High Court · 2025 on 17 May 2025

Judgment

1. This petition is directed against order dated 09.04.2024 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, whereby the Original Application (‘OA’), filed by the petitioner, seeking quashing of the order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the Divisional Railway Manager, Moradabad and seeking release of all the retirement benefits including pension, gratuity and leave encashment, etc. along with interest, has been dismissed.

2. The petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer-2 (Drawing) in South- Eastern Railways on 05.02.1994 and worked there till 31.01.2000. He applied for the post of Section Engineer in Northern Railway through proper channel, where after his selection, he was relieved from South Eastern Railways and joined in Moradabad Division of Northern Railway. While working on the post of Section Officer, petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Engineer in Uttraranchal Peyjal Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam (‘Nigam’), after qualifying the written examination, the petitioner applied for permission from the Divisional Railway Manager, Moradabad to participate in the interview. Permission for participation in interview was given by the Divisional Railway Manager, Moradabad. After getting selected, on receiving appointment letter, petitioner applied for being relieved before the appropriate authority from where he was relieved vide letter dated 28.06.2005 for joining on the post of Assistant Engineer at the Nigam, where he joined on 29.06.2005. The petitioner requested Divisional Railway Manager for maintaining his lien up to 27.06.2008 by a letter dated

26.06.2007. The petitioner, then filed his resignation from the post of Section Engineer, Northern Railway, Moradabad before the Divisional

Railway Manager on 12.06.2008 whereafter, for the first time, the petitioner claimed his retiral benefits on 15.07.2009 and made further representations on 11.09.2010, 01.07.2011, 15.06.2012, 05.07.2013, 18.08.2014 and

15.07.2015, which were not responded. The petitioner continued with his attempts in this regard by raising his grievance in Pension Adalat, 2016 and making representation dated 18.04.2017, to which, a response dated

11.07.2017 was given that the matter has already been decided and disposed of in Pension Adalat, 2016. Petitioner was indicated that pension is payable after 20 years of service in case of voluntary retirement and after 10 years in case of superannuation as per Rules and no pension was payable to the petitioner.

3. Further representation made by the petitioner contesting the purported rejection in the Pension Adalat, 2016, wherein he was informed that it was not possible to consider his case for pension as he had not given ‘technical resignation’ before joining the Nigam. After several efforts made, by a communication dated 05.02.2019, the claim of the petitioner was denied, inter alia, on the ground that those employees, who have completed 10 years of service and who have either retired on his superannuation or has been granted compulsory retirement or has due to his physical disabilities, entitled to pension and as the petitioner does not fall in any of the said categories, he was not entitled to the same.

4. Aggrieved of the said communication, the petitioner filed the present OA, to which, a short counter affidavit was filed contesting the plea raised by the petitioner. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, referred to office memorandum dated 27.08.2018 including its paragraph 9 and came to the conclusion that the new job where the petitioner has joined is non- pensionable job, he joined the Nigam as new recruit and the same is not a case of absorption in the new job and consequently, dismissed the OA. Feeling aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed. Page No. 2 of 6

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that it was the specific case of the petitioner that his case would be governed by Chapter V of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 (‘Rules of 1993’), which inter alia, provides different types of pensions including pension on absorption in or under a corporation, company or body and under Rule 53 of Rules of 1993, pension is payable to a person, who after having completed the qualifying service in Railways has been absorbed in another service of the Central Government or of a State Government or in some other body or authority, Rule 69(2) of Rules of 1993 indicates minimum qualifying service at 10 years.

6. Further submissions have been made that RBE No. 18 of 2021 dated

10.03.2021, issued by the Railway Board dealing with pension scheme of Railways and retirement benefits on absorption in public sector undertakings/autonomous bodies, contains copy of master circular No. 53, wherein all the applicable circulars have been collated under various parts and relevant circulars contained in Part ‘C’ refers to clarifications that resignation from railway service with a view to join public sector undertakings shall be treated as good and sufficient from the point of view of administration to claim retirement benefits and that retirement benefits, to a railway servant, who had applied on his own volition on the basis of his application in response to press advertisement for post in public sector undertakings and the autonomous bodies, are allowed. The payment of retirement benefits as allowed to those who were permanently absorbed after deputation in public interest and the denial on part of the respondents and dismissal of the OA is wholly unjustified.

7. When the matter came up before this Court, during course of submissions, attention of the Court was drawn to Circular dated 10.03.2021 and Clauses (A) & (H) of Part ‘C’, learned A.S.G.I. prayed for time to complete his instructions in the matter.

