BRIJENDRA SWAROOP vs NORTHERN RAILWAY on 13 November 2026

O R D E R

Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief: “(1) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to correctly count the qualifying service of the applicant from 1975 to 2011 and refixed pension and pensionary benefits as per qualifying service of the applicant and also pay arrears of pension and pensionary benefits with interest.

SRIVASTAVA

(ii) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to reimbursh the amount of Rs. 6 lakhs spent by the applicant in medical expense in between 2011 to 2022 and also pay amount of Pass PTO admissible to the applicant during this period.

(iii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.

(iv) Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant”.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as Trackman on a temporary basis on 02.07.1975 and was granted temporary status w.e.f. 15.12.1986. His name appeared at Serial No. 186 in the screening list dated 17.12.1991 for grant of permanent status and thereafter granted permanent cadre. He subsequently served at Roorkee and retired on 31.12.2011. Although the respondents had recorded his service as 23 years and 8 months in their letter dated 07.08.2010, his qualifying service was shown as only 19 years, 7 months and 18 days in the PPO issued on 18.09.2013. The applicant repeatedly represented for correction of his service particulars, including the date of screening, pay fixation and grant of MACP benefits. His grievance was also taken up in PNM meetings, following which the respondents corrected his length of service in 2020 and paid the consequential pension arrears. However, no revised PPO was issued despite repeated representations. The revised PPO was ultimately issued on 20.01.2023, but it again recorded his qualifying service as only 21 years, whereas the applicant claims that his total qualifying service is 30 years, 8 months and 22 days. Aggrieved by the incorrect calculation of his qualifying service and the consequential denial of proper pensionary benefits, the applicant has filed the present Original Application.

3. I have heard Shri M.K. Upadhyay learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

SRIVASTAVA

4. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the respondents wrongly calculated the applicant's qualifying service, resulting in payment of a lesser pension and denial of Pass/PTO and medical facilities after his retirement in 2011. It was contended that, pursuant to the PNM meeting, the respondents themselves corrected his length of service and paid the arrears of pension, but failed to issue a revised PPO. Despite repeated representations, the revised PPO was issued only on 20.01.2023, wherein the applicant's qualifying service was again shown as 21 years instead of 30 years, 8 months and 22 days, as claimed by him. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the respondents failed to explain the basis of their calculation, particularly when their own letter dated 07.08.2010 recorded the applicant's service as 23 years and 8 months. It was argued that the respondents' action was based on an incorrect assessment of the service record and the applicant was entitled to have his entire qualifying service counted for pensionary benefits. It was also submitted that, due to the respondents' inaction, the applicant was deprived of medical facilities and complimentary passes from 2011 to 2022, causing him financial loss, including medical expenses of approximately Rs. 6 lakh, besides mental hardship. Thus he prayed that the respondents be directed to recalculate the applicant's qualifying service correctly and grant him all consequential pensionary and other service benefits.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the applicant's qualifying service has been calculated on the basis of his service record and the applicable rules. As per the service calculation sheet, the applicant's total service was worked out as 22 years, 8 months and 22 days. After excluding the non-qualifying period of 1 year, 6 months and 23 days, his qualifying service was determined as 21 years, 1 month and 14 days. Accordingly, the respondents issued the PPO by taking into account the qualifying service admissible under the rules. It was, therefore, contended that the applicant's claim for counting 30 years, 8 months and 22 days as qualifying service is not supported by the departmental record and

SRIVASTAVA

no illegality has been committed by the respondents in calculating his pensionary benefits. Hence, the learned counsel for the respondents prayed that the Original Application be dismissed.

6. I have considered the pleadings, the documents on record and the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

7. The issue for consideration is whether the respondents have correctly calculated the applicant's qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits.

8. The applicant was initially engaged as Trackman on 02.07.1975. He was granted temporary status w.e.f. 15.12.1986. His name also finds place in the screening list dated 17.12.1991. The respondents have calculated his total service as 22 years, 8 months and 22 days and, after deducting the non-qualifying period of 1 year, 6 months and 23 days, determined his qualifying service as 21 years, 1 month and 14 days. However, the calculation sheet does not appear to take into account the applicant's casual service rendered before grant of temporary status.

