J HENRY JEYRET vs M/o Railways

1 OA/310/00258/2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00258/2018
st
Dated this the 21 day of August, Two Thousand Twenty Six
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. M. SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER (J)
AND
HON'BLE MR. M.L. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)
Henry Jeyret J
No.3, Thiruvalluvar Street,
Nehry Nagar, Pattabiram,
Chennai. .. Applicant
By Advocate Mr. Ratio Legis
Vs .
1. Union of India
rep by The General Manager,
Southern Railway,
Park Town, Chennai.
2. The Sr Divisional Personnel Officer,
Chennai Division,
Southern Railway,
Chennai. .. Respondents
By Advocate Mr. R. S. Krishnaswamy

2 OA/310/00258/2018
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)
The applicant has filed the OA under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
“........... to call for the records related to the impugned
order No.M/P3/500/settle, dated 24.11.2017 and further
to direct the respondents to treat the entire period from
21.09.1975 till 09.11.1989 in full as qualifying service
for the purpose of pension and thereby to revise the
retirement benefits and to pay all the consequential
arrears with admissible interest and to pas such other
order/orders as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper
and thus to render justice”.
2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant are as follows:
The applicant was initially engaged as a Casual labourer/substitute in the
Chennai Division of Southern Railway and was granted Temporary Status
with effect from 21.09.1975. He was subsequently regularised against a
substantive vacancy on 09.11.1989. However, the respondents failed to
reckon the entire period of his temporary-status service for the purpose of
retirement benefits, including gratuity and other consequential benefits,
despite the applicable Pension Rules providing for such reckoning and
similarly situated employees having been extended the said benefits. The

3 OA/310/00258/2018
applicant’s representation seeking grant of the aforesaid benefits was
rejected by the respondents vide order dated 24.11.2017. Aggrieved
thereby, the applicant has preferred the present Original Application
3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that Rule 24 of the
Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 specifically provides for
reckoning of contract service followed by regularisation as qualifying
service. It was therefore contended that the action of the respondents in
misinterpreting and incorrectly applying the statutory rules framed by the
Hon’ble President of India under Article 309 of the Constitution of India is
wholly unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order dated 24.11.2017
is liable to be set aside.
4. The learned counsel further submitted that the issue relating to the
reckoning of the entire period of temporary-status service for the purpose
of retirement benefits has already been settled through a catena of
judgments rendered by various High Courts and affirmed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. In view of the settled legal position, the respondents’
failure to extend the benefit of such service to the applicant is arbitrary,
contrary to law, and unsustainable.

4 OA/310/00258/2018
5. It was further contended that the respondents had erroneously
invoked Rule 31 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 and
treated the applicant’s service from 21.09.1975 to 09.11.1989 as service
paid out of the contingency fund on daily-rate wages/daily-rate commuted
and paid on a monthly basis. According to the learned counsel, such
classification and interpretation of the applicant’s service are misconceived
and contrary to the applicable rules and the settled legal position. Hence,
the impugned order dated 24.11.2017 is liable to be quashed and set aside.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents
vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant
and relied upon the averments contained in the reply statement. He
submitted that, in terms of Rule 20 of the Railway Services (Pension)
Rules, the qualifying service of a Railway servant commences from the
date on which he assumes charge of the post to which he is first appointed,
whether substantively, in an officiating capacity, or on a temporary basis.
According to the respondents, a casual labourer granted temporary status
is not appointed against any regular post and, until he is duly empanelled
for regular absorption in accordance with his turn, he cannot be treated as
a Railway servant. However, for the purpose of reckoning the period
between the date of grant of temporary status and the date of regular

5 OA/310/00258/2018
absorption, Rule 31 specifically provides that only 50% of such service
shall be counted as qualifying service.
7. The learned counsel further submitted that Rule 18 of the Railway
Services (Pension) Rules is applicable only to a Temporary Railway
servant, whereas the applicant, being a Casual labourer with Temporary
status, cannot be categorised as a Temporary Railway servant. He
contended that the applicant continued to remain a casual labourer and did
not acquire the status of a regular Railway servant until his regular
absorption on 09.11.1989. Therefore, according to the respondents, the
applicant’s case is governed by Rule 31 and not by Rule 18.
8. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar & Others ,
reported in (2017) 13 SCC 388, in support of his contention. He further
drew our attention to the judgment, dated 01.12.2025 of the Hon’ble
Madras High Court in W.P. No. 21938 of 2024. For the aforesaid
submissions and on the basis of the decisions referred to above, he prayed
for dismissal of the OA.

