Patna High Court
The Union Of India And Ors vs Nawalak And Ors on 30 January, 2023
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri, Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17922 of 2017
======================================================
1. The Union Of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway,
Hajipur, District-Vaishali
2. The General Manager Personnel, East Central Railway, Hajipur, District-
Vaishali.
3. The Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, East Central Railway,
Hajipur, District- Vaishali
4. The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur.
5. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Danapur.
6. The Senior Divisional Engineer Co-ordination, East Central Railway,
Danapur.
7. The Senior Divisional Financial Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur,
District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Nawalak, son of Late Hemraj, Ex- Trackman under Senior Section Engineer
P. Way, East Central Railway, Lakhisarai, District- Patna Bihar.
2. Lallo, son of Late Ramjee, Ex- Trackman under Senior Section Engineer P.
Way, East Central Railway, Lakhisarai, District- Patna Bihar.
3. Jamun, son of Late Ram Charan, Ex- Trackman under Senior Section
Engineer P. Way, East Central Railway, Kiul Bihar.
4. Sri Kant, son of Late Tulsi, Ex- Trackman under Senior Section Engineer P.
Way, East Central Railway, Mokama, Patna Bihar.
5. Ramuchit, son of Late Lakhan, Ex- Keyman, under Senior Section Engineer
P. Way, East Central Railway, Mokama, District- Patna, Bihar.
6. Smt, Pavitri Devi, wife of Late Bishun Deo, Ex- Trackman under Senior
Section Engineer P. Way, East Central Railway, Jhajha, Resident of Village/
Post- Kanhaipur, District- Patna Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s-UOI : Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate (Sr. Panel Counsel)
Mr. T.N. Thakur, Advocate (C.G.C.)
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Abhay Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Patna High Court CWJC No.17922 of 2017 dt.30-01-2023
2/5
Date : 30-01-2023
The petitioner-Union of India presented this petition,
questioning the validity of the order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (for short 'CAT)
dated 07.09.2016 passed in O.A./050/00649/16. Respondents
were initially appointed on Ad-hoc basis and thereafter they
were brought on temporary status and further their services were
regularized. In this backdrop, question for consideration is
whether they are entitled for consideration of entire temporary
status service towards grant of retiral benefits or not? In this
regard, respondents filed O.A. No. 649 of 2016 before the CAT.
The CAT passed the following orders, Para-8 of which reads as
under:-
8. Accordingly, this OA is disposed of
at the admission stage itself with a direction to
the respondents to verify the facts related to
each applicant and extend to them the same
benefit as granted to similarly place employee
by treating 100% service as temporary status
and 50% of service as casual for qualifying
service for pension. The respondents shall
comply with the above direction within a period
of four months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the order
of the CAT, Union of India-Petitioner preferred this petition.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17922 of 2017 dt.30-01-2023
3/5
3. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
decision of the CAT passed in O.A No. 649 of 2016 is contrary
to decision passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWJC
No. 16637 of 2019 (The Union of India and Ors Vs.
Brahmdeo Mistry and Ors.) read with the Apex Court's
decision in the case of Union of India and Ors vs. Rakesh
Kumar reported in 2017 (3) PLJR SC 83, to the extent that only
50% of the casual labour/temporary status could be counted for
the purpose of granting pension.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondents could not counter the aforesaid contentions.
6. Therefore, the petitioner has made out a prima
facie case, so as to interfere with the order of the CAT dated
07.09.2016passed in O.A No. 649 of 2016. Accordingly, order of the CAT is modified to the extent that respondents are held entitled to count to the extent of 50% of the temporary status service towards grant of pension only in the light of the Apex Court's decision in the case of Union of India and Ors vs. Rakesh Kumar (supra) and this Court's decision in CWJC. No. 16637 of 2019 (supra). Accordingly, petitioner-Union of India is hereby directed to calculate the service and fix the pension of Patna High Court CWJC No.17922 of 2017 dt.30-01-2023 4/5 the respondents and calculate and release the amount within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, they are entitled to interest on belated settlement of retiral benefits like pension etc.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents at this juncture submitted that for the purpose of extending gratuity amount the entire service is required to be counted for the purpose of calculating gratuity amount in the light of the Apex Court's decision in the case of Netram Sahu vs. State of Chattisgarh and Anr., reported in, (2018) 5 SCC 430. In this regard, the concerned petitioner is hereby directed to take note of service particulars of the respondents read with the aforementioned decision namely Netram Sahu vs. State of Chattisgarh and Anr. (supra) and proceed to pass speaking order, if the respondents are not entitled to count 100% casual/temporary status service for the purpose of gratuity, if they are otherwise eligible in terms of the decision in the case of Netram Sahu vs. State of Chattisgarh and Anr. (supra), in that event, necessary calculation shall be made to the extent that they are entitled to count 100% service towards grant of gratuity. Irrespective of entitlement of 100% or 50% for the time being, the concerned petitioner is hereby directed to extend 50% of service as a Patna High Court CWJC No.17922 of 2017 dt.30-01-2023 5/5 casual or temporary status for the purpose of gratuity, thereafter re-determine as to whether 100% service as a casual/temporary status could be counted for the purpose of granting gratuity or not? In this regard, necessary decision shall be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order and communicate the decision to the respective respondent at the earliest.
8. The writ petition stands disposed of.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J) ( Arun Kumar Jha, J) Ashish/Daya/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 03.02.2023 Transmission Date