Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Raju I vs M/O Railways on 14 November, 2018
1 OA No. 180/00793/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No.180/00793/2017
Date of decision 14.11.2018
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Judicial Member
I. Raju, (retd)
S/o Isthaq, Kaleel Vadakkathil,
North Mailakkad, kannanellor P.O.
Quilon. ..... Applicant
(By Advocate - Mr.Siby J. Monippally )
Versus
1. Union of India rep by
General Manager, Southern Railway,
Chennai 600 003.
2. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway, Trivandrum Division,
Trivandrum 695 014. ..... Respondents
(By Advocate - Mr.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil)
This Original Application having been heard on 14.11.2018, the Tribunal on the
same day delivered the following in open court:
O R D E R (ORAL)
The applicant seeks the following reliefs:
a) To declare that the applicant is entitled to count his services from 21/5/1978 to 30/10/1984 shall be reckoned for all benefits including pension.
AND
b) To direct the respondents to draw the pension in accordance with prayer A.
c) Grant such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.
2. Applicant is aggrieved by the denial of the benefits arising out of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar & Ors. and Railway Board orders. The applicant has entered the service of the Railways in 1978 as Moppila Khalasi and he was granted temporary status w.e.f. 18.2.1995. His services were 2 OA No. 180/00793/2017 regularised on 25.2.1997. Thereafter the applicant retired from service on 31.12.2014. The applicant has also produced casual labour certificate annexed to the Original Application as Annexe A.1 It is further submitted that the grievance of the applicant is that his service from 21.5.1978 to 31.10.1984 is not reckoned for the purpose of pension. Applicant has submitted representations for reckoning those services as casual labour for pensionary benefits and other service benefits also relying upon the aforementioned judgement passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
3. Notices were issued to the respondents. Respondent put their appearance and filed detailed reply statement opposing the claim of the applicant.
4. The respondents contended that the applicant was initially appointed as Casual Labourer and after having completed 120 days continuous service, he was granted temporary status w.e.f. 18.02.1995 and subsequently on 25.2.1997 he was regularised. He is having total qualifying service of 18.5. years and pension was granted accordingly. It is submitted by the respondents that applicant has not produced any proof that he has worked as a casual labour.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he may be given liberty to file a representation to the respondents with regard to his casual labour employment for which the respondents have no objection. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the right of applicant entails from the decision of the Ho'ble Apex Court in the matter of UOI vs. Rakeshkumar (supra). In view of this, the applicant is given liberty to approach once again the respondents with a detailed representation with proof of working as casual labour with the respondents within thirty days from today. . The respondent department may consider and pass a speaking order within 90 days from the date of receipt of a fresh representation from the applicant.
6. O.A. is disposed of with the above observation and direction. No order as to costs.
(ASHISH KALIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER sj* 3 OA No. 180/00793/2017 List of Annexures of the Applicant in O.A. No. 180/00793/2017 Annexure A-1 A Photostat copy of the Service Certificate dated 31.12.2014.
**********************