Tulasi Ram vs NORTHERN RAILWAY on 6 November 2026

1. Union of India, through the General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.

2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Hazratganj, Lucknow.

3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Hazratganj, Lucknow.

4. The Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Northern Railway, Hazratganj, Lucknow.

…..Respondents By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Guupta

ORDER (ORAL) Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to old pension scheme, the applicant has sought following reliefs: “(i) To quash the impugned order dated 15.09.2025 (contained as Annexure No. A-1 to this OA), with all consequential benefits.

(ii) To treat the applicant under Old Pension Scheme (Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1993) and accord all consequential benefits.

(iii) To issue orders in respect of the applicant granting/treating him to be the beneficiaries of Old Pension scheme (Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1993) and accord other ancillary benefits.

(iv) To release the arrears of pension of other settlement dues under Old Pension Scheme along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of due till the actual date of payment.

(v) Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case, may also be passed.

(vi) Cost of the present case.”

2. The facts of the case are that the applicant was initially engaged as a Commission Vendor by the respondents. He was appointed to the post of Electrical Helper-II on 04.05.2006 and he retired from service on 30.09.2015. In pursuance of RBE No. 43/2023, the applicant submitted his option for coverage under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 (or, the old pension scheme) and having failed to elicit a response, he approached this Tribunal in OA No. 400 of 2023 which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 06.10.2023 directing the respondents to decide his representation. The respondents rejected his representation vide order dated 15.09.2025 on the ground that he had not completed minimum 10 years of service to become eligible for pension under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

3. The applicant states that he was engaged as Commission Vendor by the respondents in the year 1977. He contends that the issue of counting the service rendered as Commission Vendor has been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors vs Munshi Ram 2022 SCC Online SC 1493 holding that Commission Vendors/Bearers working in Northern Railway are entitled to have 50% of their service rendered prior to their regularization to be counted for pensionary benefits. He finally contends that by not considering 50% of his service rendered as Commission Vendor prior to regularization of his service, the respondents have acted in an illegal, arbitrary and misconceived manner.

4. The respondents state that the applicant has been granted pension under the New Pension Scheme (NPS). They contend that as the applicant’s total service period in the railways was only 9 years 4 months and 26 days, i.e., less than 10 years, he is not eligible for consideration under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.

5. Heard both the parties. 6.1 The issue before this Tribunal is whether the service rendered by the applicant as Commission Vendor prior to his regular appointment can be reckoned as qualifying service for the purpose of pension benefits under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. 6.2 It is noted that this issue has been adjudicated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment and order dated 31.10.2022 in Munshi Ram (supra) in the following terms: “5… At the outset, it is required to be noted that the issue in the present case is with respect to Commission Vendors working in the Northern Railway and the issue is whether the Commission Vendors who were absorbed in the regular service are entitled to reckon 50% of the period of service as Commission Vendors, prior to their absorption, as qualifying service for grant of pensionary benefits, at par with the casual labourers whose services were regularized by virtue of Rule 2005 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Vol. II, 1991 (IREM) r/w Rule 31 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. …

6. From the aforesaid, it can be seen that with respect to Commission Vendors/bearers working in the Western Railway, Eastern Railway, Southern Railway and South-Eastern Railway, they are held to be entitled to 50% of the services rendered prior to their regularization to be counted for pensionary benefits and all those Commission Vendors/bearers are granted such benefits. Now the dispute is with respect to Commission Vendors/bearers working in the Northern Railway.

7. It cannot be disputed that employees working in different divisions/zones in the Railways are under the very same employer – Railway Board which is under the Ministry of Railways. There are 16 Zones and 68 Divisions in the Railways. Therefore, the employees working under the same employer – Railway Board working in different Zones/Divisions are required to be treated similarly and equally and are entitled to similar benefits and are entitled to the same treatment. As rightly submitted on behalf of the respondents, there cannot be any discrimination inter se. Under the circumstances, on the ground of parity, the Commission Vendors/bearers working in the Northern Railway are entitled to the same benefits which are held to be entitled to all the similarly situated Commission Vendors/Bearers working under different Zones/Divisions. There cannot be different criteria/parameters with respect to similarly situated employees – Commission Vendors/bearers working in different Zones/Divisions, but working under the same employer.

8. The Railways/UOI/Railway Board cannot be permitted to repeat the same arguments which were raised before different Tribunals, High Courts and also before this Court. Under the circumstances, the respondents – Commission Vendors/bearers working in the Northern Railway shall also be entitled to the same benefits which the other Commission Vendors/bearers working in different Zones/Divisions are held to be entitled to. There cannot be discrimination among the similarly situated Commission Vendors/bearers. To deny similar benefits would tantamount to discrimination and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. …

11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and even applying the doctrine of stare decisis, on the aforesaid ground alone, the present appeals deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed, by holding that the respondents – Commission Vendors/bearers working in the Northern Railway are entitled to have 50% of their services rendered prior to their regularization to be counted for pensionary benefits like other office bearers/Vendors working under the Railway Board, working in different zones/divisions, namely, Western Railway, Eastern Railway, Southern Railway and South-Eastern Railway.” (emphasis supplied) It is evident from the above that the Commission Vendors in Northern Railway are entitled to have 50% of their service prior to their regularization to be counted for pensionary benefits like their counterparts in other Railway Zones. 6.3 Coming to the case at hand and applying the ratio in Munshi Ram (supra), it is held that the applicant, having served as Commission Vendor in Northern Railway, is entitled to have 50% of his service as Commission Vendor, prior to his appointment on regular post on 04.05.2006, counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits. 7.1 In view of the foregoing, the impugned order dated 15.09.2025 is quashed and set aside. 7.2 The respondents are directed to reckon 50% of the service rendered by the applicant as Commission Vendor, prior to his appointment on regular post on 04.05.2006, as qualifying service for pensionary benefits under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 and make payment of arrears, without interest, to the applicant within three months of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7.3 This OA is disposed of in above terms. 7.4 Associated MAs also stand disposed of. 7.5 Parties shall bear their own costs.

(Pankaj Kumar)

Member (A)

Vidya

Vidya Ben Waghela Digitally signed by Vidya Ben Waghela Date: 2026.11.12 15:32:23 +05'30'