AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
There are 10 applicants, who have joined together and filed the instant OA. The applicant No.7 is the widow of late Maheswar Khanda.
Earlier, they had approached this Bench in OA No. 510/2017 inter alia stating that all the applicants, including the husband of applicant No.7, while working as casual labourers under Permanent Way Inspector, Soro Railway Station, Balasore (Resp. No. 4), along with 42 others, were retrenched sometime in the year 1985 and, subsequently, were allowed to work on casual basis from 1985 to 1989. 28 persons out of 52, including the applicants, were engaged as Gangman. The applicants filed OA No. 381/1993 before this Bench claiming service benefits from the date when 28 persons were taken as Gangman, which was dismissed vide order dated 20.05.1997. The said order was challenged by the applicants before Hon’ble High Court of Orisssa. The Hon’ble High Court quashed the order of this Bench and remitted the matter to this Bench for consideration afresh. This Bench vide order dated 20.06.2002 allowed the OA directing the respondents to engage the applicants as Monsoon Patrol casual labourers with immediate effect.
The said order of this Bench dated 20.06.2002 was challenged by the respondent-Railways before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in Writ Petition No. 405/2002, which was dismissed on 09.04.2010. The respondent-Railways carried the matter, on appeal, before the Hon’ble Apex Court, which was disposed of on 19.02.2016 with direction to the respondent-Railways to implement the order of this Bench dated 20.06.2002 within four weeks. The respondent-Railways considered the case of the applicants but rejected the same vide order dated 04.05.2016. The applicants again filed OA No. 917/2016 before this Bench, which was disposed of on 17.02.2017 granting the liberty to the applicants to submit representation accompanied with the necessary documents before respondent No.3 [Sr. Divisional Personnel officer, S.E.Railway, who shall consider and dispose of the matter within the stipulated period given by this Bench. Respondent No. 3 considered and once again rejected the grievance of the applicants vide order dated 19.04.2017. Being aggrieved, the applicant again filed OA No. 510/2017, praying inter alia to quash the orders of rejection dated 19.04.2017 and direct the respondent-Railways to consider their cases in pursuance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and to extend all the service and consequential benefits w.e.f. 08.07.2002 as per the order of this Bench in OA No. 381/93. This Bench vide order dated 18.12.2019 allowed the OA as under:
“11.From the circumstances of the case as discussed above and taking into consideration the fact that the applicants have been discriminated by the respondents earlier as observed by the Tribunal in order dated 20.6.2002, I am of the considered opinion that the action of the respondents to reject the case of the applicants on the ground of age or delay has defeated the spirit of the order dated 20.12.2002 (A/2) of the Tribunal, which has been upheld by Hon’ble Apex Court. It is not the case of the respondents that they could not have implemented the order of the Tribunal as the same was stayed by Hon’ble High Court or Hon’ble Apex Court. If the applicants had crossed the age of superannuation by the time the Tribunal’s order was upheld by Hon’ble Apex Court on 19.2.2016, nothing prevented the respondents from considering financial benefits to the applicants in lieu of the service benefit as allowed by the Tribunal.
12.In the circumstances, the orders dated 19.4.2017 (Annexure-A/7 series) are legally not sustainable as these are not in accordance with spirit of the order of the Tribunal dated 20.6.2002 (A/2). Accordingly, the aforesaid impugned orders dated 19.4.2017 are set aside and quashed and the respondents are directed to grant the financial benefits that would have accrued to the applicants had they been engaged as casual labourers with effect from 8.7.2002 till the age of superannuation as applicable for a casual labourer, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
3.The OA is allowed as above. In the circumstances, each of the applicants will be entitled to a cost of Rs. 3000/- each.”
