred to in the earlier part of the judgment. The same was denied, hence, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal which has rejected his application. The respondent took up the matter in appeal with the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court and the appeal was allowed holding that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of Rule 2423-A as amended and the Railway Administration was directed to give the benefit of added years of service, for reckoning the qualifying service for pension.

7. In Civil Appeal No. 1025 of 2005, the first respondent joined service in the Indian Railway Medical Service on 26.10.1958 and the second respondent in November, 1957. Both respondents while in service had acquired their post graduate qualifications. The first respondent retired from service on superannuation on 1.9.1979 and the second respondent retired on superannuation on 11.9.1986. Since both the respondents retired from services after 31.3.1960 they claimed the benefit of Rule 2423-A by adding certain years of qualifying years of service for pension. Since the same was denied, they approached the Tribunal but the Tribunal dismissed their applications. They took up the matter before the Bombay High Court. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court allowed their appeals by placing reliance on the judgment in writ petition No. 594 of 2003 (against which CA No.1024/05 has been filed before this Court) and gave a direction to the Railway Administration to give benefit to the respondents as per Rule 2423-A of the Indian Railway Establishment Rules.

12. Civil Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed with the directions to the Appellants to calculate the pensionary benefits and disburse the same to the respondents at the earliest.