M Gopalakrishna Pillai vs M/o Railways

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No. 180/01104/2012
th
Thursday, this the 29 day of October, 2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr.BRAJ MOHAN AGRAWAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. M. Gopalakrishna Pillai (Died),
S/o. P. Madhavan Pillai,
Retired Worksmate,
Southern Railway, Trivandrum Division,
Residing at : Priya Nivas,
Veloor Madom, Kuttamperoor P.O, Mannar (via),
Alappuzha.
Additional applicant No.2
B. Radhadevi, aged 69 years,
W/o. Late Gopalakrishna Pillai,
Residing at Priya Nivas,
Veloor Madam,
Kuttamperoor P.O,
Mannar (via), Alappuzha – 689 623.
Additional applicant No.3
Sama priya R, aged 48 years,
D/o. Late Gopalakrishna Pillai,
Residing at Priya Nivas,
Veloor Madam,
Kuttamperoor P.O,
Mannar (via), Alappuzha – 689 623.
(Additional Applicant Nos.2&3 impleaded vide order in M.A
738/26 in R.A 3/2016 dated 07.08.2026)
[ By Advocate : Mr. Shaijan Joseph ] - Applicants
Versus
1. Union of India represented by
General Manager, Southern Railway,
Chennai .
2. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
15:4
0:16
Shai
ney
Vij

2


Southern Railway, Trivandrum Division,
Trivandrum - Respondents
[By Advocate: Mr.Sreejith N)
The Original Application having been heard on 27.10.2026, the
Tribunal on 29.10.2026 delivered the following:
O R D E R :-
Justice K. Haripal, Judicial Member
Applicant is a former Works Mate in Southern Railway,
Trivandrum Division who retired from service on 31.07.2012. He had
commenced service in the Railways on 23.04.1973 as Mopila Khalasi.
He was granted temporary status on 01.01.1981 and was regularized
on 10.03.1997. On retirement, he was granted pension and other
retiral benefits taking qualifying service of 23.5 years as seen in
Annexure A-1 service certificate. Annexure A-1 shows that he had put
in regular service from 10.03.1997 to 31.07.2012 which was fully
reckoned for the purpose of granting pension besides 50% of the casual
labour service from 1.1.1981 to 09.03.1997, putting together, total
service was taken as 23.5 years. But according to the applicant, he has
put in more than 39 years of unblemished service and the entire period
ought to have been reckoned for the grant of pension. He had given
Annexure A-2 representation which has not been considered.
Aggrieved by the same he has approached the Tribunal seeking the
following reliefs:
Shai
ney
Vij
15:4
0:16

3


“ a) To declare that the applicant is
having 39 years of qualifying service and to direct
the respondents to recalculate the pensionery
benefits accordingly.
b) To direct the respondents to grant
gratuity and MACP benefits to the applicant and
consequential benefits thereof. ”
2. According to the applicant there is no justification in not
taking the entire service of 39 years for the purpose grant of retiral
benefits. He also was not granted MACP benefits which was legally
entitled to him. Annexure A2 representation has not been considered
and thus, he sought the above reliefs.
3. The respondents filed reply challenging the very
maintainability of the O.A. They said that 50% of his service from the
date of grant of temporary status on 01.01.1981 till date of
regularisation on 09.03.1997 alone could be reckoned and the entire
service thereafter, i.e. from 10.03.1997 till 31.07.2012 was reckoned,
putting together he had qualifying service of only 23.5 years. Moreover,
the applicant was a project casual labourer which could not be
reckoned for the purpose of granting pension and retiral benefits. So
they say that his claim for reckoning 39 years of service is not
maintainable. He has not explained us to how 39 years of service was
worked out and provisions of law have not been stated by him. It is also
submitted that he was granted a gratuity of Rs.2,52,813/- taking into
Shai
ney
Vij
15:4
0:16

4


account 23.5 years of qualifying service. He was also given arrears of
retirement gratuity of Rs.10,728/- and that he is not entitled to get any
other reliefs.
4. The respondents also denied the receipt of Annexure A-2
representation. This was followed by a numerous of rejoinders and
additional replies and ultimately by order dated 11.08.2015, this
Tribunal, without going into the rival contentions of the parties but
placing implicit reliance on Annexure A 14 O.M issued by the Ministry
of Railways disposed of the Original Application on the following lines:
“ 6. In view of the above, respondents are
directed to re-consider and review the pension
papers relating to the applicant, by counting 100%
of his service with temporary status put in by the
applicant as Khalasi. Respondents shall revise the
pension papers of the applicant reckoning 100% of
the period of service put in by the applicant from
1.1.1981 till his regularisation. Respondents shall
revise the pension payment orders of the
applicant accordingly. Respondents are also
directed to re-calculate the gratuity and MACP
benefits of the applicant and shall grant him all
consequential benefits. The aforesaid exercise
shall be completed within two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
5. Later, the respondents filed RA 3/2016, along with an
application for condoning the delay of 100 days in moving the Review
Application. The crux of the Review Application was that Annexure A-14
should not have been relied on, it is only an inter-departmental
Shai
ney
Vij
15:4
0:16