Thereafter, the respondent-Railways issued the order dated 20.04.2021 as under:
“In compliance of the judgment/order dated 18-12-2019 of the Hon'ble CAT/Cuttack Bench passed in O.A. No. 510 of 2017 in the matter of Sri Madan Majhi & 9 others-Vs-UOI & others, followed by upholding order dated 29-09-2020 of the Hon'ble High Court/Cuttack Bench in Writ Petition No WP(C) 23727 of 2020 (UOI & others-VS-Madan Majhi & 9 others) and as per subsequent administrative decision of the Rly Board vide letter No. E(NG)II/2020/Misc/SER Dated 25-02-2021, duly communicated by CPO(ADMN)/GRC vide letter No. SER/P-HQ/CC/SSS/S.Das & M.Majhi/KGP Dated 03-03-2021, the financial benefits towards the payment head under wages and service gratuity in terms of Estt. Srl. No. 15/1992 & 125/2000 as would be applicable to the following ex casual labourers of SSE (P. Way)/Soro is hereby granted w.e.f. 08-07-2002 up to the date of attaining 60 years of age as indicated against each
Srl. Name & Father's Name Designation Date of Birth Dt of deemed Re-engagement on daily rate basis Dt. of Ty. Status in Scale of pay Rs. 2610-3540/- Date of attaining 60 years of age 1 Madan Majhi S/o Late Keshab Majhi Monsoon Petrol Casual Labour 01-07-1952 08-07-2002 05-11-2002 30-06-2012 2 Raghunath Sethi S/o Subal Sethi Do 01-07-1951 08-07-2002 05-11-2002 30-06-2011 3 Bishnu Mohan Pal S/o Ram Pal Do 01-07-1951 08-07-2002 05-11-2002 30-06-2011 4 Purna Chandra Mahana S/o Chinta Mahana Do 01-07-1950 08-07-2002 05-11-2002 30-06-2010 5 Nanda Nayak S/o Damodar Nayak Do 01-07-1950 08-07-2002 05-11-2002 30-06-2010 6 Bhagirathi Jena S/o Shyam Jena Do 01-07-1951 08-07-2002 05-11-2002 30-06-2011 7 Late Maheswar Khanda S/o Krushna Khanda Do 01-07-1950 08-07-2002 05-11-2002 30-06-2010 8 Ananta Dhinda S/o Sambhu Dhinda Do 01-07-1950 08-07-2002 05-11-2002 30-06-2010 9 Gajendra Jena S/o Dama Jena Do 01-07-1953 08-07-2002 05-11-2002 30-06-2013 10 Jatindra Majhi S/o Late Kangalo Majhi Do 01-07-1951 08-07-2002 05-11-2002 30-06-2011 NB:- 1) Date of Birth as indicated against each above is based on the age declared by the above applicants/ex-causal labourers in the form of affirmation before the Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A No.381/1993 and as per IREC vol-I/2002 edition, chapter-2/Para 325.
ii) Item No.7 expired on 28-12-2015 and payment to be made to Smt. Sabitri Dei @ Khanda, w/o late Maheswar Khanda subject to observing the procedure of legal heirship.
iii) This issues with the further approval of DRM/KGP.
iii) Immediate efforts must be extended for arranging payment by giving top priority.
iv) Compliance of the Hon'ble Tribunal's order dated 18-12-2019 is on an in personam basis.”
After this order, the applicants submitted representation on 08.09.2021 stating therein that had they been regularized during the year 1993, they would have been entitled to pensionary benefits with higher pay. The direction of this Bench dated 20.06.2002 was to engage them as Monsoon Patrol Causal Labourers w.e.f. 08.07.2002 but the Railway administration challenged the said order and finally implemented after 20 years. Therefore, they should be paid pension and pensionary benefits. Thereafter, alleging non-consideration of their representation, the applicants once again approached this Bench in OA No. 260/2022, which was disposed of on 27.06.2022 with direction for consideration and issuance of appropriate order on their representation dated 08.09.2021. Respondents considered but rejected the same stating inter alia as under:
“In compliance of the Hon'ble Tribunal's order dated 18.12.2019, merged with the Hon'ble HC's order dated 29.09.2020 and in accordance with the relevant circulars and rules, the financial benefits to the extent of wages for the period from 08.07.2002 upto the date of your attaining 60 years of age and service gratuity for this period as applicable to Casual Labour under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 as per SERES No.15/1992 and SERES No. 125/2000 have been granted to you as per relevant rules. Therefore, the Hon'ble Tribunal's order for granting financial benefits as applicable to casual labour has been complied with in true spirit.
