Ravindra Pratap Singh vs Union Of India & Anr.

The present O.A has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant worked as a casual labourer under the respondents from 09.01.1982 to 20.11.1989 in different spells at different stations. He claimed temporary status with effect from 29.08.1983 and the consequential benefits under paragraph 25(ii)(a) of Chapter XXV of the IREM. As the benefits were not granted to him, he filed OA No. 307 of 1995, which was allowed by this Tribunal on 15.02.2002. The respondents’ writ petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court on 10.01.2012 and their SLP was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 07.05.2013. Accordingly, the respondents recognised his temporary status with effect from 29.08.1983 vide order dated 30.08.2013 and posted him as a Hamal at Deoria vide order dated 10.09.2013. He continued in service until his retirement on 31.12.2018. Thereafter, he sought consequential seniority benefits in terms of this Tribunal’s order dated 15.02.2002. However, the benefits were not granted despite his representation dated 18.03.2019, compelling him to approach this Tribunal for the reliefs claimed in the OA.

Per contra, respondents have filed counter affidavit stating therein that the judgment dated 15.02.2002 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 307 of 1995 was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 10.01.2012, and the SLP filed by the Railway administration was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 07.05.2013. Accordingly, the applicant was granted temporary status with effect from 29.08.1983 vide order dated 30.08.2013 and was posted as Substitute Hamal at Deoria vide order dated 10.09.2013. The respondents have further contended that the applicant was granted all the benefits admissible to him under the rules and he did not raise any objection regarding compliance with the Tribunal’s order during his service. They have stated that the applicant retired on 31.12.2018 and has already been granted all admissible post-retirement benefits. Therefore, no further relief is due to him, thus, prayer has been made to dismiss the OA.

A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the applicant, in which the facts stated in the Original Application have been reiterated and the contents of the counter affidavit have been denied. Nothing new has been stated in the rejoinder affidavit.

I have heard Shri Prashant Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ajay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that this Tribunal, vide judgment dated 15.02.2002 passed in OA No. 307 of 1995, had allowed the claim of the applicant for temporary status and consequential benefits. The said judgment was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court, and the SLP filed by the Railway administration was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that, although the respondents granted temporary status to the applicant with effect from 29.08.1983 in compliance with the aforesaid judgment, they failed to extend all the consequential benefits flowing from the same. He further submitted that the applicant retired from service on 31.12.2018, but the benefits of seniority, regular pension and other admissible retirement benefits, along with the arrears, have not been granted to him in accordance with the earlier orders. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that the respondents are bound to implement the judgment of this Tribunal in its true letter and spirit and cannot deny the consequential benefits admissible to the applicant under the rules. Thus he prayed that the O.A. be allowed and the respondents be directed to grant all the consequential benefits claimed by the applicant.

In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the judgment dated 15.02.2002 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 307 of 1995 has already been complied with by the Railway administration. He pointed out that, after dismissal of the writ petition by the Hon’ble High Court and the SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondents granted temporary status to the applicant with effect from 29.08.1983 vide order dated 30.08.2013. Thereafter, the applicant was posted as Substitute Hamal at Deoria vide order dated 10.09.2013 and continued in service until his retirement on 31.12.2018. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the applicant has already been granted all the benefits admissible to him under the applicable rules, including his post retirement benefits. He contended that the applicant did not raise any objection regarding the implementation of the Tribunal’s judgment during his service and has not established his entitlement to any further benefits. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the grant of temporary status does not entitle the applicant to every benefit claimed by him unless such benefit is admissible under the relevant rules. Therefore, no further direction is required to be issued against the respondents. He accordingly prayed that the O.A. be dismissed as devoid of merit.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both parties and have perused the material available on record.

The main question for consideration is whether the applicant is entitled to the consequential seniority and pensionary benefits claimed by him in view of the judgment dated 15.02.2002 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 307 of 1995.

It is not disputed that this Tribunal allowed the earlier O.A. filed by the applicant and that the challenge made by the Railway administration before the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court was unsuccessful. It is also not disputed that the respondents granted temporary status to the applicant with effect from 29.08.1983 vide order dated 30.08.2013 and thereafter posted him as Substitute Hamal at Deoria vide order dated 10.09.2013. The applicant continued in service until his retirement on 31.12.2018.

The grant of temporary status and the grant of consequential service benefits are distinct matters. However, the respondents cannot deny the benefits specifically granted under the earlier judgment or those admissible to the applicant under the applicable rules. The applicant’s claim must, therefore, be examined in the light of the earlier judgment and the relevant service rules.

In this regard, it is important to note that the Hon’ble High Court, in its judgment dated 10.01.2012, specifically rejected the contention of the Railway administration that the applicant was not entitled to the benefits available to casual labourers having temporary status. The Hon’ble High Court observed that the applicant had worked for more than 120 days and was entitled to temporary status and the benefits available to persons having such status. The said judgment was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the SLP filed by the Railway administration was dismissed on 07.05.2013. Therefore, the respondents were bound to implement the judgment in its true letter and spirit and grant the benefits admissible to the applicant in accordance with law.

So far as the claim for seniority is concerned, the relevant provisions of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual governing casual labour with temporary status and regular absorption have to be considered. The grant of temporary status does not confer seniority in a regular cadre. However, the applicant’s entitlement to any consequential benefit arising from the earlier judgment cannot be denied without examining the specific directions contained therein and the applicable rules.

The applicant’s claim for pensionary benefits also requires consideration under the applicable pension rules. In Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 388, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the counting of casual service for pensionary purposes under the applicable rules. The respondents must, therefore, examine the applicant’s service record and determine the qualifying service admissible to him under the relevant rules. His claim cannot be rejected merely on the ground that he initially worked as a casual labourer.

The respondents have contended that the applicant has already been granted all admissible benefits, including post-retirement benefits. However, they have not sufficiently demonstrated, on the basis of the material referred to in the pleadings, whether all the consequential benefits flowing from the earlier judgment have been extended to him. The mere grant of temporary status in 2013 does not, by itself, establish that all such benefits have been granted. Similarly, the applicant’s claim to seniority and pensionary arrears from 2002 must be determined in accordance with the earlier judgment and the applicable rules.

In view of the specific findings recorded by the Hon’ble High Court, the respondents cannot deny the benefits available to the applicant as a casual labourer having temporary status. At the same time, the extent of such benefits, including seniority, qualifying service for pension and consequential arrears, must be determined in accordance with the earlier judgment and the applicable rules. The respondents are, therefore, required to examine the applicant’s claim afresh and determine whether any further benefit remains due to him.

In view of the above discussion, the Original Application is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority of the respondents to examine the applicant’s claim in the light of the judgment dated 15.02.2002 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 307 of 1995, the judgment dated 10.01.2012 passed by the Hon’ble High Court and the applicable provisions of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual and the relevant pension rules. The competent authority shall specifically examine the applicant’s entitlement to consequential service benefits, seniority, qualifying service for pension and arrears, if any, in accordance with the aforesaid judgments and rules. If any benefit is found due, the same shall be granted to the applicant in accordance with law. It is clarified that applicant will also be given opportunity of hearing for placing the entire facts in his favour before passing the order on the representation pending before the respondents. A reasoned and speaking order shall be passed within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and communicated to the applicant. There shall be no order as to costs. All associated MAs stand disposed of.