Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
C S Gopalakrishnan Nair vs Pensions And Pensioners Welfare on 9 May, 2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application Nos. 180/00115/2022, 180/0118/2022,
180/00179/2022 and 180/00222/2022
Tuesday, this the 9th day of May, 2023.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
O.A.No.115 of 2022
C.S.Gopalakrishnan Nair
S/o .Late C.S.Sivaraman Nair
Aged 82 years, Assistant Commissioner of
Central Excise &Customs (Retd.)
Residing at "Nenmelil Gokulam'
Jawan Cross Road, AIMS Ponekara P.O.
Cochin-682041(Mob:9388607120)
(email:[email protected]) - Applicant
[By Party in Person]
Versus
1. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary
Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare
Lok Nayak Bhavan, New Delhi-110003
2. Chief Controller of Accounts
Central Pension Accounting Office
Trikoot-II, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
3. Pay and Accounts Officer, Central Excise
Central Revenue Buildings, I.S.Press Road
Cochin-682018
4. Chief Commissioner of Central Taxes and Customs
Central Revenue Building, I.S. Press Road, Cochin -682018
5. The Manager, Union Bank of India
Centralized Pension Processing Centre
7th Floor, Central Office UBI 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg
N Point, Mumbai-400021 - Respondents
[By Advocate : Ms. Sheela Devi I for R1 to R4]
O.A Nos.115/2022, 118/2022,179/2022 and 222/2022 2
O.A.No.118 of 2022
K.V.Vijaya Raghavan, aged 86 Years
S/o K.P.V.Rama Marar, (Retired Chief Yard Master
Southern Railway, Palghat Division, Palghat)
Residing at: No.2-1-F(4), Keshava Chowta Nagar
Hosabettu P.O., Kulai, Mangalore 575 019, Karnataka.
Mob: 98456 91153 - Applicant
[By Advocates: Mr. T.C.Govindaswamy, Ms. Kala T Gopi]
Versus
1. Union of India represented by The General Manager
Southern Railway, Headquarters Office, Park Town.P.O.
Chennai-600 003.
2. The Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer
Southern Railway, Headquarters Office, Park Town.P.O.
Chennai-600 003.
3. The Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway
Palghat Division, Palghat - 678 002.
4. Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Southern Railway
Palghat Division, Palghat - 678 002. - Respondents
[By Advocate : Mr.S.Ramesh, ACGSC
O.A.No.179 of 2022
P.Vittal Nayak, aged 84 Years, S/o, Aithappa Naik
(Retired Assistant Commercial Manager
Southern Railway, Palghat Division, Palghat)
Residing at: C/o P Lakshmi, Lakshmi Nilaya
Pandyadka, PP VII No.16, Post Kayaru
Uppala - 671 322, Kasaragod
Kerala. Mob: 94480 10073 - Applicant
[By Advocates: Mr. T.C.Govindaswamy, Ms. Kala T Gopi]
O.A Nos.115/2022, 118/2022,179/2022 and 222/2022 3
Versus
1. Union of India represented by
The General Manager, Southern Railway
Headquarters Office, Park Town.P.O.
Chennai-600 003.
2. The Financial Advisor and
Chief Accounts Officer, Southern Railway
Headquarters Office
Park Town.P.O. Chennai-600 003. - Respondents
[By Advocate : Mrs. O.M.Shalina, SCGSC]
O.A.No.222 of 2022
V.Ramachandran Nair, aged 80 Years
S/o, A.K.V.Nair, Retired Foreman
(earlier designation - Divisional
Electrical Foreman), Bilaspur Division
South East Central Railway, Chattisgarh
PIN- 495 004) Residing at: No.13/B
AMITY PARK, Skyline Apartments
Near Changampuzha Park, Edappally
Kochi - 682 024. Mob: 94476 54399
Email: [email protected] - Applicant
[By Advocates: Mr. T.C.Govindaswamy, Ms.Kala T. Gopi]
Versus
1. Union of India represented by The
General Manager, South East
Central Railway, Headquarters Office
Bilaspur-495 004, Chattisgarh.
