P.J. Varghese vs Union Of India & Ors.

The applicant, who is a retired Sanitary Jamadar of the Indian Railway, had entered the service as a Casual Mazdoor on 13.2.1978. He claims that he was granted temporary status in 1981. Later, he was terminated on 5.6.1981. The statement of facts given in the Original Application indicates that he was terminated on numerous times and on all such occasions, on the strength of orders obtained from the Tribunal or the Hon'ble High Court, he was reinstated and re-engaged. At last, he retired from service on 31.7.2017 as Sanitary Jamadar. Thus, Annexure A-1 Pension Payment Order was issued reckoning his qualifying service as 18.5 years, taking his date of appointment as 24.12.1998. He was granted a monthly pension of Rs.16,500/-, being 50% of the last pay of Rs.33000/-in level 3, drawn by him. Aggrieved by the same, he approached this Tribunal with O.A No.269/2018 contending that his total length of service reckoned by the respondents for the purpose of calculation of pension was grossly inadequate. By Annexure A-2 order, the Original Application was allowed and the respondents were directed to re-fix the pension by taking into account 50% of his casual labour service w.e.f 13.2.1978 to the date of regularization on 4.8.1990. Following Annexure A-2, Annexure A-3 revised Pension Payment Order has been issued reckoning his initial date of appointment as Casual Labourer on 13.2.1978. However, the last pay of Rs.33,000/- drawn has been shown the same. In other words, his pension remains the same despite the fact that the respondents had rectified the qualifying service as 33 years. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has again approached the Tribunal with a prayer to set aside Annexure A-3 contending that it has been issued in derogation of Annexure A-2 order. He also seeks a direction to the respondents to re-fix his pension.

The respondents filed a reply statement denying the contentions of the applicant. According to them, the applicant was initially re-engaged as Substitute Sanitary Cleaner in Medical Department on 3.8.1998 on pay of Rs.2550/- in the scale of Rs.2550-3200 and that on completion of 120 days of continuous service as Substitute Sanitary Cleaner, he was granted temporary status w.e.f 24.12.1998 and was regularised on 5.4.2000 as Sanitary Cleaner-III. On retirement, he was granted pension taking total qualifying service of 18.5 years. Later, on the directions of the Tribunal, his date of appointment was antedated to 4.8.1990. The qualifying service was taken as 27 years. Further, on the basis of the direction of this Tribunal, the qualifying service was revised from 27 years to 33 years as shown in Annexure A-3. But according to the respondents, despite changing the total qualifying service, last pay drawn by him remains the same i.e, Rs.33000/- so that the pension amount granted to him under Annexure A-3 cannot be altered.

The applicant filed a rejoinder. With the aid of Annexure A-6, which is the Pension Payment Order in respect of one Joy P.V, he wants to say that the said Joy, who had put in 32.5 years of qualifying service, who was appointed on 10.5.1982, has been granted higher pension of Rs.20,200, so that lesser pension granted to the applicant who had commenced earlier, is patently illegal and arbitrary and therefore, he seeks re-fixation of his pension.

I heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the records.

The learned counsel for the applicant wanted to say that as per Annexure A-3 Pension Payment Order, the applicant had commenced service on 13.2.1978 and had retired from service on completion of 33 years, still he has been granted a lesser pay than the pension granted to Joy as shown in Annexure A-6 who had started engagement on a subsequent date, on 10.5.1982, that he had only 32.5 years of qualifying service. According to the Counsel, respondents require to revisit the pay fixed to the applicant at various stages. But the learned Standing Counsel has clarified that the applicant as well as the said Joy had retired from service from different categories. While the applicant had retired as Sanitary Jamadar, the said Joy had been holding the post of Trackman-1 with basic pay of Rs.40,400/- on the date of retirement. Moreover, it is submitted that the said Shri.Joy had retired from level 5 with grade pay of Rs.2800/-, whereas the applicant was holding a level 3 post with grade pay of Rs.2000/-. In fact, these are material factors which are sufficient to draw clear distinction between the two posts. Last pay drawn by both persons were also different. Even otherwise, it is un-scientific to make any comparison between these two cases and scales drawn by persons holding different categories of posts. That means, the contentions based on Annexure A-6 cannot advance the case of the applicant.

The service profile of the applicant indicate that he had obtained regular appointment after filing numerous litigation before this Tribunal as well as before the Hon'ble High Court. Whatever it may be, Annexure A-3 indicates that at last, his casual labour service from 13.2.1978 was reckoned for the purpose of estimating the qualifying service and thus, he was found to his credit 33 years of qualifying service for the purpose of calculation of pension. At the time of retirement, he was drawing basic pay of Rs.33,000/-, so that despite the fact that his qualifying service was re-estimated, the last pay or the pension granted to him do not call for any alteration. Pension is always fixed based on the last pay drawn by him. The applicant has never raised any dispute with regard to the last pay.

It has come out that he was initially engaged as Substitute Sanitary Cleaner on 3.8.1998 and was granted temporary status on 24.12.1998 and was regularised on 5.4.2000 as Sanitary Cleaner-III. 50% of his past service as casual labourer has been reckoned for the purpose of estimating qualifying service, which has already been done. That does not ipso facto change the last pay drawn. As already noticed, the applicant as well as Shri.Joy were holding different posts and were drawing salary on different scales of pay; last pay drawn by them were also different.

After considering the rival contentions, I do not find any reason to uphold the contentions of the applicant that there is justification in re-fixing the last pay and the pension drawn by him.

In the circumstances, the Original Application is only to be dismissed. Dismissed. No costs.

Annexure A1- True copy of PPO No.20177060400253 dated 31.7.2017 issued by the 2 respondent

Annexure A2- True copy of order dated 2/9/2019 in O.A No.180/269/2018 of this Tribunal

Annexure A3- True copy of Pension Payment Order No.20177060400253 dated 9/11/2020 issued to the applicant

Annexure A4- True copy of representation dated 23.3.2022 submitted by the applicant before respondents 2 and 3

Annexure A5- True copy of calculation statement showing the pension arrears, excess gratuity and other pensionary benefits due to the applicant

Annexure A6- True copy of Pension Payment Order dated 21.9.2020 issued by the Southern Railway to Sri.Joy P.V