8. Counter affidavit was filed, relying on Rule 26(2) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, however, no specific response to the contents of RBE No. 18 of 2021 was given when again time was granted to Page No. 3 of 6 respond to the same, to which a supplementary affidavit has been filed reiterating that retirement benefits can be given to the employee only if he leaves after submitting technical resignation and since the petitioner, while working as Assistant Engineer in the Nigam, had applied for resignation from his post on 03.07.2008, he was not entitled for the pension/retiral benefits. Further reference has been made to Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 regarding forfeiture of service on resignation.

9. Learned A.S.G.I. made submissions, reiterating the submissions as made before the Tribunal and in the counter affidavit/supplementary affidavit.

10. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

11. It was the specific case of the petitioner that he was seeking pension under Rule 53 read with Rule 69(2) of the Rules of 1993 read with RBE No. 18 of 2021. A perusal of the record indicates that neither the respondents nor the Tribunal dealt with the plea raised by the petitioner in relation to the provisions relied on. Rule 53 and Rule 69(2), Rules of 1993, inter alia, read as under : “53. Pension on absorption in or under a corporation, company or body- (1) A railway servant who has been permitted to be absorbed in a service or post in or under a corporation or company wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government or in or under a body controlled or financed by the Central Government or a State Government shall be deemed to have retired from service from the date of such absorption and subject to sub-rule (3), he shall be eligible to receive retirement benefits, if any, from such date as may be determined, in accordance with the orders of the Railway applicable to him. (Authority: Railway Board’s letter No. F(E)III/2003/PN1/25 dated 20.01.05) 69(2). In the case of a railway servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules after completing qualifying service of not less than ten years, the amount of pension shall be calculated at fifty per cent of emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more beneficial to him, subject to a minimum of nine thousand rupees per mensem and maximum of one lakh twenty five thousand rupees per mensem. (Authority: Railway Board’s letter No. D-5/2019-F(E)III dated 30.07.2024)”

12. Rule 53 of Rules of 1993 provides that a railway servant, who has been permitted to be absorbed in a service or post in or under a corporation or company wholly or substantially owned or controlled by Central Government or a State Government or in or under a body controlled or Page No. 4 of 6 financed by Central Government or State Government shall be deemed to have retired from service from the date of such absorption and subject to sub-rule (3), he shall be eligible to receive retirement benefits, if any, from such day as will be determined in accordance with order of the Railways applicable to him.

13. Sub-rule (3) provides an option to the railway servant, who has been absorbed to exercise option either to count the service rendered under the Railways in the body for pension or to receive retirement benefits for the service rendered under the Railways. Qua the said provisions, RBE No. 18 of 2021 dated 10.03.2021 has been issued containing the master circular bringing out instructions, inter alia, with regard to retirement benefits of the railway employees permanently absorbed in public sector undertakings. The two relevant clarifications (A) & (H) (pages 240 and 242 to the paper book), inter alia, read as under: “(A) Clarification was issued that resignation from railway service with a view to join Public Sector Undertaking shall be treated as good and sufficient from the point of view of administration to claim retirement benefits. (Authority : F(E)III/66/PN1/25 dated 21.09.66) (H) Retirement benefits to a Railway servant who had applied on his own volition on the basis of his application in response to Press advertisement for posts in Public Sector Undertakings and Autonomous bodies was also allowed the payment of retirement benefits as allowed to those who were permanently absorbed after deputation in public interest. (Authority : E(NG)/72/AP/12 dated 02.08.1972 E(NG)II/73/AP/11 dated 05.12.1975 E(NG)II 77/AP/19 dated 24.05.1978)”

14. A perusal of the above would reveal that clarification has been issued that resignation from railway service with a view to join public sector undertaking shall be treated as good and sufficient from the point of view of administration to claim retirement benefits and the plea raised regarding the technical resignation and there being no absorption stands negated by Clause (H), which provides that retirement benefits to a railway servant, who had applied on his own volition on the basis of his application in response to press advertisement for post in public sector undertakings and autonomous bodies are allowed, the payment of retirement benefits as allowed to those, who were permanently absorbed after deputation in public interest. Page No. 5 of 6

15. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the said provisions of Rules of 1993 read with RBE No. 18 of 2021, which contains master circular and clarifications issued over a period of time dealing with the cases pertaining to retirement benefits for railway employees absorbed in public sector undertakings which includes those who have joined pursuant to press advertisement. As such, the denial by the respondents by relying on Rule 26(2) of the Rules dehors the Rules of 1993, which are applicable to railway servants cannot be sustained.

16. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the Divisional Railway Manager, Moradabad and order dated 09.04.2024 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1006 of 2019 are quashed and set aside. The OA filed by the petitioner is allowed.

17. The respondents are directed to process the case of the petitioner for grant of retiral benefits as admissible to him and release the entire post retiral benefits including arrears from the date he became eligible for the same. The requisite exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of 8 weeks from the date of this order.

18. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 17.05.2025. Mukesh Pal (Vikas Budhwar, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) MUKESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Page No. 6 of 6