2. The Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer,
South East Central Railway,
Headquarters Office, Bilaspur- 495 004, Chattisgarh.
O.A Nos.115/2022, 118/2022,179/2022 and 222/2022 4
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer
South East Central Railway, Headquarters Office
Bilaspur-495 004, Chattisgarh.
4. The Senior Divisional Finance Manager
South East Central Railway, Headquarters Office,
Bilaspur-495 004, Chattisgarh.
5. The Manager, State Bank of India
Centralised Pension Processing Centre
Ganapathy Kovil Road, Vazhuthakadu,
Trivandrum - 695 014.
6. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India
Metro Station Branch, M.G.Road
Ernakulam, Cochin - 682 011. - Respondents
[By Advocate : Mrs. O.M.Shalina, SCGSC for R1 to R4
Ms. V.K.Hema, Ms.Arunima N.R., Ms.Jennifer C.M.
for R5 & R6]
The applications having been heard on 20.02.2023, the Tribunal
on 09.05.2023 passed the following:
COMMON ORDER
Since common questions arise for consideration, all these four Original Applications were tagged, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. O.A.115/2022 is filed by Sri.C.S.Gopalakrishnan Nair, a senior member of this Bar, who has appeared in person; he is a retired Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, retired from service on 31.07.1997 at the age of 58 years. It was a voluntary retirement. His date of birth is 21.07.1939. The applicant submits that on account of Annexures-A2 and A3 O.M.s dated 04.08.2016 and 12.05.2017, O.A Nos.115/2022, 118/2022,179/2022 and 222/2022 5 pensioners are entitled to get enhanced rate of pension at the age of 80 years, 85 years, 90 years, 95 years and 100 years in the fixed slab, as provided in the Original Application. Accordingly, a pensioner is entitled to get 20% additional quantum of pension from 80 years to less than 85 years. Similarly, from 85 years to less than 90 years he is entitled to get additional pension of 30%, from 90 years to less than 95 years 40% additional pension, from 95 years to less than 100 years 50% extra pension and from 100 years or more 100% of additional pension. According to him, he is entitled to get additional pension from the beginning of the month he entered to the age of 80 years, that is from July 2018 onwards. However, the respondents granted him 20% additional quantum of pension only from July 2019, which is illegal and against the decision of the Gauhati High Court in Virendra Dutt Gyani v. Union of India and others (WP(C) No.4224/2016 dated 15.03.2018), which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said decision of the Gauhati High Court was rendered based on a decision of the Karnataka High Court in Siddangouda Shivabasanagouda Ayyangouda v. Principal Accountant General (A&E) decided on 03.09.2014. Even though the applicant made a representation, that has not been considered at all. Therefore, he seeks a declaration that he is eligible for additional pension of 20% with effect from July 2018, the month in which he entered 80th year of age and to direct the respondents O.A Nos.115/2022, 118/2022,179/2022 and 222/2022 6 to grant him benefits including arrears within a time frame.
3. In O.A.118/2022 applicant Sri.K.V.Vijaya Raghavan is now 86 years old. He retired from Southern Railway as Chief Yard Master on 31.01.1990 voluntarily. His date of birth is 15.03.1936. According to him, he is entitled to get additional pension of 20% on entering 80 th year from 16.08.2015, but was granted the same only from 01.08.2016, which is illegal. Therefore, he apprehends that the second enhancement, that is on entering 85th year will be granted only from 16.08.2020, that means on entering 85th year, he should be paid the second enhancement from 16.08.2020, but given the earlier experience he may get it only from 01.08.2021, which is illegal. So, he seeks a declaration that he is entitled to get 20% enhancement from 16.08.2015 and the 2 nd additional pension with effect from 16.08.2020.
4. The applicant in O.A.179/2022 Sri. Vittal Nayak is now 84 years old who retired from Southern Railway as Assistant Commercial Manager on 06.10.1989 voluntarily. His date of birth is 15.05.1938. He entered 80th year on 16.05.2017 and 85th year on 16.05.2022, but he was granted the first enhancement only from 01.05.2018. Given this experience his second enhancement will be granted only from 01.05.2023, which is bad. Therefore, he also wants a declaration that he is entitled to get additional quantum pension from 16.05.2017 and 16.05.2022 respectively.
