JUDGMENT S.K. MISHRA, J. — Admit. 2. The simple question, that arises in this batch of writ petitions, is, if 50% of service rendered after completion of six months of initial casual service, should be reckoned to determine the minimum qualifying service period of Railway employees for the purpose of pensionary benefits. 3. Opposite party No.1 in each of the writ petitions have been engaged as casual labour on various dates. Thereafter, for a certain period they have been given casual work. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in Indra Pal Jadav v. Union of India, (1985) 2 SCC 648 , they were conferred temporary status on 01.01.1981 and were granted permanent Construction Reserve status on 01.04.1988. On their retirement on superannuation, the oppo¬site party No.1 in each of the writ petitions except Bhaskar Parida, (opposite party No.1 in W.P.C. No.3136 of 2002) were not given any pensionary benefit on their superannuation on the ground that they have not completed ten years of qualifying service in the Railways. Only Bhaskar Parida was reckoned to have completed more than ten years and was given a monthly pension of Rs.375/. While calculating the service tenure or qualifying services, the Railway authorities did not include the period the employees had served as casual labour prior to the date they were conferred temporary status. Out of the period between conferring of temporary status and absorption in permanent cadre, 50% of the total service rendered has been taken into account. Challenging such action, this opposite party No.1 (in each of the writ peti¬tions) initiated Original Application before the Central Adminis¬trative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench (hereinafter referred to as the “learned tribunal” for brevity). In all the cases, the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that 50% of days worked as casual worker should also be taken into account while reckoning the number of years of qualifying service. Learned Tribunal further ordered that accordingly, the pension of these employees be fixed by the Railways. The Railways, has preferred these writ petitions assailing such judgments of the learned Tribunal. 3. It shall be appropriate to take into account the undis¬puted facts in each of the writ petitions, especially emphasizing the different relevant dates. The undisputed facts, as summa¬rized, are as follows :- (I) W.P.(C) No.2136 of 2002 relates to employee Sachi Prusty, which arises out of O.A. No.581 of 1996. 3. It shall be appropriate to take into account the undis¬puted facts in each of the writ petitions, especially emphasizing the different relevant dates. The undisputed facts, as summa¬rized, are as follows :- (I) W.P.(C) No.2136 of 2002 relates to employee Sachi Prusty, which arises out of O.A. No.581 of 1996. Sachi Prusty was engaged as Casual Mate on 28.01.1974. Thereafter, he was given casual work without break. On 01.01.1981, he was given the status of a temporary worker and on 01.04.1988, he was taken into the perma¬nent cadre. He retired on 30.06.1993. The Railway Authorities calculated his qualifying service to be 8 years 10 months 14 days. While doing so, they have not taken into consideration the work rendered by him prior to 01.01.1981. (II) W.P.(C) No.6474 of 2002 relates to the employees Jogi Swain and it arises out of O.A. No.317 of 2001. He was engaged as a Casual Mate on 06.06.1975. He was given temporary status on 11.05.1990. His services were regularized on 29.06.1994. He retired on superannuation on 31.12.2000. The Railway authorities calculated his qualifying service to be 8 years 6 months and 25½ days. (III) W.P.(C) No.3136 of 2002 relates to the case of employ¬ees Bhaskar Parida, in which the Railway authorities challenge the order passed in the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.580 of 2001. In this case, Bhaskar Parida was engaged as a Casual Mate from 30.11.1971 to 26.03.1972. Since 05.12.1972, he was engaged as Casual Mate without break. Then he was conferred temporary status from 01.01.1981 and was absorbed as a Permanent Construction Reservation from 01.04.1984. He retired a superannuation on 30.06.1993. The Railway authorities calculated his qualifying service to be of 11 years and calculated pension of Rs.375/- per month. (IV) W.P.(C) No.5266 of 2002 arises out of O.A. No.620 of 2002. This case relates to Bidyadhar Samal. He was taken as a temporary employee on 01.01.1981. He was not absorbed against any regular post. He retired on superannuation on 31.01.1990. The Railway authorities have not calculated his pension as he has not ac¬quired any qualifying service as he has not been absorbed in a permanent cadre. 4. This case relates to Bidyadhar Samal. He was taken as a temporary employee on 01.01.1981. He was not absorbed against any regular post. He retired on superannuation on 31.01.1990. The Railway authorities have not calculated his pension as he has not ac¬quired any qualifying service as he has not been absorbed in a permanent cadre. 4. There is no dispute regarding the fact that opposite parties Sachi Prusty, Jogi Swain and Bidyadhar Samal do not have ten years of qualifying service, if the period between their engagement as a casual labour and the date of conferment of temporary status on 01.01.1981 is not taken into consideration. There is also no dispute that Bhaskar Parida similarly has only 11 years of qualifying service, if the aforesaid period prior to being conferred temporary status is not taken into consideration. All these writ petitions involved one single question. Hence, all the writ petitions are being disposed of by this combined judg¬ment. 5. The Indian Railway Establishment Manual has made a distinction between temporary status and ‘temporary employment’. The casual labours, who are treated temporary after expiry of six months of continuous employment, were only entitled to the rights and privileges admissible to temporary railways service. But such temporary status did not entitle to the casual labour to the benefit of period the service rendered after attending temporary status being treated as qualifying service for the purpose of retrial benefits. For the purpose of completing the qualifying service for the retiral benefits, the service after absorption in regular, temporary/permanent post after requisite selection can be only taken into consideration. At this stage, it is profitable to refer to paragraph 2005 