Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1886 (PAT)

Union Of India v. Central Administrative Tribunal

2007-12-12

KISHORE K.MANDAL, NARAYAN ROY

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. A. Amanullah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. MP. Dixit, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2. 2. This writ application is directed against the order dated 1.3.2006 passed by the Patna Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) in O.A. No. 492 of 2005. 3. The applicant-respondent no. 2 had approached the Tribunal for issuance of a direction to count his temporary status from 1.1.1981 to 1.4.1988 as full instead of half pensionary benefits. 4. The applicant-respondent no. 2 was engaged as casual labour in Railway and subsequently he was granted temporary status with effect from 1.1.1981 and he was further regularized with effect from 1.4.1988 on the post of Gangman and superannuated from service on 30.11.2001. After his retirement, he was allowed half pension on the basis of his half service of temporary status and full period of service from the date of his regularization till retirement. A prayer, therefore, was made that since the applicant respondent no. 2 was granted temporary status and later was absorbed in service, he would be entitled for counting the full service for the period of temporary status till regularization for the purpose of pension. 5. In the light of the prayer, the learned Tribunal, having considered the rival contention of the parties, placing reliance on the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of G.M., South Central Railway, A.P. V/s. Shaik Abdul Khader, 2004 2 ATJ 23, held that since the applicant-respondent no. 2 was given temporary status and later was regularized and absorbed in service, he would be entitled for counting full service for the period of temporary status till regularization for the purpose of pension. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to impress upon the Court that the applicant-respondent no. 2 was entitled only for half pension as calculated by the Railways as entire period cannot be counted for calculation of pensionary benefits as he was given a temporary status and subsequently regularized. 7. It appears that the learned Tribunal, in view of the rules framed by the Railways and judgment rendered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court (supra), treated the case of the applicant-respondent no. 2 completely at par with that of the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court and accordingly directed for payment of pensionary benefits. 8. 7. It appears that the learned Tribunal, in view of the rules framed by the Railways and judgment rendered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court (supra), treated the case of the applicant-respondent no. 2 completely at par with that of the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court and accordingly directed for payment of pensionary benefits. 8. To us, it appears that the reasonings so recorded by the learned Tribunal, appear to be in consonance with the findings as recorded by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of G.M., South Central Railway, (A.P.) (supra) and it also appears to be commensurate with the rules framed by the Railways. It is not in dispute that the judgment rendered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court as referred to above still holds good and has not been set aside by the Supreme Court. 9. Keeping in view these aspects of the matter and the reasonings assigned by the learned Tribunal, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. 10. This writ application is accordingly dismissed.