O.A Nos.115/2022, 118/2022,179/2022 and 222/2022 7
5. The applicant in O.A. 222/2022 Sri.V.Ramachandran Nair is a retired Foreman from South East Central Railway. He retired voluntarily on 15.01.1984. His date of birth is 01.08.1942 and according to him, he is entitled to get the first enhancement of 20% on entering 80 th year from 01.08.2021 but was not granted the same and given the known stand of the respondents is not apprehending that it would be given only from 01.08.2022, which is illegal. He contends that it should be granted from 01.08.2021. Therefore, he seeks a declaration that he is entitled to have his quantum pension of 20% with effect from 01.08.2021 and to grant him all the consequential benefits with arrears.
6. The respondents, though represented through different Standing Counsel, have taken almost uniform stand. The respondents 1 to 4 in O.A.115/2022 are represented by Smt.Sheela Devi, Senior Panel Counsel. According to the respondents, the applicants are not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. From Annexure-R4(a) O.M. dated 01.09.2008 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pensions and Pensioners' Welfare, it is revealed that such an enhancement can be granted only on attaining the age of 80 years, and therefore, the reliefs claimed for are not allowable. This stand has been reiterated and clarified in Annexures-R4(b) and R4(c) office memoranda dated 03.10.2008 and 11.08.2009. Moreover, from Rule 44 (6) of the CCS(Pension) Rules also it is very clear that such retired O.A Nos.115/2022, 118/2022,179/2022 and 222/2022 8 pensioners are entitled to get enhancement only on attaining the ages of 80, 85 90 etc. as the case may be.
7. Smt. O.M.Shalina, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel has filed reply statements in all the other three cases. According to the respondents, the Gauhati High Court judgment is not applicable to the facts of the case. That was rendered in the context of Section 17B of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 which is not applicable to the applicants. They are governed either by CCS(Pension) Rules or the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, as the case may be. Moreover, the office memoranda issued by the Nodal Ministry have been adopted by the Railways, so that even before the passing of the judgment of the Gauhati High Court, it was clarified that such enhancement can be granted only on completing the age of 80 years, 85 years, 90 years etc., as the case may be, that merely entering the age of 80, 85 etc. is not sufficient. Such clarificatory directions are valid and the relevant office memoranda are binding on the respondents and therefore they are not entitled to get any relief. In O.A.179/2022 they have taken a plea that in the absence of the nodal Ministry in the array of parties, the O.A. is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties also.
8. I heard the applicant in O.A.115/2022 who appeared as party- in-person, learned counsel for the applicants in the other O.A.s and the learned Standing Counsel very elaborately. After hearing counsel on both O.A Nos.115/2022, 118/2022,179/2022 and 222/2022 9 sides, I am convinced that the applicants are not entitled to get any relief.
9. Before going into the merits, it is appropriate to state that even though the respondents have given very elaborate and detailed replies to the Original Applications, the applicants did not file any rejoinder. Even though it is not mandatory, they made it clear that they are not intending to file any rejoinder. That means, their versions in writing, after filing the replies are not available. However, from the arguments of the party-in-person and the learned counsel, it is clear that they are sticking on to the stand taken in the Original Applications.
10. It is true that the decision in Virendra Dutt Gyani, quoted supra, stands confirmed by the Supreme Court in the SLP. All the same, as rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel Smt.Shalina, such a decision was rendered in the background of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, on interpretation of the provisions in Section 17(B) of the Act. But after the said decision, it has become clear that the Ministry of Law and Justice has issued an explanation to Section 17(B) of the Act has been incorporated by way of amendment. It is true that in the original Section, after Section 17(B), it was stated that a retired Judge or a family pensioner is entitled to get 20% of enhancement of basic pension of family pension from 80 years to less than 85 years. On interpretation of the provision a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court held that, that has to be interpreted as the date O.A Nos.115/2022, 118/2022,179/2022 and 222/2022 10 from which he enters 80th year and that he need not complete 80th year. In other words, if he completes 79 years and enters 80 th year of age, from that day onwards he is entitled to get 20% enhancement in pension. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, such a decision has been rendered in the context of Section 17(B) of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. Now by notification dated 18.12.2021, an explanation has been added to Section 17(B), which reads thus:
"Explanation: --For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that any entitlement for additional quantum of pension or family pension shall be, and shall be deemed always to have been, from the first day of the month in which the pensioner or family pensioner completes the age specified in the first column of the scale."