In so far as your present prayer for pensionary benefits is concerned, it would be relevant to refer para 2006 of (REM-1989, Vol. II. As per which, the regularisation of Temporary Status Casual Labourers is not automatic but subject to screening by the Screening committee for adjudging the suitability against the available regular vacancies, as per their turn in accordance with their seniority on the basis of total no. of days worked as Casual Labour and of course subject to fulfillment of the maximum age limit for absorption, which is 40 years for General candidates, 43 years for OBC and 45 years for SC/ST candidate as per RBE No.190/2001. If they are found suitable for absorption in regular Gr. D post by the screening committee, and only after having declared medically fit by the Rly. Medical Authority, they are to be absorbed and taken against the regular vacancies of the erstwhile Gr. D post. But after the termination of service of such casual labourers on attaining the age of 60 years, there is no scope left for consideration of their regularisation in adherence to the procedure for regularisation to ensure the fulfillment of all the preconditions. Moreover, you already crossed the age limit long back prior to 08.07.2002 considering the age declared by you and the age limit is one of the pre-condition among others for regularisation of Casual Labourers as per the provisions of RBE No.190/2001
On the other hand, after termination of service of temporary Status casual labourers on attaining the superannuation of age, they are not entitled for pensionary benefits because causal labourers are excluded under the provision of RS(Pension Rules, 1993. Only the continuous casual labour service followed by absorption in regular employment without a break is reckonable as qualifying service for pensionary benefits by taking into account 50% service rendered as Casual Labour after attaining Temporary Status and 100% of regular service after absorption is regular post as per rule 31 of RSPR-1993. In terms of rule 69 of Railway Service Pension rules 1993, a minimum 10 years qualifying service is required for granting the pension to an employee which none of you full.
That apart, while deciding the SLP (C) No.15806 of 2011, the Hon'ble Supreme Court overruled the direction of the Hon'ble High Court/CTC in regard to absorption of Casual Labourers and the said order got attained finality long back in the year of 2016.
Keeping in view all the above facts, circumstances and relevant rules as discussed above, I do not find any merit in your request for grant of pensionary benefits for the service rendered by them as Casual Labour.”
Hence, the present OA with prayer as under:
“(a)To pass appropriate orders quashing the impugned order dtd.22.11.22 under annexure-A/5;
(b)To pass appropriate orders directing the Respondents to consider the case of the applicants for grant of pensionary benefits in their favour taking into account the service rendered by them prior to 1985 and for the period from 1985 to 1989 within a stipulated period; and
(c)To pass such further order/orders as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and allow this OA with cost.”
According to the Respondents, since engagement of applicants/husband of the applicant No.7, while continuing as temporary status casual labourere, were stopped on attaining the age of retirement without being regularized, they are not entitled to pensionary benefits because causal labourers are excluded under the provision of Railway Servants (Pension) Rules, 1993. It is stated that only continuous casual labour service, followed by absorption in regular employment without a break, is reckonable as qualifying service for pensionary benefits by taking into account 50% service rendered as Casual Labour after attaining Temporary Status and 100% of regular service after absorption in regular post as per Rule 31 of RSPR-1993. In terms of Rule 69 of Railway Service Pension Rules, 1993, a minimum 10 years qualifying service is required for granting pension to an employee, which none of the applicants/husband of applicant No.7 fulfilled. Therefore, they are not entitled to the relief claimed in this OA.
