M Gopalakrishna Pillai vs M/o Railways on 29 October 2026

O R D E R :-

Justice K. Haripal, Judicial Member Applicant is a former Works Mate in Southern Railway, Trivandrum Division who retired from service on 31.07.2012. He had commenced service in the Railways on 23.04.1973 as Mopila Khalasi. He was granted temporary status on 01.01.1981 and was regularized on 10.03.1997. On retirement, he was granted pension and other retiral benefits taking qualifying service of 23.5 years as seen in Annexure A-1 service certificate. Annexure A-1 shows that he had put in regular service from 10.03.1997 to 31.07.2012 which was fully reckoned for the purpose of granting pension besides 50% of the casual labour service from 1.1.1981 to 09.03.1997, putting together, total service was taken as 23.5 years. But according to the applicant, he has put in more than 39 years of unblemished service and the entire period ought to have been reckoned for the grant of pension. He had given Annexure A-2 representation which has not been considered. Aggrieved by the same he has approached the Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:

Shai ney Vij

“ a) To declare that the applicant is having 39 years of qualifying service and to direct the respondents to recalculate the pensionery benefits accordingly. b) To direct the respondents to grant gratuity and MACP benefits to the applicant and consequential benefits thereof. ”

2. According to the applicant there is no justification in not taking the entire service of 39 years for the purpose grant of retiral benefits. He also was not granted MACP benefits which was legally entitled to him. Annexure A2 representation has not been considered and thus, he sought the above reliefs.

3. The respondents filed reply challenging the very maintainability of the O.A. They said that 50% of his service from the date of grant of temporary status on 01.01.1981 till date of regularisation on 09.03.1997 alone could be reckoned and the entire service thereafter, i.e. from 10.03.1997 till 31.07.2012 was reckoned, putting together he had qualifying service of only 23.5 years. Moreover, the applicant was a project casual labourer which could not be reckoned for the purpose of granting pension and retiral benefits. So they say that his claim for reckoning 39 years of service is not maintainable. He has not explained us to how 39 years of service was worked out and provisions of law have not been stated by him. It is also submitted that he was granted a gratuity of Rs.2,52,813/- taking into

Shai ney Vij account 23.5 years of qualifying service. He was also given arrears of retirement gratuity of Rs.10,728/- and that he is not entitled to get any other reliefs.

4. The respondents also denied the receipt of Annexure A-2 representation. This was followed by a numerous of rejoinders and additional replies and ultimately by order dated 11.08.2015, this Tribunal, without going into the rival contentions of the parties but placing implicit reliance on Annexure A 14 O.M issued by the Ministry of Railways disposed of the Original Application on the following lines: “6. In view of the above, respondents are directed to re-consider and review the pension papers relating to the applicant, by counting 100% of his service with temporary status put in by the applicant as Khalasi. Respondents shall revise the pension papers of the applicant reckoning 100% of the period of service put in by the applicant from 1.1.1981 till his regularisation. Respondents shall revise the pension payment orders of the applicant accordingly. Respondents are also directed to re-calculate the gratuity and MACP benefits of the applicant and shall grant him all consequential benefits. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

5. Later, the respondents filed RA 3/2016, along with an application for condoning the delay of 100 days in moving the Review Application. The crux of the Review Application was that Annexure A-14 should not have been relied on, it is only an inter-departmental

Shai ney Vij communication, following Annexure A14, no decision has been taken by the Ministry of Finance, so that, relief could not have been granted. However, this Tribunal, did not consider the Review Application on the premise that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to condone the delay and thus, the Review Application was rejected instantaneously. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court in OP (CAT)47/2017. The High Court, basing on the Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble High Court in Haris K.M and Others v. Jahfar K. and Others (2020 (5) KHC 123) rejected the plea that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to condone the delay. The High Court quashed the order in the Review Application and remitted the matter for further consideration of the Review Application to this Tribunal.

6. After the remand, during the pendency of the Review Application, the Original Applicant passed away and his wife and daughter were impleaded as additional respondents 2 and 3. They have been impleaded as additional applicants 2 and 3 in the Original Application. The Review Application was considered on merits and having regard to the fact that Annexure A-14 was only an inter departmental communication following which no decision has been taken, we, by order dated 6th October 2026, quashed the earlier order and restored the Original Application to file. Thus, the matter again

Shai ney Vij came up for hearing.