That means, such an enhancement of 20%, 30% etc. will be available only if the retired Judge attains 80 years or 85 years etc., as the case may be. In other words, the decision in Virendra Dutt Gyani case stands nullified or set at naught by the amendment brought to Section 17B by way of explanation.
11. As rightly argued, the decision in Virendra Dutt Gyani has been rendered in the context of Section 17B of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, whereas the applicants are governed by either CCS(Pension) Rules or the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, as the case may be, and the provisions of the High Court Judges O.A Nos.115/2022, 118/2022,179/2022 and 222/2022 11 Act are not applicable to them. Secondly and more importantly, by the amendment dated 18.12.2021 by the incorporation of the explanation it has become very clear that a retired High Court judge is entitled to get enhancement only on completing the age of 80 years, 85 years, 90 years etc. as the case may be. Therefore, the said ground is not supporting the contentions of the applicant.
12. Even otherwise, documents produced by the respondents clearly indicate that the provisions in CCS(Pension) Rules and the clarificatory office memoranda clearly indicate that the applicants are entitled to get enhancement of 20%, 30% etc. only on completing the age of 80 years, 85 years etc. In this connection, it is very important to note that the decision in Virendra Dutt Gyani was rendered by the Gauhati High Court on 15.03.2018 and the Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP on 08.07.2019. I have already observed that those decisions or the context in which the said decisions were rendered are not applicable to the applicants who are governed either by the CCS (Pension) Rules or by the Railway Services (Pension) Rules. In this connection, it is important to note that Annexure -R4(a) Office memorandum dated 01.09.2008 in O.A.115/2022, where directions have been issued with regard to the implementation of the Government's decision on the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission. Paragraph 4.5 deals with the quantum of pension/family pension available to the old pensioners/family O.A Nos.115/2022, 118/2022,179/2022 and 222/2022 12 pensioners enhancement. The table is given. Then it is stated thus:
"The amount of additional pension will be shown distinctly in the Pension Payment Order. For example, in case where a pensioner is more than 80 years of age and his/her consolidated pension in terms of paragraph 4.1 and 4.2 above is Rs.10,000/-pm, the pension will be shown as, (i) basic pension= Rs.10,000/- and (ii) additional pension= Rs.2,000/- pm. The pension on his/her attaining the age of 85 years will be shown as, (i) basic pension= Rs.10,000/- and (ii) additional pension= Rs.3,000/- pm."
That means, it is very clear that even prior to the interpretation made by the Gauhati High Court, on 01.09.2008, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department had clarified that such enhancement shall be given only if a person is more than 80 years or he attains the respective age, as the case may be. Annexure-R4(b) O.M. dated 03.10.2008, which is also clarificatory in nature, where regarding the quantum pension, clarification has been given in second column thus:
"(i) the additional quantum of pension/family pension, on attaining the age of 80 yeas and above, would be admissible from the 1st day of the month in which his date of birth falls. For example, if a personer/family pensioner completes age of 80 years on any date in the month of August 2008, he will be entitled to additional pension/family pension with effect from 01.08.2008.
Those pensioners/family pensioners, whose date of birth is 1 st August, will also be entitled to additional pension/family pension with effect from 01.08.2008 on attaining the age of 80 years and above."