We find that one Satnam Singh and others approached before the Hon’ble Punjab and Harayana High Court at Chandigarh essentially raising two claims first, that the service rendered by them prior to their regularization, while working on contract/ad hoc/daily-wage/work-charge basis, was liable to be counted as qualifying service for the purposes of retiral benefits; and, secondly, since their services were regularized pursuant to the Government Policy dated 23.01.2001 and they were placed on regular service with effect from August 2004, they ought to be treated as falling within the Old Pension regime and not within the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme. The Hon’ble Single Judge of the Hon’ble Punjab and Harayana High Court at Chandigarh in the case of Satnam Singh vs Punjab School Education Board held that service rendered by the Appellants in the said case on contract/ad hoc/daily wage basis prior to regularization must be computed as qualifying service for the purpose of retiral and pension benefits. The breaks in service were either ‘notional’ or artificial/administrative breaks, or precipitated by Court orders must be ignored that the service should be treated as continuous. The said order of the Single Bench was challenged by the Punjab School Education Board before the Division Bench of the said Hon’ble High Court in LPA No. 1902 of 2017 (O&M) wherein the order of the Hon’ble Single Bench was upheld vide order dated 14.01.2020. Against the said order dated 14.01.2020 in LPA No. 1902 of 2017, the Board filed appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court which was numbered as Civil Appeal No. 6865 of 2022 [Punjab School Education Board vs Satnam Singh]. The Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to dismiss the same vide order dated 8th September, 2026.
Further, we find that whether temporary status casual labourer, in the absence of a formal order of regularization, would be entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation or not, came up for judicial consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhikhani Devi & Etc. Vs. UOI & Ors., 2026 INSC 612, wherein Their Lordships took an affirmative view in favour of the employee concerned.
We have come across a decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Settlement Class-IV Job Contract –vs- State Of Orissa and Ors, 95 (2003) CLT 173, wherein a batch of persons engaged as job contract basis during Settlement/Consolidation operation in the State of Odisha, in particular Balasore and Mayurbhanj District. They approached before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa inter alia stating that although they were served about two decades on such job contract basis, they have not been regularized and, therefore, they prayed for direction to the authorities of the State of Odisha under whom they were working to regularize them so that after retirement they would be entitled to terminal benefits like Pension and Gratuity. It was also stated that they were denied the Basic Salary along with D.A. and A.D.A., increments, General Provident Fund, House Rent, Surrender Leave, Earned Leave, Medical Leave, Leave Travel Concession etc, enjoyed by the regular employees, and if the Chainmen and the Process Servers would be regularized, they could avail these benefits also. The Hon’ble Court was pleased to allow the said Writ Petition; an expert from it is quoted herein below:
“13.To conclude, we say that the services of the members of the petitioner's Union, who are Chainmen and Process Servers, would be regularized, and for this purpose if creation of posts by the State Government would be necessary, the same would be done. We would, however, confine the benefit of regularization by stating that this action would enable the incumbents to get pension on retirement at the rate applicable to other similarly situated Government erstwhile. The regularization would not, however, confer other benefits available to other regularly employed Government servants. But then, these incumbents would be entitled to grade pay as per pay revision. This apart, for the purpose of calculating the pensionary benefit, so much of their earlier service period shall be reckoned, even if there had been breaks in their employment, so as to make them eligible for pension. The necessity of giving this direction has been felt because, if service rendered after regularization alone shall be counted for pensionary benefit most of the present incumbents would be denied the same, because to earn pension, ten years minimum service is necessary, which most of the incumbents at hand would not put in after regularization as they would retire before completing this period having been appointed two decades back. At this stage, it would also be pertinent to point out that most of the incumbents had been employed after their names had been sponsored by the Employment Exchange and were found fit in the interview/test. Though this averment made in paragraph 3 of the writ petition has been denied in paragraph 5 of the counter, in the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner documents, even as old as 1971, have been enclosed, some of which have emanated from the District Employment. Officers of the concerned District Employment Exchanges requiring attendance in the interview and test to be held for the post of Process Server/Chainman. Some of these communications also speak about sponsoring of the names of some of the members of the petitioner's Union by the concerned District Employment Exchange. We, therefore, accept this part of the case of the petitioner.”
