Gandham Satya Murthy v. 1. Union of lndia

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in lhe nature of Writ of Certiorari declaring the Order in O-A.No.761 of 2018, dated 11-01-2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench as wholly illegal' arbitrary and set aside the same and consequently declare that the Petitioner is entitled to the Old Railway Pension Scheme Railway Pension Rules by treating him as regular Group employee w.e.f. 1-8-1998 or 29-7-2000, the dates on which the Petitioner is to be rightfully absorbed and entitled for pension in accordance with Old Rai'lway servants (Pension) Rules by adding 5o percent of total casual labour service rendered from 1 5- O3-1983 to attain qualifying service for the purpose of calculating pension, pensionary benefits arid family pension as per the conclusive revised basic along with pension arrears from the date of retirement 31-01-2018 with all consequential benefits. a\ lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Siection 151 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cor rt may be pleased to suspend the order in o.A.No.761 of 2018, daled 11 .1.2024 passed by the central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench with a direction 1:o the Respondents to 'consider the case of the petitioner for sanction of regular pension by taking into consideration the date of absorption into Group-D post w.e.f 1-B-1998 or 29-7 -2000 by adding 50% of total casual labour service rendered from I5-03-1983 till the date of superannuation Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI HEMANTH KUMARREPRT:SENTING FOR SRl. KIRTHI TEJA KONDA.VEETI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R. ANURAG REPRESENTING FOR SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Dy. SOLICITOR GEN. OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER r THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR FHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Writ Petition No.2O859 of2024 OR-DER: Per ttLe Hotl'ble Si JustirP Abhilaftd Kutut Sha'u.li) Aggrieved by the order dated ll.Ol.2}24 passed in O.A.No.76 1 of 2018 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal'), the present Writ Petiti,on is filed.

2. Heard Sri Hemanth Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti appearing for the petitioner and Sri R. Anurag learned counsel representing learned Deputy Solicitor General of lndia appearing for re spondents.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that the petitioner was initially engaged asa casual labourer in Zonal Training School, South Central Railway, Moulali; Hyderabad during August, 1978 and he was continued without any break tlll 1979. Thereafter, he disengaged and was later re-engaged with effect from 15-O5.1983 in Zorral Training School mess, South Central 2 AKS,J & ETD,J wp 2Oa59-2O24 1 Railway, and he was continued as casua_l la bourer in the mess run by the respondents. Learned couns:l had further contended that the staff of Railway Zonaf Tr atmng School mess are treated on par with the regular staff of the Railways. In spite of vacancies arising in Croup_D posts during 1998, 1999 and 2OOO, the senrices of the petitioner were not regula.rised and Frnally, the serrrices of the petitioner were regularised on 03.l2.2OOS . After being re 3ularised as a Group-D employee, the petitioner had retired from se,rices on 31.01.20 18. Subsequently, the petitioner {,ubmitted his representation requesting the respondents lo count his casual service r-endered from 19g3 till his regr- larisation for the purpose of pensionary benefits, h:wever, the respondents rejected his request. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had approached the Tribunal by filin,g O.A.No.76 1 of 2018, contending that the casual services ren lered by him should be counted for pensionar5r benefits ir accordance with the law laicl down b-y the Honourable Suprr:me Court in Union of Ind.ia u. Rakesh Kumarr, but the ..ribunal dismissed the O.A., rvithout appreciating rny of the contentions raised by the petitioner. ':otz 1t:.1 scc tas 3 AI(S,J & ETD,J w_2O459 2024 lrarned counsel for the petitioner had further 4. contended that the issue was squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumcr's case (supra 1), wherein, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the casual workers, who are appointed to any post either substantively or in an offitciating or temporary capacity are entifled to pensionary benelits It was also hetd that 50% of the casual service rendered on a temporary post should be counted for pension purpose' Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner was working as causal worker in the mess of Zonal Training School run by the respondents. Therefore, he is entitled to have 50'/o of his casual service counted for pensionar5r benefits. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by setting aside the order, dated ll.Ol.2024 passed in O.A.No.76 I of 20lB by the Tribunal and further direct the respondents to count 5O7o of casua,l service rendered by the petitioner from 1983 to 2OO5 for pensionar5r purpose.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents had contended that the relief sought by the petitioner belore the Tribunal was that his services should be 4 AKS,J & ETD,J w.20459 _2024 regularised from the date on which vacancy hzrd arose i.e., in 199a, 1999 and 2000. The Tribunal has rightly dismissed the O.A. on the ground of delay and latches. It is only after retirement that the petitioner had approacher I the Tribunal, contending tlrat his services should be rel5ularised from 1998, the day on which, Group-D vacancy arose. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and th,: same is liable to be dismissed.

6. This Court, having considered the subrnissions made by both the parties, is of the view that the Tr bunal was not justifred in dismissing the O.A. preferred by the petitioner. Admittedly, thLe petitioner has rendered casu r[ service from 1983 till his r<:gularisation in 2OO5. As per tht law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Rakesh Kum6lr's case, 50% of such ,:asual service is to be counted for pensionary benefits. Acr:ordinglv, the order, dated 11.A1 .2024 passed in O.A.No.76 I of 20 18 is liable to be set aside and the respondents are directed to count 5O% of the causal service rendered by the petitioner trom 1983 to 2005 .br the purpose of pensionan' benefits as indicated by tI c Honourable Supreme Court. 5 AKS,J & ETD,J q," 20859,2024 7- Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and'the order, dated 11.O1.2024 passed in O.A.No.76 1 of 2018 is set aside There shall be no order as to costs.

8. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- B. REKHA RANI TANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The General Manager, South Cenkal Railway, Rail Nila yam, Secunderabad - 500 371

2. The Chief Personnel Officer' South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam' Secunderabad - 50O 371 3 TheChiefSafetyOfficer,southCentralRailway,RailNilayam'Secunderabad - 500 371

4. The Princip al, Zonal Railway Training lnstitute, South Central Railway' Mou la-Ali, Hyderabad - 500 040

5. One CC to SRI KIRTHI TEJA KONDAVEETI Advocate IOPUC] 6. One CC to SRl. GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Dy' SOLICITOR GEN' OF INDIA [oPUCl

7. Two CD CoPies KKS GJP HIGH COURT 'DATED:0210712025 s:l'. ;t'' 2 0 lrrt 2p5 -1, l/ ,,'/ 't' I: .\'.\-, - -.-' ORDER WP.No.20859 of 2024 -1,, \ ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 7 /L 5 // g3