JUDGMENT 1. This petition for writ is preferred to question correctness of the judgment dated 12.5.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur. 2. The petitioner entered in the service of respondent-Railways on 16.5.1978 being appointed as Substitute Casual Worker and on 11.9.1983 temporary status was conferred to him. He was found suitable for appointment as Class-IV employee on 4.1.1988. As per the petitioner, he became eligible to be regularised in service on 28.1.1991, however, as per the respondent-Railways he acquired that eligibility on 9.10.1996. 3. In the month of November, 1996 the petitioner was transferred to the office of Station Superintendent, Rewari and being aggrieved by the same, he preferred an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. On 6.11.1996 the learned Tribunal while issuing notices granted an interim direction to the respondents to maintain status quo as that was then existing. The original application ultimately came to be dismissed on 15.7.1998. 4. The petitioner after dismissal of the original application reported to his duties. The respondents then declared the petitioner a regular employee w.e.f. 15.7.1998. The petitioner claimed for regularisation in service w.e.f. 28.1.1991 or in alternative w.e.f. 09.10.1996 as the Railways earlier decided. An original application, thus, was again was filed by the petitioner for determination of correct date of his regularisation in service. The original application came to be accepted by the Tribunal and that was challenged by the Railway Authorities by way of filing a petition for writ (DB Civil Writ Petition No. 7196/2006) before this Hon'ble Court. The writ petition came to be dismissed in limine on 07.3.2007. The Court while dismissing the writ petition directed the respondents to treat the petitioner in regular service w.e.f. 09.10.1996. A direction was also given to recalculate his qualifying service. 5. The petitioner after disposal of the writ petition aforesaid again approached the Central Administrative Tribunal with the allegation that no calculation of qualifying service was made as directed by Central Administrative Tribunal and the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7196/2006. The original application came to be dismissed by order dated 12.12.2008. The petitioner again approached this Court by way of filing a petition for writ (DB Civil Writ Petition No. 520/2009) with submission that the order passed by the Tribunal is absolutely a non-speaking and unreasoned order. The writ petition aforesaid was also allowed by the Court on 10.2.2011. The original application came to be dismissed by order dated 12.12.2008. The petitioner again approached this Court by way of filing a petition for writ (DB Civil Writ Petition No. 520/2009) with submission that the order passed by the Tribunal is absolutely a non-speaking and unreasoned order. The writ petition aforesaid was also allowed by the Court on 10.2.2011. This Court arrived at the conclusion that the Tribunal has not considered the issues raised in the original application and, as such, the order is not sustainable. White setting aside the order dated 12.12.2008 the Tribunal was directed to hear and decide the matter afresh. The Central Administrative Tribunal in pursuance to the judgment dated 10.2.2011 reconsidered the original application and dismissed the same vide order dated 12.5.2011. The learned Tribunal while dismissing the original application arrived at the conclusion that the applicant is not entitled for free medical pass/journey pass, PTO etc. being not having the requisite qualifying service of 20 years. The Tribunal also denied interest to the petitioner on delayed payment of pension. To challenge the judgment dated 12.5.2011, the petitioner is again before us. 6. Heard the petitioner. 7. The argument advanced by him is that whatever delay caused in payment of pension, that is because of the Railway Authorities and, therefore, nonpayment of interest is not justiciable. According to the petitioner, the respondents could have declared him regular in service w.e.f. 09.10.1996 and should have computed his pension accordingly. The Railway Authorities without any just reason delayed his regularisation for a period of more than two years and for that he cannot be held responsible, therefore, the interest on delayed payment of pension could have not been denied. 8. In our opinion, the argument advanced by the petitioner is having merit. The Railways at its own arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for regularisation in service w.e.f. 09.10.1996. Irrespective of this decision, regularisation of the petitioner's service was deferred upto 15.7.1998 and that compelled the petitioner to avail remedy by way of filing original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The original application preferred by the petitioner was accepted and a writ petition giving challenge to that was also dismissed, but the Railways did not choose to determine qualifying service of the petitioner by taking into consideration 09.10.1996 as the date of his initial appointment in regular service. The original application preferred by the petitioner was accepted and a writ petition giving challenge to that was also dismissed, but the Railways did not choose to determine qualifying service of the petitioner by taking into consideration 09.10.1996 as the date of his initial appointment in regular service. An original application was again filed by the petitioner and that too came to be accepted and a writ petition giving challenge to the same was also dismissed but the Railways again did not compute the qualifying service correctly. Ultimately the pensionary rights were determined by the Railways, but on that interest was not given. The series of facts noticed above clearly indicate that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for causing delay in release of post-retiral benefits. Whatever delay caused that is due to Railways only, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that a reasonable interest should have been awarded to the petitioner on delayed payment of pension. So far as the grant of free medical pass/journey pass, PTO etc., are concerned, the Central Administrative Tribunal has simply mentioned that the petitioner is not entitled for the same being not having 20 years qualifying service. As per the petitioner, he is entitled for post-retiral pass as he is already getting pension on the basis of the determined qualifying service. None is present on behalf of the Railways to contest the issues, therefore, we are of the view that the petitioner deserves for grant of free medical pass/journey pass, PTO etc. Suffice to mention that the Tribunal while denying post-retiral benefits aforesaid has not substantiated its stand with the aid of any provision. 9. For the reasons given above, the writ petition deserves acceptance. The judgment dated 12.5.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 118/2007 is set aside. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to make payment of interest to the petitioner on delayed payment of pension @ 7.5% per annum. The petitioner is also declared entitled for free medical pass/journey pass, PTO and all other post-retiral benefits. The arrears of interest is required to be paid to the petitioner by the Railway Authorities on or before 30.11.2015. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******