7. We heard Shri.Shaijan Joseph, learned counsel for the additional applicants and Shri.N.Sreejith, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

8. The learned counsel for the additional applicants has submitted that the respondents ought to have considered the entire 39 years 3 months and 9 days service rendered by the applicant from 23.04.1973. There are materials to show that Annexure A-2 representation was duly tendered before the respondents. But they have pleaded ignorant about the representation. Such a contention stands exposed through Annexure A-9 copy of representation of Annexure A-2 which contains office seal dated 05.07.2012 of the Divisional Railway Manager Personnel, Thiruvananthapuram.

9. It is regrettable that even after producing Annexure A-9 which contains official seal of the respondents, the respondents are not ready to accept the receipt of the same and have stated that Annexure A-2 representation was not placed before the appropriate authorities and they had no occasion to consider the same.

10. Whatever it may be, as said earlier, there occurred exchange of volley of pleadings between the parties and ultimately the Tribunal, without going into other aspects of the case, placing reliance

Shai ney Vij

Annexure A-14, allowed the Original Application, directing the respondents to consider 100% of the service rendered by the original applicant as claimed by him. It was under this situation the Review application was filed and thereafter the matter came back before the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

11. The contentions of the Original Applicant are two fold. Firstly, that he had put in service on a regular basis from 23.04.1973, that he was granted temporary status on 1.1.1981 before regularisation as Mate on 10.03.1997 and thus, he is entitled to get the entire period of service as qualifying service and he should have been granted retiral benefits for 39 odd years service rendered by him. Secondly it was argued that he was not granted MACP benefits though he had rendered such a long period of service. The respondents have insisted that he has only 23.5 years of qualifying service which has been duly reckoned and all retiral benefits have been released to him and he is not entitled to get any further relief.

12. All the contentions were raised during the initial phase of the proceeding, before the earlier disposal. The last additional rejoinder, third additional rejoinder was filed before this Tribunal on 10th August 2016. As said earlier, the Original Application was earlier disposed of by order dated 11.08.2015. Thereafter, the Hon'ble

Shai ney Vij

Supreme Court has rendered the oft-quoted decision in Union of India and Others v. Rakesh Kumar and Others [AIR 2017 SC 1691] which covers the entire issue on the subject.

13. After making elaborate survey of the authorities and also considering Rules 20 and 31 of the Railway Services Pension Rules, 1993, the Supreme Court has laid down the following principles in the matter of reckoning prior service of employees who started as casual labourers and then, became part of the establishment. For our purpose, conditions 1 and 2 in paragraph 55 of the said decision, AIR 2017 SC 1691 are very relevant and appropriate, which read thus: “55. In view of foregoing discussion, we hold: i) the casual worker after obtaining temporary status is entitled to reckon 50% of his services till he is regularised on a regular/temporary post for the purposes of calculation of pension. ii) the casual worker before obtaining the temporary status is also entitled to reckon 50% of casual service for purposes of pension.”

14. We have already stated that while issuing the Annexure A-1 service certificate, period of regular service from 10.03.1997 to 31.07.2012, besides 50% of the service from 01.01.1981 that is the date on which he was granted temporary status till 09.03.1997 alone was taken, putting together 23.5 years of service. It is very clear from

Shai ney Vij

Annexure-A1 that period of service rendered by the applicant prior to 01.01.1981, the date on which he was conferred temporary status was not considered by the respondents. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that the period of casual labourer service prior to grant of temporary status by virtue of Note.1 of Rule 31 has to be counted to the extend of 50% for pensionary benefits. Here that has not been followed. That means the original applicant was not granted benefits reckoning the qualifying service in proper perspective.

15. It is also important to say from the documents produced by the applicant that he had regular service from 23.04.1973, as seen through Annexure-A3 (2), which is the casual labour service card submitted by the applicant along with Annexure-A2. It cannot be believed, having regard to Annexure-A9 that Annexure-A2 was not tendered by the applicant. Secondly, it is seen from Annexure-A5 that initially he was granted temporary status from 01.01.1983, later by virtue of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inder Pal Yadav and others v. Union of India (1985 (2) SCC 648), his date of granting temporary status was advanced to 01.01.1981. It is also clear that temporary status must have been granted by virtue of the fact that he had been in continuous rolls of the respondents for five years prior to the grant of temporary status. Putting together the entries in

Shai ney Vij

Annexure-A3 service register and the fact that he was granted temporary status from 01.01.1981, it can safely be assumed that he had long, uninterrupted, continuous service prior to 01.01.1981.Such service prior to the grant of temporary status also should have been reckoned for the purpose of grant of retiral benefits, which has not been done. That means, we are sure that the qualifying service of the original applicant was not reckoned appropriately, having regard to the conditions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar, quoted supra.

