A Railway Board proposal without Finance approval cannot support counting all temporary-status service for pension.

By its order dated 11 August 2015, the Tribunal directed the Railway authorities to count 100% of the deceased applicant’s temporary-status service from 1 January 1981 until regularisation for pensionary purposes, and to recalculate his pension, gratuity and MACP benefits.

The Railway authorities sought review, contending that the earlier order relied on a Railway Board communication asking the Ministry of Finance to consider a proposed change, rather than on an approved decision.

The original applicant died during the review proceedings; his wife and daughter were impleaded.

Whether the Tribunal’s 2015 order contained an error apparent on the face of the record by treating a Railway Board inter-departmental communication as a decision to count 100% of temporary-status service as qualifying service.

Whether, absent such a decision, only 50% of the temporary-status service could be counted for pension.

The Tribunal applied the review principle that an order may be reviewed where it contains an error apparent on the face of the record.

It treated the Railway Board communication as a request for the Ministry of Finance to consider a proposed modification—not as an operative decision changing the applicable treatment of temporary-status service.

The Tribunal stated that, in the absence of such a decision, only 50% of service from conferment of temporary status until regularisation could be counted for pension.

No statute, specific service-rule provision, or precedent was identified in the order.

The earlier direction to count 100% of the applicant’s temporary-status service rested on the Railway Board communication.

The Tribunal found that the communication merely sought consideration of a proposed change and that no resulting decision had been made by the Ministry of Finance or the Railway Board.

It therefore concluded that the earlier order had relied on the communication as though it established an operative entitlement, despite the applicable position being that only 50% of the relevant service could be counted.

This amounted, in the Tribunal’s view, to an error apparent on the face of the record.

It quashed that order and restored O.A. No. 1104/2012 to the file for further consideration.

No costs were ordered.