Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Manash Sarkar vs Union Of India Through on 17 January, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.665/2011 This the 17th day of January, 2012 Honble Shri M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) Honble Smt. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A) Shri Manash Sarkar s/o Shri Makhan Lal (aged 55 years) Welder Working under Northern Railway Signal Workshop Ghaziabad (UP) r/o 409-D Arya Nagar Railway Colony, Ghaziabad ..Applicant (By Advocates: Shri B S Mainee and Ms. Meenu Mainee) Versus Union of India through 1. General Manager Northern Railway Headquarters Office Baroda House, New Delhi 2. Divisional Railway Manager Northern Railway Divisional Office State Entry Road, New Delhi 3. Chief Works Manager Northern Railway Signal Workshop Ghaziabad ..Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Shailendra Tiwary) O R D E R
Shri M.L. Chauhan:
The applicant has filed the present OA, thereby praying that the respondents may be directed to extend the benefit of the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad, AP & another v. Shaik Abdul Khader (WP No.10837 of 2001) decided on 23.6.2003 and also the decisions of this Tribunal in Shri Chander Pal & another v. Union of India & another (OA-1502/2005) decided on 16.2.2006 and Chotan Parshad & others v. Union of India & others (OA-2006/2006) decided on 18.3.2008 and also to take into consideration even the period of temporary status for the purpose of qualifying service and 50% period working before acquisition of temporary status.
2. Notice of this application was given to the respondents, who have filed their reply affidavit wherein it has been stated that the judgment in the matter of Chander Pal (supra) has been challenged by the respondent-department before the High Court of Delhi by filing W.P. (C) Nos.9458-59/2006 and the High Court was pleased to stay the operation of the aforesaid judgment and now the matter is pending adjudication.
3. It is further stated that in the stay order dated 20.9.2006 passed in the aforesaid writ petitions, the High Court has clearly directed that As an interim measure Respondent shall, however, be entitled to pension on the basis of computation of 50% of the period during temporary service for computing the qualifying service.
4. The respondents have also annexed a copy of the stay order dated 20.9.2006 passed in the aforesaid writ petitions as Annexure R-1. Thus, the respondents have stated that in view of the aforesaid interim order dated 20.9.2006 passed by the High Court in the aforementioned writ petitions, as also in terms of Railway Boards instructions dated 28.11.1986 regarding counting of the period of service of project casual labours after their attainment of temporary status as qualifying service for pensionary benefits, the applicant is entitled to pension on the basis of counting of 50% of the period rendered during temporary status service for computing qualifying service. It is on the basis of these averments, the respondents opposed the claim of the applicant.
5. The applicant has filed rejoinder affidavit whereby it has been stated that the writ petitions filed by the applicant in Chander Pals case (supra) have already been dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 28.1.2008.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We are of the view that the controversy in issue is covered by the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Shaik Abdul Khaders case (supra) as well as the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Chander Pals case (supra) dated 28.1.2008. At this stage, it will be useful to quote the relevant portion of the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Chander Pal (supra), which has been passed based upon the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and thus reads:-
Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that one of the questions arising for consideration in these writ petitions is whether the service rendered by an employee with temporary status is to be counted for purposes of fixation of his pension and other benefits on his being regularized.
We may note that the Central Administrative Tribunal had answered this question in the affirmative relying upon the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in the case of Shaik Abdul Kahder Vs. Union of India. The writ petition filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, had been dismissed and the SLP preferred by the Railways had also been dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner had sought to contend that the SLP had been dismissed as withdrawn on humanitarian grounds. The Court had the occasion to consider this while disposing of writ petition bearing WP(C) No.631-33/2006 and noted that the order passed by the Supreme Court did not contain any such indication of the SLP being withdrawn on humanitarian grounds. Accordingly, the Review Petition filed being Review Petition No.360-2007 in WP(C) No.631-33/2006 was dismissed. Another Coordinate Bench of this Court, following the aforesaid writ petition, had dismissed WP(C) No.2528/2007. Mr. Dateer raises an objection that the claims of applicants before the Tribunal i.e., respondents in the writ petition are premature, as they have not yet retired. Ms. Meenu Maini, on the other hand, informs us that substantial number of applicants i.e., respondents in the writ petitions before us have already retired and others are at the verge of retirement. In these circumstances, the plea sought to be raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is wholly devoid of merit.
In these circumstances, following the aforesaid two judgments of the High court in the aforesaid two writ petitions being Review Petition No.360/2007 in WP(C)No.631-33/2006 and WP(C)No.2528/2007, the present writ petitions are also dismissed.
7. In view of what has been stated above, we are of the view that the applicant herein has made out a case for grant of relief. Accordingly, for parity of reasons given in the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter of Shaik Abdul Khader (supra), this OA is allowed in the same terms. However, before parting with the matter, it may be observed that the learned counsel for applicant has drawn our attention to Railway Boards circular dated 25.2.2010 based upon another circular dated 4.12.2009, which stipulates that for the purpose of extension of the benefit of MACP Scheme, 50% of temporary status casual labour service on absorption in regular employment may be taken into account. Suffice it to observe that here we are not concerned with the extension of benefits of MACP Scheme but the case of the applicant is regarding taking into consideration the full period of temporary status for counting of qualifying service instead of 50% of the period for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for the purpose of MACP Scheme.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the OA shall stand disposed of. No costs.
( Smt. Manjulika Gautam ) ( M L Chauhan ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/