Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Ram Ashray Singh vs Union Of India on 18 January, 2023
Bench: M.R. Shah, Hima Kohli
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 409 OF 2023
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10559/2019)
RAM ASHRAY SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Delay in filing the application for Substitution is condoned. Abatement is set aside. Application for Substitution is allowed.
2. Leave granted.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 28.01.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6291/2016, by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna [for short “the Tribunal”] dated 21.12.2015 passed in O.A. No. 050/00348/2014, refusing to consider the past services rendered by the original writ petitioner for the period between 1967-1998 for the purpose of pension, the original applicant (now through his heirs) have preferred the present Appeal.
4. The original applicant approached the Tribunal seeking a prayer to count the services rendered by him for the period between Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2023.01.21 27.06.1967 up to 1998 rendered as a Manager, Central Cooperative 12:32:40 IST Reason:
Society (CCS) Canteen, Eastern Railway, Gaya for the purpose of pensionable service. However, the DRM. and thereafter, the 2 Tribunal refused to count the services rendered as a Manager, CCS Canteen, Eastern Railway, Gaya rendered for the period between 1967-1998 for the purpose of pension mainly on the ground that the applicant was not appointed on a substantive post of the Railway and that he served in a quasi administrative body, which cannot be said to be part of the Railway.
5. The learned Tribunal observed that, in the absence of any specific rule and/or notification, the services rendered in the canteen cannot be counted for the purpose of pensionable service.
The judgment and order passed by the Tribunal has been affirmed by the High Court, by the impugned judgment and order.
6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that, as such, the Division Bench of the High Court except reproducing some paragraphs of the Tribunal has not stated anything on merits and has not given any independent findings. The manner in which the Division Bench of the High Court has disposed of the writ petition, we disapprove the same.
7. Now, insofar as the merits of the case is concerned, right from very beginning in the O.A., it was the specific case on behalf of the original applicant that he was appointed as a Manager, CCS Canteen, Eastern Railway, Gaya on 27.06.1967 and continuously worked up to 1998. The same was not specifically disputed by the Railways. In the counter, in fact, there is no specific case on behalf of the Railways, that he has not rendered any service for the period between 27.06.1967 till 1998, as averred in the original application. The only case on behalf of the Railways was that the Department/Canteen in which the original applicant was serving 3 cannot be said to be working on a substantive post and was not under the control of the Railways and therefore, his earlier services cannot be counted for the purpose of pensionable service. However, it is required to be noted that it was not the case on behalf of the Railways that the canteen in which the appellant- original applicant was serving was not a non-statutory recognized canteen.
8) In the case of M.M.R. Khan and Others vs. Union of India and Others, 1990 (Supp) SCC 191, it is observed and held by this Court that the Railway Canteen workers working in the statutory/non- statutory recognized canteens can be said to be serving under the control of the Railways and their past services is to be counted for the purpose of pension. Even thereafter, a Circular has been issued by the Railway Board dated 27.03.2001 drawing the attention of the General Managers, All Indian Railways and Production Units to count the services rendered by the employees in statutory and non-statutory canteens for the purpose of pension.
9) Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and in absence of any specific denial on the part of the Railways that the original applicant had not served in the non- statutory non-recognized canteen, the services rendered by the original applicant for the period between 1967 to 1998 is to be counted for the purpose of pension.
10) Under the circumstances and considering the fact that the original applicant was denied the pension solely on the ground that he has not completed 10 years pensionable service, considering the services rendered by him for the period between 1998 to 2006 i.e. 8 4 years, 2 months and 17 days and applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of M.M.R. Khan and Others (supra) and, in the peculiar facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the original applicant shall be entitled to the pensionary benefits by counting the services rendered by him for the period 1967 to 1998. If the services rendered by the original applicant for the period between 1967 to 1998 is counted for the purpose of pension, then it can be said that the original applicant has completed 10 years of pensionable service and therefore, the original applicant and on his death, his family members shall be entitled to the pension in accordance with law.
11) In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court as well as that of the Tribunal are, hereby, quashed and set aside. It is held that the original applicant shall be entitled to pension counting the earlier services rendered by him for the period between 1967 up to 1998 for the purpose of pension only.
The present Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. No costs. The arrears shall be paid now by the Railways to the heirs of the original applicant within a period of eight weeks from today.
...........................J (M.R. SHAH) ...........................J (HIMA KOHLI) New Delhi;
January 18, 2023
5
ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.4 SECTION XVI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 10559/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-01-2017 in CWJC No. 6291/2016 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Patna) RAM ASHRAY SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 18-01-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Arup Banerjee, AOR Mr. Prakash Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Adv.
Mrs. Prakrati Raj, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mrs. Madhvi Divan, A.S.G. Mr. S.K. Tyagi, Adv.
Mr. Ayush Puri, Adv.
Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Aakanksha Kaul, Adv.
Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay in filing the application for Substitution is condoned. Abatement is set aside. Application for Substitution is allowed. Leave granted.
The present Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(R. NATARAJAN) (NISHA TRIPATHI)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)