O.A Nos.115/2022, 118/2022,179/2022 and 222/2022 13
13. Further in Annexure-R4(c) the point is made further clear. Paragraph 4 of Annexure-R4(c) O.M. dated 11.08.2009 reads thus:
" 4. Some doubts have been expressed regarding the date from which the additional pension is to be made effective. In this connection, attention is invited to the clarifications issued vide this department's O.M. of even No. dated 03.10.2008 (Annexure- R4(b)). It is reiterated that the additional quantum of pension/family pension would be admissible from the 1 st day of the month in which the date of birth falls, only on completion of the age of 80 years, 85 years etc. (and not in the beginning of the 80th year, 85th year etc.). All references/representations received in this respect stand\s disposed of accordingly."
14. In other words, all these clarifications under office memoranda were issued long before the rendering of judgment by the Gauhati High Court in Virendra Dutt Gyani, quoted supra. That means, dehors Virendra Dutt Gyani, even prior to that, the Nodal Department and the Ministries had considered this aspect in great detail and clarified that it is not the commencement of the year, that is important, but attaining the age of 80 years, 85 years etc. Therefore, much more clarifications are not warranted.
15. Adding to the above, as rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, Rule 44(6) of the CCS(Pension) Rules also is very important, which reads thus:
"(6) After completion of eighty years of age or above by a retired O.A Nos.115/2022, 118/2022,179/2022 and 222/2022 14 Government servant, in addition to a pension or a compassionate allowance admissible under this rule, additional pension or additional compassionate allowance shall be payable to the retired Government servant in the following manner, namely: -
Sl.No. Age of pensioner Additional pension/ additional compassionate allowance (1) (2) (3)
(i) From 80 years to less 20% of basic pension/ compassionate than 85 years allowance
(ii) From 85 years to less 30% of basic pension/ compassionate than 90 years allowance
(iii) From 90 years to less 40% of basic pension/ compassionate than 95 years allowance
(iv) From 95 years to less 50% of basic pension/ compassionate than 100 years allowance
(v) 100 years or more 100% of basic pension/ compassionate allowance
(b) The additional pension or additional compassionate allowance shall be payable from first day of the calendar month in which it falls due.
Illustration: A pensioner born on 20 th August, 1942 shall be eligible for additional pension at the rate of twenty percent of the basic pension with effect from 1st August, 2022. A pensioner born on 1st August, 1942 shall also be eligible for additional pension at the rate of twenty percent of the basic pension with effect from 1st August, 2022."
These office memoranda, which are clarificatory in nature, and the provisions are very clear, so that there is little doubt that the applicants are not entitled to get such reliefs:
16. I have also come across the fact that the Railways has adopted all the relevant office memoranda much before the rendering of O.A Nos.115/2022, 118/2022,179/2022 and 222/2022 15 the judgment by the Gauhati High Court. In other words, even if we accept that the judgment in Gauhati High Court is in force and subsequent amendment is ignored, still in the light of Rule 44(6) of the CCS(Pension) Rules and also various office memoranda issued much before the judgment in Virendra Dutt Gyani, the applicants are not entitled to get the benefit from the date entering the 80 th year or 85th year, as the case may be. They have to complete the age of 80, 85 or 90, as the case may be, for getting quantum pension as provided in the Rules and the office memoranda.
17. I also notice that there is absolutely nothing opposed to the Rules in the office memorandum. It is clarificatory in nature. The intention of the Ministry is very clear. Such an enhancement is intended for octogenarians and above. They cannot be granted relief from the date as claimed by them.
18. The contentions raised by the respondents are formidable. The applicants are not entitled to get any relief. They have approached this Tribunal on experimental basis.
All the Original Applications are dismissed. No cost.
(Dated, this the 9th May, 2023.) JUSTICE K. HARIPAL JUDICIAL MEMBER ds O.A Nos.115/2022, 118/2022,179/2022 and 222/2022 16 List of Annexures O.A.No.115 of 2022 Annexure A1. True copy of the PPO No. 51408/97/0030/3 Annexure A2. True copy of the OM No.38/37/2016 P&PW(A)(i) dt:4.8.2016 issued by the 1st respondent Annexure A3. True copy of the OM No.38/37/2016 P&PW(A) dt:12.5.2017 was issued by the 1st respondent Annexure A4. True copy of the judgment in No.4224/2016 dt:15.3.2018 of the Hon;ble High Court of Gauhati Annexure A5. True copy of the SLP(Civil) Diary No.18133/2019 dt:8.7.2019 Annexure A6. True copy of the representation dt: 18.10.2021 Annexure-R4(a): True copy of the O.M.No.38/37/08/-P&PW (A) dated 01.09.2008 issued by the 1st respondent.
