K.K. Sathyan vs Union Of India & Others

P. Madhavan, Member J

This is an Original Application filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:

“I) To call for the records leading to Annexure A10 and A11 and set aside the same to the extent of excluding the applicant from Statutory Pension Scheme.

II) Direct the respondents to accept Annexure A9 option submitted by the applicant and include the applicant under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 and grant him the benefits.

III) Declare that the applicant is entitled for statutory pension.

IV) Declare that Annexure A6 OM and A7 Railway Board Circular does not discriminate between RRB candidates and employees recruited through other selection process.

V) Such other reliefs as may be prayed for and this Tribunal may deem fit to grant.

VI) Grant the cost of this Original Application.”

The applicant in this case is working as Track Maintainer-II. He was empanelled for appointment to Group-D service as per notification issued by the respondent No. 2 in the year 2003. He was included as serial No. 2338 in the live register of casual labourers in Trivandrum Division. The proceedings for selection started as per Annexure R3 dated 3.7.2003 and the applicant was asked to report before the Divisional Office on 21.7.2003 with necessary documents for regularization. The applicant was appointed as per Annexure A1 only on 11.10.2004. According to the applicant he is entitled to get enrolled in the Old Pension Scheme as per Annexure A6 OM issued by the Government of India and accepted by the Railway Board vide Annexure A7. However, the respondents rejected the option filed by the applicant stating that the OM applies to RRB recruited candidates.

The respondents filed a detailed reply statement denying the allegations. According to them, the OM issued is only applicable to those persons who are appointed by a common selection process. The OM is not applicable to the applicant.

The applicant filed a rejoinder stating that similarly situated employees were extended the benefit of Annexure A2 judgment in WP© No. 23757/2010 (S) - Union of India & Ors. v. C. Devadhasan & Ors. dated 21.12.2016. The applicant herein has also given a representation to the respondents to treat his regularization w.e.f. 3.11.2003. But the respondents rejected the same vide Annexure A10 stating that the applicant is not a party to the case.

We have heard both sides. On a perusal of the pleadings, we find that the applicant was also a retrenched casual labour who was given the benefits as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Inderpal Yadav & Ors. v. Union of India – 1985 SCC (L&S) 526. In consequence of the said judgment lists were prepared and the applicant was called for document verification as per notification dated 3.7.2003. The Hon’ble High Court while disposing a batch of cases in WP© No. 23757 of 2010 held as follows:

“21. …………..But the fact remains that he was also called for considering regularisation in the year 2003 itself, but was denied the benefit, stating that he had already crossed the age limit. As the age factor has been rightly intercepted, he is also entitled to be treated as regularised in 2003. To have uniformity in all the matters, we find it appropriate to reckon 03.11.2003 as the date for regularisation in service (the date on which actual regularisation could have been given to Viswanathan). We also make it clear that, such date of regularisation will be only for the purpose of reckoning the 'qualifying service' for determining the eligibility for getting pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 and it will not result in payment of any arrears or such other monetary benefits, either towards salary or pension or such other heads. ………...”

In Annexure A10 the respondents had stated that the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in WP© No. 23757 of 2010 (supra) is not applicable to the applicant’s case as he was not a party to the above case. So the argument of the counsel for the applicant that he is also similarly placed as the parties in WP© No. 23757 of 2010 has to be accepted. This Tribunal in the case of P. Purushothama Das v. Union of India & Ors. – OA No. 180/752/2017 had followed the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in C. Devadhasan’s case (supra) and directed to consider the date of regularization as November, 2003.

We find no reason not to follow the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in C. Devadhasan’s case (supra). Hence, we hereby set aside Annexures A10 and A11 orders of the respondents. The applicant is entitled to consider his date of regularization as 3.11.2003 and he is also eligible to be considered for grant of statutory pension under the Old Pension Scheme as ordered in C. Devadhasan’s case (supra). The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant in the light of what is discussed above and in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in C. Devadhasan’s case (supra), within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The Original Application is disposed of as above. No order as to costs.