16. When heard, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that after so much lapse of time, the appropriate records may not be available with the respondents, all must have been destroyed invoking the relevant destruction Rules. But the documents made available by the applicant as Annexures A-3, A-4, A-5 etc. can safely be relied on by the respondents for the purpose of assessing the actual qualifying service for the grant of pensionary benefits.

17. Moreover, Annexure A-12 Railway Boards Communication RBE 36/2010 dated 25.02.2010 also is very relevant and appropriate in the matter extension of benefit of MACP Scheme to the temporary status service employees. The communication reads thus: “Sub: Extension of the benefit of MACP Scheme to the reckon of entire Temporary Status service

Shai ney Vij of substitutes. Please refer to Board's letter of even number dated 04.12.2009 allowing 50% of Temporary status casual labour service on absorption in regular employment may be taken into account towards the minimum service of 10,20 and 30 years for the grant of benefit under the MACP Scheme.

2. Further, on demand from both the federations that the entire service of the substitutes on their absorption in regular service may be reckoned for MACPS purposes, the matter has been carefully considered by the Board. It is found that unlike casual labours whose 50% of temporary status service counts for pensionary benefits, temporary status service in full of the substitutes counts for pensionary benefits. It has, therefore, been decided that the entire temporary status service of substitutes followed by regularization without break may be taken into account towards the minimum service of 10,20 and 30 years for the purpose of grant of benefit under the MACP Scheme.

3. This issue with the concurrence of the Finance Directorate of the Ministry of 3. Railways.

4. Hindi version is enclosed.”

18. That means, the qualifying service of the Original Applicant requires to be reworked. While doing the exercise, a serious probe into the question whether the original applicant was entitled to get the benefits of MACP also should be done.

Shai ney Vij

19. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides and going through the materils made available, we direct the respondents to rework the qualifying service of the applicant and disburse the additional benefits, as revealed on such a reworking, within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It goes without saying, while doing the exercise, respondents shall show maximum leniency as confidential records etc may not be available at this distance of time.

20. The Original Application is allowed as above. No costs. (Dated, 29th October, 2026) BRAJ MOHAN AGRAWAL JUSTICE K. HARIPAL ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER SV

Shai ney Vij

List of Annexures in O.A No. 180/01104/2012 Annexure-A1. A Photostat copy of the certificate issued by the Divisional Railway Manager, Trivandrum Division Annexure-A2. A Photostat copy of the representation dated 5/7/2012 submitted to the 2nd respondent Annexure A3. True copy of the casual labour service card issued to the applicant Annexure A4. True copy of Office order No.15/CN/TCR/86 dt. 8.10.1986 Annexure A5. True copy of the Memorandum No.P.407/CN/TCR/CL dated 23.4.1992 Annexure A6. True copy of the order in O.A.No. 70/1986 dated 5.3.1988 of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench Annexure A7. True copy of the order in O.A. 914/93 dated 15.2.1994 of this Hon'ble Tribunal Annexure A8. True copy of pension particulars of Mr.P.Babu dated 14.5.2010 Annexure A9. True copy of the endorsement dated 5.7.2012 before the Southern Railway Divisional Manager, Personnel Bench, Thiruvananthapuram Annexure A10. True copy of Railway Establishment Rules pages 80 & 81 Annexure A11. True copy of Railway Establishment Rules page 457 Annexure A12. True copy of Railway Board letter issued by Dy. Director, Pay Commission, dated 25.2.2010 Annexure A13. True copy of representation of applicant to respondents dated 25.8.2012 / 3.9.2012 Annexure A14.True copy of the O.M. No. E(NG)/2004/CL/14 dated 25.11.2014 of Director (Establishment) (N)II Railway Board ******

Shai ney Vij