G S Krishna vs SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY on 13 October 2026

ORAL ORDER

(As per Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Judicial Member)

By this O.A., the applicant is seeking the following relief: “...declare the action of respondents in not computing and arranging the retirement of the applicant by adding 55% of pay element as a pay as illegal arbitrary contrary to the order and judgement by the Hon'ble apex court in SLP(C) in No 9825-9826 and

ii. Consequently direct the respondents to review the retirement benefits of the applicant in PPO 20187090900302 by adding 55% pay element and arrange payment of retirement benefit with interest as applicable to GPF deposits on the differential amount of retirement gratuity and arrears of pension from the date of his voluntary retirement from service with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit in the interest of justice..”

2. Highlighting the facts of the case, the counsel for the applicant submits the following chronological events for better appreciation: Date Event 31.07.2014 Applicant was medically de-categorised 11.12.2014 Screening conducted for alternative employment 11.03.2015 Alternative post of Sr. Technician (C&W) offered 15.02.2016 Applicant submitted applicant seeking voluntary retirement on medical grounds 12.05.2016 & 01.11.2016 Reminders submitted 29.11.2016 RBE No.137/2016 issued 02.02.2018 VRS accepted by competent authority 10.02.2018 Applicant retired voluntarily 26.12.2019 Representation seeking 55% pay element submitted 27.12.2019 Respondents submitted that the matter was subjudice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court 04.08.2022 Hon’ble Supreme Court decided the case titled Union of India vs. S Gangadharan 12.10.2024 Applicant sought revision of pension 23.10.2024 Respondents stated that Railway Board order’s were awaited

MINHAJU L HAQUE

3. Relevant portion of the applicant’s representation, dt.12.10.2024, is as under: “2. I humbly submit that DPO/GLide his letter under reference no 2 considering my representation dated 26.12.2019 replied that the matter regarding computation of pension with addition of 55% pay element to the running staff retired before issue of RBE 137/2016 is pending before the Hon' Supreme court in SLP (C) No 9825-9826 of 2018 filed by railways. 3 I humbly submit that Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the RBE 137 of 2016 29.11.2016 in the above case while considering the lone issue whether those persons who have retire on medical ground as medically decategorised running staff and who opted for voluntary retirement instead of opting for redeployment in an alternative stationary post shall be entitled to pension computed with addition of 30% pay element or with addition of 55% pay element? Held that those medically decategorised running who were paid pension with 30% pay element shall be paid 55% benefit however after deducting 30% pay element fixation benefit already granted earlier and Dismissed the Civil appeal arising out of the said SLPs filed by railways”.

4. Vehemently opposing the grant of relief, counsel for the Respondents places reliance on the Railway Board letter, dt.12.09.2022, wherein instructions were issued as under: “In view of the dismissal of the above SLPs, the matter has been considered in Board's office in consultation with Legal Advisor/Railway Board and it has been observed that there seems no further legal remedy feasible except to implement the Court's Order. Therefore, Railway is advised 10 take necessary action to implement the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Order in-personam and not to be acted as precedent. Action taken in the matter may be advised to Board's office."

5. Having heard the counsels for the parties and perused the records of the case.

6. We are of the considered opinion that initially the respondents had taken the stand, vide communication, dt.27.12.2019, that the issue shall be subject to outcome of the SLP No.9825-9826 of 2022, which was pending for consideration. As late as on 23.10.2024, the Respondents, vide communication dt. 23.10.2024, informed the applicant that Railway Board instructions in the matter are awaited. Relevant portion of the response, dt. 23.10.2024, is extracted as under: “With reference to your request under DOPPW Registration No. DOPPW/E/2024/0072285, Dt. 12.10.2024 regarding the payment for reckoning the pay element of 55% in fixing the retirement benefits, the matter has been examined, and it is informed that the orders from the Railway Board are still awaited on this subject. You will be informed accordingly upon receipt of the orders.”

MINHAJU L HAQUE

7. It is revealed during the course of hearing that the aspect has been dealt with in great detail in SLP No.9825-9826 of 2022, wherein, theApex Court, vide order, dt.04.08.2022, observed as under: “The only issue involved is whether those persons who have retired on medical ground as medically decategorised running staff and who opted for voluntary retirement instead of opting for redeployment in an alternative stationary post shall be entitled to pension computed with addition of 30% pay element or with addition of 55% pay element? Heavy reliance has been placed by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court on the subsequent Circular dated 29.11.2016 issued by the Department which specifically provides that such medically decategorised running staff like the respondents/original applicants shall be entitled to pension with addition of 55% pay element. However, it was/is the case on behalf of the Railways that the said Circular dated 29.11.2016 shall be applicable prospectively and not retrospectively. The aforesaid has no substance. If the language used in circular dated 29.11.2016 is considered and taken into consideration, it specifically provides that this 55% benefit will be reckoned after deducting 30% pay element fixation benefit, if granted already as per Board's letter dated 5.10.2011, if the intention of the Railways was to provide pension with addition of 55% pay element prospectively, in that case, the aforesaid would not have been provided. The aforesaid would go to show that even those medically decategorised running staff who were paid pension with 30% pay element shall be paid 55% benefit, however, after deducting 30% pay element fixation benefit already granted earlier. In that view of the matter, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal as well as the High Court in allowing pension with addition of 55% pay element, however, subject to deducting 30% pay element fixation benefit already granted earlier. No interference of this Court is called for. The Civil Appeals stand dismissed. No costs.”

8. Further, the contention of the Respondents with regard to application in personam cannot be accepted in view of the ratio of the judgment of theApex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347wherein, it is held that service jurisprudence, which has evolved by this Court from time to time, postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly; only because one person has approached the Court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently; justice demands that a person should not be allowed to derive any undue advantage over other employees; the normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more

MINHAJU L HAQUE

emphatically, as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated equally.Since the issue has already been addressed and adjudicated in the case of S Gangadhar supra, no deviation by a subsequent action taking a contrary view to the decision rendered can be accepted. Having regard to the same, the impugned action on part of the Respondents is liable to be quashed and set-aside.

9. Vide order, dt.07.06.2024, in O.A./332/2023, this Tribunal observed as under:

11. Therefore, the OA is allowed with a direction to the respondents to compute the pension and pensionary benefits to the applicant taking into account 55% of the basic pay drawn by applicant after deducting the pay element fixation benefit already granted to the applicant. The applicant is also entitled to arrears of pension from the date of his voluntary retirement from the regular service. Therefore, the respondents are directed to release the arrears within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. If the said exercise is not carried out within a stipulated period, the applicant is also entitled to request for interest at the rate applicable to the GPF deposit from the date of his retirement till the date of actual payment.

12. The OA is allowed in terms of above directions. No order as to costs.”

10.

Conclusion:

In view of the above narration of facts and law, the OA is allowed with a direction to the respondents to compute the pension and pensionary benefits to the applicant, taking into account 55% of the basic pay drawn by the applicant after deducting the pay element fixation benefit already granted to the applicant. The applicant is also entitled to arrears of pension from the date of his voluntary retirement from regular service. Therefore, the respondents are directed to release the arrears within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order copy. If the said exercise is not carried out within the stipulated period, the applicant is also entitled to interest at the rate applicable to the GPF deposit from for default period beyond three months.The OA is allowed in part under the aforesaid terms. Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of. No costs.

(VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI) (MANISH GARG) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

JUDICIAL MEMBER

MINHAJU L HAQUE

/mh/

O.A. is disposed of on

: 13.09.2026 Order dictated on

: 13.09.2026 Submitted for approval on : 14.09.2026

MINHAJU L HAQUE