Annexure-R4(b): True copy of the O.M.No.38/37/08/-P&PW (A) pt.1 dated 03.10.2008 issued by the 1st respondent.
Annexure-R4(c): True copy of the O.M.No.38/37/08/-P&PW (A) dated 11.08.2009 issued by the 1st respondent.
Annexure-R4(d): True copy of the amended Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules' 2021 issued by the 1st respondent. O.A.No.118 of 2022 Annexure A1: A true copy of the P.P.O. bearing No.19907060500086 dated 12.06.2020, issued by the 4th respondent. Annexure A2: A true copy of the judgment of Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in W.P.(C) No.4224/2016, in Virendra Dutt Gyani vs. Union of India and others, dated 15.03.2018. Annexure A3: A true copy of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgement in SLP (C) Dy.No.18133/2019 by order dated 08.07.2019. O.A Nos.115/2022, 118/2022,179/2022 and 222/2022 17 Annexure A4: A true copy of the representation dated 10.10.2020 submitted by the applicant.
Annexure-A5: A true copy of Railway Board order bearing RBE No.105/2008, dated 08.09.2008.
Annexure R1:- True copy of the Railway Board Establishment No.99/2016 dated 12.08.2016 O.A.No.179 of 2022 Annexure A1: A true copy of the P.P.O. bearing No.0601205547 dated 11.04.1990, issued by the 2nd respondent.
Annexure A2: A true copy of the P.P.O. bearing No.19897060100030 dated 25.10.2017, issued by the 2nd respondent. Annexure A3: A true copy of the judgment of Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in W.P.(C) No.4224/2016, in Virendra Dutt Gyani vs. Union of India and others, dated 15.03.2018. Annexure A4: A true copy of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgement in SLP (C) Dy.No.18133/2019 by order dated 08.07.2019. Annexure A5: A true copy of the representation dated 10.10.2020 submitted by the applicant.
Annexure-A6: A true copy of Railway Board order bearing RBE No.105/2008, dated 08.09.2008.
Annexure R1(A): True copy of the High Court and Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Amendment Act, 2021 (Act 44 of 2021) notified on 18.12.2021.
Annexure R1(B): True copy of the RBE No.112/2008 dated 15.09.2008 issued by the Railway Board.
Annexure R1(C): True copy of the RBE No.146/2008 dated 08.10.2008 issued by the Railway Board Annexure R1(D): True copy of the RBE No.149/2008 dated 10.10.2008 issued by the Railway Board O.A Nos.115/2022, 118/2022,179/2022 and 222/2022 18 O.A.No.222 of 2022 Annexure A1: A true copy of the P.P.O. Bearing No.19847340200135 dated 10.10.2018, issued by the 2nd respondent.
Annexure A2: A true copy of the judgment of Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in W.P.(C) No.4224/2016, in Virendra Dutt Gyani vs. Union of India and others, dated 15.03.2018.
Annexure A3: A true copy of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgement in SLP (C) Dy.No.18133/2019 by order dated 08.07.2019.
Annexure A4: A true copy of the representation dated 02.08.2021 submitted by the applicant Annexure A5: A true copy of Railway Board order bearing RBE No.105/2008, dated 08.09.2008.
Annexure R1(A): True copy of the High Court and Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Amendment Act, 2021 (Act 44 of 2021) notified on 18.12.2021 Annexure R1(B): True copy of the Railway Board's letter dated 08.09.2008 Annexure R1(C): True copy of the RBE No.112/2008 dated 15.09.2008 Annexure R1(D): True copy of the Railway Board's letter (RBE No.146/2008) dated 08.10.2008.
Annexure R1(E): True copy the RBE No.149/2008 dated 10.10.2008 **********