Jyotirmoy Nandi vs NORTH CENTRAL RAILWAY on 3 November 2026

O R D E R

Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (Judicial) Shri Babu Nandan Singh, counsel for the applicant and Shri Anil Kumar, counsel for the respondents are present and heard.

2. This O.A. has been filed by the applicant for counting his past service period rendered as a casual worker from 21.08.1979 to 01.01.1983 and accordingly the status of regularization be counted for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. The facts, as pleaded by the applicant, are that the applicant was initially appointed as Casual B.T.O.E. (Basic Trainee Oil Engine) Driver in the Railway Electrification, Allahabad on 21.08.1979 and after completion of four years, applicant was granted temporary status on 01.01.1983 as per rule on account of fact that he had completed 120 days of continuous service. Thereafter, the service of applicant was regularized on 07.08.1995 on the post of Technician III under S.S.E./R.E. and retired from service on 30.11.2017 from the post of Fitter Grade-III.

3. The case of applicant is that after retirement, the P.P.O. was issued in his favour showing the date of appointment as 01.01.1983 and total service as 28.5 years. He submitted that considering the initial date of engagement as casual labour on 21.08.1979, the applicant’s services should be more than 36 years. Thereafter, counting the past services rendered as casual worker since 21.08.1979 to 31.12.1982, the date of initial appointment must be amended and the benefit for which the applicant is entitled as per initial date of appointment, as per appointment letter, shall be paid to the applicant. Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar and others, decided on 24.03.2017 2017

(13) SCC 388’.

4. Counsel for the respondents has vehemently objected that the post retirement after 09 years, the applicant has been filing this O.A. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the O.A. is barred by limitation as the P.P.O. so issued in the year 2017 itself says that the initial date of appointment as 01.01.1983 and retired on 30.11.2017. Therefore, he has approached to this Tribunal earlier and this O.A. has not been supported by any Delay Condonation Application. Counsel for the respondents submitted that merely making a statement in para-3 regarding limitation for counting past services for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits, is recurring cause of action, cannot be accepted until and unless the applicant has not explained the delay and laches in filing the O.A. and as per law of acquiescence he has earlier accepted with regard to his initial appointment on 01.01.1983, which cannot be altered or changed at a belated stage.

5. Heard, counsel for the parties and perused the record and also considered the submission of counsel for the parties.

6. The relief claimed by the applicant for counting past service for the period from 21.08.1979 to 31.12.1982 and amend the service record for the purpose of pensionary benefits with averment that the applicant was granted temporary status on 01.01.1983 after completion of 120 days of continuous service. The service record with regard to working of applicant as to whether continuous or break in service as a casual labour has not been supported by any evidence and only on the ground that once the temporary status granted on 01.01.1983, the past benefit of casual labour be provided to the applicant on the ground of Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar (supra). We have gone through the Judgment as well as the contents of this O.A. It is an admitted position that the applicant was retired on 30.11.2017 and the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court was pronounced on 24.03.2017 and if law permits counting of past services, rendered as casual labour, then the pleadings must be clear and supported by evidence, which is not done in the present O.A. Regarding continuous working as 120 days between 21.08.1979 to 31.12.1982, the applicant is approaching this Tribunal only after getting the information that the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar (supra) provided the benefit of calculating past services rendered as casual labour for the purpose of pension. It is settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘State of Uttar Pradesh and others V. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 347’ that the delay and laches cannot be condoned where no satisfactory explanation is given. In the instant case, the applicant has not filed any Delay Condonation Application and merely made a statement that counting of past services is recurring cause of action, cannot be accepted and justified under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Even considering the recurring cause of action, the applicant has to explain for not approaching earlier to this

Tribunal as the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar (supra) was passed prior to his retirement i.e. in March 2017. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arvind Kumar (supra) that those who are fence-sitters and approaching at belated stage cannot have a right to get the relief, granted in the similar circumstances. It is a settled law that a recurring cause of action arises when a wrongful act is not a single, isolated event, but instead happens periodically or continuous over time, generating a fresh, distinct cause of action with each repetition. Therefore, we are of considered opinion that this O.A. hits by delay and laches.

7. In view of the above discussion, O.A. is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. No order as to cost. All the pending MAs shall be deemed to have been disposed of.

(Manju Pandey)

(Rajnish Kumar Rai)

Member (A)

Member (J)

/M.M/