5


communication, following Annexure A14, no decision has been taken
by the Ministry of Finance, so that, relief could not have been granted.
However, this Tribunal, did not consider the Review Application on the
premise that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to condone the delay and
thus, the Review Application was rejected instantaneously. That order
was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court in OP (CAT)47/2017. The
High Court, basing on the Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble High Court
in Haris K.M and Others v. Jahfar K. and Others (2020 (5) KHC 123)
rejected the plea that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to condone the
delay. The High Court quashed the order in the Review Application and
remitted the matter for further consideration of the Review Application
to this Tribunal.
6. After the remand, during the pendency of the Review
Application, the Original Applicant passed away and his wife and
daughter were impleaded as additional respondents 2 and 3. They have
been impleaded as additional applicants 2 and 3 in the Original
Application. The Review Application was considered on merits and
having regard to the fact that Annexure A-14 was only an inter
departmental communication following which no decision has been
th
taken, we, by order dated 6 October 2026, quashed the earlier order
and restored the Original Application to file. Thus, the matter again
Shai
ney
Vij
15:4
0:16

6


came up for hearing.
7. We heard Shri.Shaijan Joseph, learned counsel for the
additional applicants and Shri.N.Sreejith, learned Standing Counsel for
the respondents.
8. The learned counsel for the additional applicants has
submitted that the respondents ought to have considered the entire 39
years 3 months and 9 days service rendered by the applicant from
23.04.1973. There are materials to show that Annexure A-2
representation was duly tendered before the respondents. But they
have pleaded ignorant about the representation. Such a contention
stands exposed through Annexure A-9 copy of representation of
Annexure A-2 which contains office seal dated 05.07.2012 of the
Divisional Railway Manager Personnel, Thiruvananthapuram.
9. It is regrettable that even after producing Annexure A-9
which contains official seal of the respondents, the respondents are not
ready to accept the receipt of the same and have stated that Annexure
A-2 representation was not placed before the appropriate authorities
and they had no occasion to consider the same.
10. Whatever it may be, as said earlier, there occurred
exchange of volley of pleadings between the parties and ultimately the
Tribunal, without going into other aspects of the case, placing reliance
Shai
ney
Vij
15:4
0:16

7


Annexure A-14, allowed the Original Application, directing the
respondents to consider 100% of the service rendered by the original
applicant as claimed by him. It was under this situation the Review
application was filed and thereafter the matter came back before the
Tribunal for fresh consideration.
11. The contentions of the Original Applicant are two fold.
Firstly, that he had put in service on a regular basis from 23.04.1973,
that he was granted temporary status on 1.1.1981 before regularisation
as Mate on 10.03.1997 and thus, he is entitled to get the entire period
of service as qualifying service and he should have been granted retiral
benefits for 39 odd years service rendered by him. Secondly it was
argued that he was not granted MACP benefits though he had
rendered such a long period of service. The respondents have insisted
that he has only 23.5 years of qualifying service which has been duly
reckoned and all retiral benefits have been released to him and he is
not entitled to get any further relief.
12. All the contentions were raised during the initial phase of
the proceeding, before the earlier disposal. The last additional
rejoinder, third additional rejoinder was filed before this Tribunal on
th
10 August 2016. As said earlier, the Original Application was earlier
disposed of by order dated 11.08.2015. Thereafter, the Hon'ble
Shai
ney
Vij
15:4
0:16

8


Supreme Court has rendered the oft-quoted decision in Union of India
and Others v. Rakesh Kumar and Others [AIR 2017 SC 1691] which
covers the entire issue on the subject.
13. After making elaborate survey of the authorities and also
considering Rules 20 and 31 of the Railway Services Pension Rules,
1993, the Supreme Court has laid down the following principles in the
matter of reckoning prior service of employees who started as casual
labourers and then, became part of the establishment. For our
purpose, conditions 1 and 2 in paragraph 55 of the said decision, AIR
2017 SC 1691 are very relevant and appropriate, which read thus:
“55. In view of foregoing discussion, we
hold:
i) the casual worker after obtaining
temporary status is entitled to reckon 50% of his
services till he is regularised on a
regular/temporary post for the purposes of
calculation of pension.
ii) the casual worker before obtaining
the temporary status is also entitled to reckon
50% of casual service for purposes of pension. ”
14. We have already stated that while issuing the Annexure A-1
service certificate, period of regular service from 10.03.1997 to
31.07.2012, besides 50% of the service from 01.01.1981 that is the date
on which he was granted temporary status till 09.03.1997 alone was
taken, putting together 23.5 years of service. It is very clear from
Shai
ney
Vij
15:4
0:16