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Volume II. “2005. Entitlement and Privileges admissible to Casual Labour who are treated as temporary (i.e. given temporary status) after the completion of 120 days or 360 days of continuous em¬ployment (as the case may be) - (a) casual labour treated as temporary are entitled to the rights and benefits admissible to temporary railway servants as laid down in Chapter XXIII of this Manual. The rights and privileges admissible to such labour also include the benefit of D & A Rules. The rights and privileges admissible to such labour also include the benefit of D & A Rules. However, their service prior to absorption in temporary/permanent/regular cadre after the required selection/screening will not count for the purpose of seniority and the date of their regular appointment after screen¬ing/selection shall determine their seniority vis-a-vis other regular/temporary employees. This is, however, subject to the provision that if the seniority of certain individual employees has already been determined in any other manner, either in pursu¬ance of judicial decisions or otherwise, the seniority so deter¬mined shall not be altered. Casual labour including Project casual labour shall be eligible to count only half the period of service rendered by them after attaining temporary status on completion of prescribed days of continuous employment and before regular absorption, as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. This benefit will be admissible only after their absorption in regular employment. Such casual labour, who have attained temporary status, will also be entitled to carry forward the leave at their credit to new post on absorption in regular service. Daily rated casual labour will not be entitled to these benefits. (emphasis supplied) (b) Such casual labour who acquire temporary status, will not, however, be brought on to the permanent or regular establishment or treated as in regular employment on Railways until and unless they are selected through regular Selection Board for Group D posts in the manner laid down from time to time. Subject to such orders as the Railway Board may issue from time to time, and subject such exceptions and conditions like appointment on com¬passionate ground, quotas for handicapped and ex-servicemen etc. as may be specified in these orders they will have a prior claim over others to recruitment on a regular basis and they will be considered for regular employment without having to go through employment exchanges. Such of them who join as Casual labour before attaining the age of 28 years should be allowed relaxation of the maximum age limit prescribed for Group D posts to the extent of their total service which may be either continuous or in broken periods. (c) No temporary posts shall be created to accommodated such casual labour, who acquire temporary status, for the conferment of attendant benefits like regular scale of pay, increment etc. (c) No temporary posts shall be created to accommodated such casual labour, who acquire temporary status, for the conferment of attendant benefits like regular scale of pay, increment etc. After absorption in regular employment half of the service ren¬dered after attaining temporary status by such persons before regular absorption against a regular/temporary/permanent post, will qualify for pensionary benefits, subject to the conditions prescribed in Railway Board’s letter No. E (NG) II/78/CL/12 dated 14.10.80. (Letter No. E (NG) II/85/CL/6 dated 28.11.86 in the case of Project casual labour). (d) Casual labour who have acquired temporary status and have put in three years continuous service should be treated at par with temporary railway servants for purpose of festival advance/Flood Advance on the same conditions as are applicable to temporary railway servants for grant of such advance provided they furnish two sureties from permanent railway employees. (e) Casual labour engaged on works, who attain temporary status on completion of 120 days continuous employment on the same type of work, should be treated as temporary employees for the purpose of hospital leave in terms of Rule 554-R-I (1985 Edition). A casual labour who has attained temporary status and has been paid regular scale of pay, when re-engaged, after having been discharged earlier on completion of work or for non-availability of further productive work, may be started on the pay last drawn by him. (This shall be effective from 2nd October, 1980).” 6. There is no dispute that casual labour as on service on 1st January, 1981 and those not on service on 1st January 1981 and had already completed 360 days of continuous service, shall be treated as temporary labour as on 01.01.1981 by virtue of the judgment in Indra Pal Yadav’s case (supra). 7. Thus, the Rule guiding the employment has laid down that any service rendered prior to conferring temporary status on the employees, though can be taken for the purpose of certain service benefits, the same cannot be taken into account while calculating the qualifying service for the purpose of determining pension. 8. When the relevant clause in the Indian Railway Estab¬lishment Manual provides for the procedure for reckoning the qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefit, any order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the same or in viola¬tive of the same, should be set aside. 8. When the relevant clause in the Indian Railway Estab¬lishment Manual provides for the procedure for reckoning the qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefit, any order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the same or in viola¬tive of the same, should be set aside. No person can claim any right on the basis which is de hors, the statutory rules nor can there be any estoppel. Further in such cases, there cannot be any consideration on the ground of hardship. If the Rules do not provide for grant of pensionary benefit, it is for the authority to decide and frame appropriate rules but the Court cannot direct payment of pension to an employee who has not completed ten years of qualifying service. (Union of India and others v. Rakesh Kumar (2001) 4 SCC 309 , relied on). 8. In view of the discussion in the proceeding paragraphs, it is crystal clear that the orders passed by the learned Tribu¬nal in the Original Applications No.317, 580, 581 of 2001 and 620 of 2002 are unsustainable and are set aside. L. MOHAPATRA, J. I agree. Ordered accordingly.