6 OA/310/00258/2018
9. We have considered the rival submissions put forth by the learned
counsel on either side, perused the pleadings and materials available on
record. We have also gone through the case laws referred to by the
respective parties.
10. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The applicant was initially
engaged as a casual labourer and was granted temporary status with effect
from 21.09.1975. The said temporary status continued until the applicant
was regularised with effect from 09.11.1989. The applicant subsequently
attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 30.04.2008.
11.
We find that the issue involved in the present Original Application is
no longer res integra . The Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the
scope of reckoning casual/temporary-status service for the purpose of
pensionary benefits in Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar & Others , reported
in (2017) 12 SCC 388. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted
below:
"53 . In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold:
53.1. The casual worker after obtaining temporary status is
entitled to reckon 50% of his services till he is regularized on a
regular/temporary post for the purposes of calculation of
pension.

7 OA/310/00258/2018
53.2. The casual worker before obtaining the temporary status is
also entitled to reckon 50% of casual service for the purposes of
pension.
53.3. Those casual workers who are appointed to any post either
substantively or in officiating or in temporary capacity are
entitled to reckon the entire period from date of taking charge of
such post as per Rule 20 of the 1993 Rules."
12. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, the learned counsel for the
applicant places reliance on paragraph 53.3, contending that the applicant
is entitled to reckon the entire period of service in terms of Rule 20 of the
Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. Per contra, the learned counsel
for the respondents relies upon paragraph 53.1 and submits that, in the
case of a casual labourer granted temporary status, only 50% of the service
rendered between the date of grant of temporary status and the date of
regularisation can be reckoned for pensionary benefits.
13. The aforesaid issue, arising in substantially identical circumstances,
was recently considered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in W.P. No.
21938 of 2023, by order dated 01.12.2025. The relevant portion of the said
order is extracted below:
“10. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The 1st
respondent was initially engaged as a casual labourer
and was subsequently granted temporary status on

8 OA/310/00258/2018
01.01.1981. The said temporary service ended with an
order of regularization with effect from 13.11.1989.
He was later allowed to retire from service on
31.07.2012.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case
of Rakesh Kumar cited supra considered the issues
relating to the regularization of temporary status
employees, pensionary benefits and calculation of
qualifying service.
12. In paragraph 53.1, the Apex Court held that “The
casual worker after obtaining temporary status is
entitled to reckon 50% of his services till, he is
regularized on a regular/temporary post for the
purposes of calculation of pension”.
13. In paragraph 53.3 states that “Those casual
workers who are appointed to a post either
substantively or in officiating or in temporary capacity
are entitled to reckon the entire period from date of
taking charge of such post as per Rule 20 of the 1993
Rules".
14. With reference to the above ratio laid down by the
Apex Court, it is relevant to consider Rule 31 of the
Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993, which reads
as under:
"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;

9 OA/310/00258/2018
(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;
Provide 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.
15. Therefore, the word “temporary status” or
“temporary capacity” must be considered with reference
to the sources of salary payment for such temporary
status employees, specifically whether it was paid from
the Contingency Fund of India or the Consolidated Fund
of India.
16. Conversely, if a temporary employee holds a
substantive post and their salary is paid from the
Contingency Fund of India, then those employees are
entitled for counting of 50% of the temporary services
under Rule 31 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules.
If a temporary employee holds a substantive post and
their salary is paid from the Consolidated Fund of India,

10 OA/310/00258/2018
then those employees are entitled for full services for
reckoning the qualifying services.
17. With reference to the above distinction between
temporary employees, the counter affidavit filed by the
writ petitioners before the Tribunal reveals that the
applicant's service as casual labour substitute before and
after the conferment of temporary status was paid out of
contingency fund and only 50% of the service will
count for qualifying service in terms of Rule 31.
18. Therefore, the 1st respondent is eligible for
counting only 50% of his services as qualifying
services under Rule 31. When the counter affidavit
reveals that the 1st respondent received his salary from
the contingency fund, he cannot be construed as regular
employee of Indian Railways. For all purposes, he is a
temporary employee, who received his salary from
contingency fund of India. As per Rule 31 of Railway
Service (Pension) Rules, he is entitled for counting of
50% of the temporary services, rendered by him
between 01.01.1981 to 13.11.1989.
19. The Central Administrative Tribunal, however,
failed to consider the nature of salary paid to such
temporary status employees whether from Consolidated
Fund of India or from the Contingency Fund of India.
Consequently, the Tribunal granted a direction for
counting the 1st respondent's full services, which, in
our opinion, contravenes Rule 31 of the Railway
Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, as well as the ratio laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Rakesh Kumar (supra).
20. In view of the above discussion, the order
impugned dated 27.10.2022 in O.A.No.828 of 2018 is
hereby set aside. Consequently, the Writ Petition stands
allowed. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed. There shall be no order as to costs."

11 OA/310/00258/2018
14. In the above circumstance, and on the basis of the findings and
judgment outlined above, we do not find any merit in the submissions of
the applicant. In the result, the OA is dismissed as devoid of merits. No
order as to costs.
(M.L. SRIVASTAVA) (M.SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
21. 08.2026
mas


Digitally signed
by M A SUNDAR
Date:
2026.08.31
17:27:00 +05'30'
M A
SUNDAR