9


Annexure-A1 that period of service rendered by the applicant prior to
01.01.1981, the date on which he was conferred temporary status was
not considered by the respondents. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
said decision has held that the period of casual labourer service prior to
grant of temporary status by virtue of Note.1 of Rule 31 has to be
counted to the extend of 50% for pensionary benefits. Here that has
not been followed. That means the original applicant was not granted
benefits reckoning the qualifying service in proper perspective.
15. It is also important to say from the documents produced by
the applicant that he had regular service from 23.04.1973, as seen
through Annexure-A3 (2), which is the casual labour service card
submitted by the applicant along with Annexure-A2. It cannot be
believed, having regard to Annexure-A9 that Annexure-A2 was not
tendered by the applicant. Secondly, it is seen from Annexure-A5 that
initially he was granted temporary status from 01.01.1983, later by
virtue of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inder Pal Yadav
and others v. Union of India (1985 (2) SCC 648) , his date of granting
temporary status was advanced to 01.01.1981. It is also clear that
temporary status must have been granted by virtue of the fact that he
had been in continuous rolls of the respondents for five years prior to
the grant of temporary status. Putting together the entries in
Shai
ney
Vij
15:4
0:16

10


Annexure-A3 service register and the fact that he was granted
temporary status from 01.01.1981, it can safely be assumed that he had
long, uninterrupted, continuous service prior to 01.01.1981.Such
service prior to the grant of temporary status also should have been
reckoned for the purpose of grant of retiral benefits, which has not
been done. That means, we are sure that the qualifying service of the
original applicant was not reckoned appropriately, having regard to the
conditions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar ,
quoted supra.
16. When heard, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted
that after so much lapse of time, the appropriate records may not be
available with the respondents, all must have been destroyed invoking
the relevant destruction Rules. But the documents made available by
the applicant as Annexures A-3, A-4, A-5 etc. can safely be relied on by
the respondents for the purpose of assessing the actual qualifying
service for the grant of pensionary benefits.
17. Moreover, Annexure A-12 Railway Boards Communication
RBE 36/2010 dated 25.02.2010 also is very relevant and appropriate in
the matter extension of benefit of MACP Scheme to the temporary
status service employees. The communication reads thus:
“Sub: Extension of the benefit of MACP Scheme
to the reckon of entire Temporary Status service
Shai
ney
Vij
15:4
0:16

11


of substitutes.
Please refer to Board's letter of even
number dated 04.12.2009 allowing 50% of
Temporary status casual labour service on
absorption in regular employment may be taken
into account towards the minimum service of
10,20 and 30 years for the grant of benefit under
the MACP Scheme.
2. Further, on demand from both the
federations that the entire service of the
substitutes on their absorption in regular service
may be reckoned for MACPS purposes, the
matter has been carefully considered by the
Board. It is found that unlike casual labours
whose 50% of temporary status service counts
for pensionary benefits, temporary status service
in full of the substitutes counts for pensionary
benefits. It has, therefore, been decided that the
entire temporary status service of substitutes
followed by regularization without break may be
taken into account towards the minimum service
of 10,20 and 30 years for the purpose of grant of
benefit under the MACP Scheme.
3. This issue with the concurrence of the
Finance Directorate of the Ministry of 3.
Railways.
4. Hindi version is enclosed.”
18. That means, the qualifying service of the Original Applicant
requires to be reworked. While doing the exercise, a serious probe into
the question whether the original applicant was entitled to get the
benefits of MACP also should be done.
Shai
ney
Vij
15:4
0:16

12


19. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides and going
through the materils made available, we direct the respondents to
rework the qualifying service of the applicant and disburse the
additional benefits, as revealed on such a reworking, within a period of
120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It goes
without saying, while doing the exercise, respondents shall show
maximum leniency as confidential records etc may not be available at
this distance of time.
20. The Original Application is allowed as above.
No costs.
th
(Dated, 29 October, 2026)
BRAJ MOHAN AGRAWAL JUSTICE K. HARIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
SV
Shai
ney
Vij
15:4
0:16

13


List of Annexures in O.A No. 180/01104/2012
Annexure-A1. A Photostat copy of the certificate issued by the
Divisional Railway Manager, Trivandrum Division
Annexure-A2. A Photostat copy of the representation dated 5/7/2012
submitted to the 2nd respondent
Annexure A3. True copy of the casual labour service card issued to the
applicant
Annexure A4. True copy of Office order No.15/CN/TCR/86 dt. 8.10.1986
Annexure A5. True copy of the Memorandum No.P.407/CN/TCR/CL
dated 23.4.1992
Annexure A6. True copy of the order in O.A.No. 70/1986 dated 5.3.1988
of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench
Annexure A7. True copy of the order in O.A. 914/93 dated 15.2.1994 of
this Hon'ble Tribunal
Annexure A8. True copy of pension particulars of Mr.P.Babu dated
14.5.2010
Annexure A9. True copy of the endorsement dated 5.7.2012 before the
Southern Railway Divisional Manager, Personnel Bench,
Thiruvananthapuram
Annexure A10. True copy of Railway Establishment Rules pages 80 & 81
Annexure A11. True copy of Railway Establishment Rules page 457
Annexure A12. True copy of Railway Board letter issued by Dy. Director,
Pay Commission, dated 25.2.2010
Annexure A13. True copy of representation of applicant to respondents
dated 25.8.2012 / 3.9.2012
Annexure A14.True copy of the O.M. No. E(NG)/2004/CL/14 dated
25.11.2014 of Director (Establishment) (N)II Railway Board

Shai
ney
Vij
15:4
0:16