Absorbed Commission Vendors are entitled to pensionary benefits based on parity with similarly situated Railway employees across zones.

The seven applicants were formerly employed as Commission Vendors/Bearers in the Northern Railways

While they were eventually absorbed as permanent employees and have since superannuated, they contend that they were entitled to regularization from 1995 onwards based on directions from senior Railway officials

They seek the grant of pensionary benefits equivalent to those received by permanent employees in other Railway zones, such as the Central and Southern Railways

The applicants asserted that their representations remained unaddressed despite the legal issue being settled by the Supreme Court

The respondents opposed the application, arguing that the Railway Board possesses no records regarding the applicants' absorption or the duration of their service, rendering the claim unsustainable

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to pensionary benefits and the benefit of regularization from 1995 on par with similarly situated employees in other Railway zones?

2. Whether the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Munshi Ram is applicable to the applicants' claims for pensionary benefits?

The Tribunal primarily relied on the legal precedent established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Munshi Ram (Civil Appeal No. 2811 of 2022), decided on 31.10.2022

This judgment settled the entitlement of absorbed Commission Vendors/Bearers in the Northern Railways to receive pensionary benefits equivalent to those in other Railway zones

The application was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which governs the adjudication of disputes regarding conditions of service of persons appointed to public services

The Tribunal noted that the applicants’ grievance centered on parity in pensionary benefits, a matter they claimed was already settled by the Supreme Court in the Munshi Ram case

The respondents’ primary defense was an evidentiary one—specifically, the alleged absence of service records

However, the Tribunal did not adjudicate the merits of the service record availability. Instead, it held that the respondents must evaluate the applicants' claims by examining whatever documents are available and applying the "analogy of similarly situated employees" as per the Munshi Ram precedent

The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of administrative accountability, requiring the respondents to issue a "reasoned and speaking order" to demonstrate how the Supreme Court's mandate has been implemented in this specific instance

It directed the respondents to consider the applicants' cases for the release of pensionary benefits based on available documentation and the principles laid down in Union of India v. Munshi Ram

The respondents are ordered to pass a reasoned and speaking order within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order

No order was made as to costs