9. The legal position in this regard has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. Rakesh Kumar and others decided in Civil Appeal No. 3938/2017 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 23723 of 2015 on 24.3.2017. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that “ 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.

iii) Those casual workers who are appointed to any post either substantively or in officiating or in temporary capacity are entitled to reckon the entire period from date of taking charge to such post as per Rule 20 of Rules, 1993.

SRIVASTAVA

iv) It is open to Pension Sanctioning Authority to recommend for relaxation in deserving case to the Railway Board for dispensing with or relaxing requirement of any rule with regard to those casual workers who have been subsequently absorbed against the post and do not fulfill the requirement of existing rule for grant of pension, in deserving cases. On a request made in writing, the Pension Sanctioning Authority shall consider as to whether any particular case deserves to be considered for recommendation for relaxation under Rule 107 of Rules, 1993”.

10. In view of the aforesaid law, the respondents were required to consider the applicant's service from 02.07.1975 onwards in the following manner: (i) 50% of casual service from 02.07.1975 to 15.12.1986; (ii) 50% of service from 15.12.1986 till the date of his appointment against a regular or temporary post; and (iii) the entire service thereafter till his retirement on 31.12.2011. The admissible non-qualifying period, if any, may thereafter be excluded in accordance with the applicable rules but not on Saturday and Sunday coming in between that period.

11. The respondents have not demonstrated from the calculation sheet that 50% of the applicant's casual service rendered before 15.12.1986 has been taken into account. Therefore, the qualifying service determined in the PPO dated 20.01.2023 cannot be sustained without a fresh calculation in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The applicant's claim for 30 years, 8 months and 22 days, however, cannot be accepted merely on the basis of his assertion. The respondents must calculate the qualifying service by applying the aforesaid formula and verifying the actual date of his appointment against a regular or temporary post from the original screening/appointment order and service record. The date of 03.09.1991 appearing in the calculation sheet and the screening list dated 17.12.1991 also need to be reconciled.

12. Once the qualifying service is correctly determined, the respondents shall refix the applicant's pension and all consequential pensionary benefits, including the admissible arrears of pension from the due date. The applicant shall also be entitled to revision of

SRIVASTAVA

other retiral benefits, if any, which are dependent upon the correctly determined qualifying service, after adjusting the amounts already paid to him.

13. So far as the claim for reimbursement of medical expenses of approximately Rs. 6 lakh and the monetary value of Pass/PTO for the period from 2011 to 2022 is concerned, these claims require examination under the applicable Railway rules and instructions. The applicant shall submit the relevant medical bills and particulars of the Pass/PTO benefits claimed, if not already submitted. The respondents shall examine these claims separately and pass a reasoned order in accordance with the applicable rules. The applicant shall be granted such benefits as are found admissible.

14. In view of the above discussion, the Original Application is partly allowed with the following directions:

(i) The respondents shall recalculate the applicant's qualifying service from 02.07.1975 to 31.12.2011 by granting 50% weightage to casual service rendered before grant of temporary status and 50% weightage to service rendered after grant of temporary status till appointment against a regular or temporary post. The entire service rendered thereafter shall be counted in terms of Rule 20 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 (old Rule)

(ii) While making the aforesaid calculation, the respondents shall verify the actual date of appointment against a regular or temporary post from the original records and exclude only such period as is legally non-qualifying under the applicable rules in light of the submissions made in preceding paras.

(iii) On the basis of the revised qualifying service, the respondents shall issue a revised PPO and accordingly refix the applicant’s pension and other admissible pensionary

SRIVASTAVA

benefits. The arrears arising out of such refixation,, after adjustment of the amount already paid, shall also be released to the applicant along with interest at the applicable GPF rate.

(iv) The respondents shall separately consider the applicant's claim for reimbursement of medical expenses and Pass/PTO benefits for the period from 2011 to 2022 and pass a reasoned order in accordance with the applicable rules.

(v) The entire exercise, including issuance of the revised PPO and payment of admissible arrears, shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(vi) Since the applicant has not sought commutation of pension, no direction in that regard is being issued.

15. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of.

(JUSTICE OM PRAKASH VII)

Member (J) Manish/-

SRIVASTAVA