We find that in the decision the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhikhani Devi [supra] have ultimately culled out and settled law, making it binding on all courts within the territory of India as per the mandate enshrined in Article 141 of the Constitution of India that a temporary status casual labourer becomes entitled to the benefits admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees and though such temporary status casual labourer’s nomenclature remained unchanged, his/her service benefits thereafter stood aligned with those admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees thus, becoming entitled to benefits under Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 read with CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, if the period from the date of conferment of temporary status till retirement comes to 10 years.
We have examined the provision of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 vis-à-vis RS (Pension) Rules, 1993 and we have no hesitation to hold that the provision of RS (Pension) Rules is the pari materia of CCS Pension Rules, 1972. Thereafter, we have examined the factual matrix of the case in hand with reference to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court so also Rules, cited above. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of D.S. Nakara & Others v. Union of India, 1983 AIR 130, held that pension is neither a bounty nor ex-gratia payment but a payment for the past service rendered, rather, payment of pension is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice. Pension Rules too codify, pension is a deferred wage that must be assessed and paid on the basis of the service rendered by the employee. When an employee has rendered long and continuous service, denial of pensionary benefits based on technicalities or artificialities is generally unjustified. It is also noted that payment of pension, after retirement, is for the sustenance of the Govt. servant and his/her dependant family members during the evening days of life and has direct nexus with the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
It is a fact that taking into consideration the continuance of the applicants/husband of the applicant No.7 as Monsoon Petrol Casual Labour, when the service of the applicants/husband of applicant No.7 were dispensed with, while retaining some of the similarly situated Monsoon Petrol Casual Labour, either engaged along with the applicants/husband of the applicant No.7 or thereafter, in compliance of the order of this Bench upheld by the Hon’ble High Court, all of them were conferred with temporary status and, while continuing as temporary status casual labourer in railway, all of the applicants/husband of applicant No.7 reached the age of superannuation, reasons best known to the department, without subjecting them for regularization, if it was a pre requisite condition. It is also a fact that applicants/husband of the applicant No.7 rendered at least two decades service, as Monsoon Petrol Casual Labour followed by Temporary Casual Labourer. Now, all of them are in their evening days of life and, according to them, they do not have any other means to maintain their livelihood. Hence, taking into consideration the entire facts of the matter so also the ratio of the decisions, quoted above, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where appropriate direction can be issued to the Respondent-Railway, for the ends of justice, to provide them at least minimum pension for survival of their life. Hence, it is ordered as under:
The impugned order dated 22.11.2022 is hereby quashed.
The Applicants who have put in 10 years from the date of conferment of temporary status till attaining the age of superannuation shall be entitled to minimum pension in terms of RS (Pension) Rules;
The applicants who have not completed minimum ten years from the date of conferment of temporary status till attainment of age of retirement for becoming eligible for Pension under RS (Pension) Rules, the Respondents are to take such of the shortfall period from the casual service period so as to make them eligible for minimum pension;
Since the husband of the applicant No.7 is no more, upon grant of pension to her husband, family pension shall be granted to applicant No.7 as per the direction made above;
They shall be entitled to arrears of pension from the date of filing of this OA, i.e from 23.02.2023 onwards;
The respondents to compute and release the pensionary and consequential retiral benefits payable to the Appellants in accordance with law in the manner directed at point Nos. (ii) and (iii) within a period of three months from the date of this judgment. In case of default, interest @ 6% per annum from the date of accrual till disbursement shall be payable to the applicants.
In the result, this OA along with pending MAs, if any, shall stand disposed of, making the costs easy.