-1- OA/050/00015/2018

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH, PATNA OA/050/00015/2018

Reserved on : 04/09/2019 Pronounced on: 06/09/2019

CORAM HON’BLE MR. DINESH SHARMA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

Mohammad Mustaquim, Son of Late Jalil Ahmad, resident of Village- Hariharpur, PO- Rudalpur, PS- Bhorey, District- Gopalganj (Bihar), PIN- 841428. …………… Applicant. - By Advocate: Mr. G. Saha

-Versus- 1. The Union of through the General Manager, North Western Railway, Gorakhpur, , PIN- 273012. 2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Izzatnagar Division, North Eastern Railway, Izzatnagar, , Uttar Pradesh, PIN- 243122. 3. Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, PIN- 273012. 4. Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Izzatnagar Division, North Eastern Railway, Izzatnagar, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, PIN- 243122. 5. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Izzatnagar Division, North Eastern Railway, Izzatnagar, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, PIN- 243122. 6. Assistant Divisional Finance Manager, Izzatnagar Division, North Eastern Railway, Izzatnagar, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, PIN- 243122. 7. Assistant Personnel Officer, Izzatnagar Division, North Eastern Railway, Izzatnagar, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, PIN- 243122. 8. Section Engineer (P.Way), Izzatnagar Division, North Eastern Railway, Kannauj, PIN- 209733. …………… Respondents. - By Advocate: Mr. S.K. Ravi

-2- OA/050/00015/2018

O R D E R [ORAL]

Dinesh Sharma, A.M.: - The case of the applicant is as follows:-

2. The applicant was initially appointed as casual labour on

24.04.1976 and was granted Temporary Status on 01.01.1982. His services were regularized on 03.01.1992 on being absorbed in the open line to the post of Gangman. In the month of July,1995 the applicant was posted as

Gateman (Engg.) a post in which he has continuously worked till his retirement on superannuation on 31.01.2017. The applicant has prayed for counting half of the service from 24.04.1976 till 30.12.1981 and the entire service from 01.01.1982 till his retirement on 31.01.2017 as qualifying service for granting all retirement benefits as well as arrears of pay with interest at the rate of 18%. The applicant has also requested for grant of grade pay of Rs. 2800/- in the Pay Band of Rs. 5200-20200 w.e.f. 08.12.2013 in view of the RBE No. 102/2013. Besides these, he has also prayed for correction in his pension payment order and payment of composite transfer grant and the interest of 18% per annum.

3. The respondents have denied the claim of the applicant. They have alleged that the applicant was initially appointed on 01.01.1982 (Time

Scale) on the post of Group ‘D’ and was regularized his services on

03.11.1992 against the sanctioned post of Group ‘D’, i.e. Gangman. He has been given due benefits of 1st and 2nd MACP and a grade pay of Rs. 1900/- on restructuring w.e.f. 17.08.2012. He has also been given grade pay of Rs.

2400/- w.e.f. 17.08.2014 and has been re-designated as Track Maintainer -3- OA/050/00015/2018

Grade-II . Regarding the claim of the applicant about having worked as casual labour the respondents have stated that there is no record available of his having worked as such. He has already been given benefit of 50% of

‘TS period and 100% of services from the date of regularisation’ and therefore there is nothing wrong in the way his pension has been fixed.

4. No rejoinder has been filed.

5. I have gone through the pleadings and heard the arguments of learned counsels of both the parties. The learned counsel for the applicant specifically brought to the attention of the Tribunal para-4 of the written statement where it is mentioned that the applicant was appointed on

01.01.1982 (Time Scale). This, according to the learned counsel, is an admission by the respondents of the applicant having worked on a regular post in a time scale since 01.01.1982. He also cited a judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1974 SC 471where it is mentioned that admissions in pleadings stand on higher footing than evidentiary admissions and are fully binding on the party that makes them. The learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that this did not amount to an admission of the applicant being on a regular post since 01.01.1982. The same sentence ends up with stating that his services were regularised on

03.11.1992 against a sanctioned post. The written statement has also made it very clear only 50% of the TS period (meaning thereby the period between

01.01.1982 and 03.11.1992) was counted as pensionable service and the continuous period after 03.11.1992 (minus 35 days of period in which he remained absent) has been counted for total qualifying service. The learned -4- OA/050/00015/2018 counsel also brought to the notice of this Tribunal Rule 31 of the Railway

Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 according to which only half of the service is to be counted for the period for which a person has remained in employment before getting regularized on absorption.

6. It is clear from the pleadings that the applicant has joined together prayers for multiple reliefs which stem from totally different causes of action. The major prayer sought by him is for counting the period from the year 1976 to the year 1982 in which he has alleged to have worked as casual labour. However, he has not produced an iota of evidence to support his having worked as such. The respondents have categorically denied having any record to support this claim. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the applicant on this account. It was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that at least the period from the year 1982 from which he has remained on “Time Scale” appointment should be given full benefit of. The learned counsel, while arguing for taking the admissions of the respondents in their pleadings as of binding evidentiary value, seems to have forgotten what the applicant has himself stated in para 4.4 and 4.5 of his pleadings. These are reproduced below:-

“4.4. That the applicant was granted Temporary Status on 01.01.1982.

4.5. That the services of the applicant was regularized on 03.01.1992 on being absorbed in the open line to the post of Gangman and posted under respondent No. 8, Section Engineer (P- Way), North Eastern Railway, Kannauj.” -5- OA/050/00015/2018

Rule 31 of the Indian Railway Services (pension) Rules, 1993 is reproduced below:-

“31. Counting of service paid from contingencies

In respect of a railway servant, in service on or after the 22nd day of August, 1968, half the service paid from contingencies benefits on absorption in regular employment, subject to the following condition namely: -

(a) the service paid from contingencies has been in a job involving whole- time employment;

(b) the service paid from contingencies should be in a type of work or job for which regular posts could have been sanctioned such as posts of malis, chowkidars and khalasis;

(c) the service should have been such for which payment has been made either on monthly rate basis or on daily rates computed and paid on a monthly basis and which, though no analogous to the regular scales of pay, borne some relation in the matter of pay to those being paid for similar jobs being performed at the relevant period by staff in regular establishments;

(d) the service paid from contingencies has been continuous and followed by absorption in regular employment without a break;

Provided that the weightage for past service paid from contingencies shall be limited to the period after 1st January 1961 subject to the condition that authentic records of service such as pay bill, leave record or service-book is available.

NOTE - (1) the provisions of this rule shall also apply to casual labour paid from contingencies.

(2) The expression "absorption in regular employment" means absorption against a regular post.”

7. From these rules it is very clear that only 50% of the service has to be counted for qualifying service for any work on which the applicant was engaged before being absorbed to the regular post. The applicant has himself admitted that he was granted temporary status on 01.01.1982 and was regularized to a post of Gangman only on 03.01.1992 and hence his claim now is clearly an afterthought and cannot be supported by what learned counsel for the applicant calls as admission by the respondents in para 4 of the written statement. -6- OA/050/00015/2018

8. The respondents have made it very clear in their written statement that the claim made by the applicant under RBE 102/2013 related to Group C employees as indicated in Annexures A to H of that letter.

The applicant was posted against the Group D post Gateman and therefore could not be given the benefit of RBE 102/2013.

9. The reliefs about payment of composite transfer grant is obviously unrelated to the rest of the reliefs sought and therefore it will not be necessary to adjudicate upon that. In view of the above, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.

[Dinesh Sharma] Administrative Member Srk.