Broken-period casual engagement alone does not establish service-counting entitlement for seniority or grade pay.

The applicant, a Railway employee, claimed that he initially worked as a daily-wage casual labourer from 1980, later became a Monthly Rated Casual Labourer (MRCL), and was regularised as an Assistant Pointsman in 1990.

He sought counting of his service from his initial engagement for seniority, placement in the gradation list, grade-pay fixation, and consequential service benefits.

The respondents stated that he worked in broken periods between 1980 and 1984 without completing 120 days of continuous employment; he received MRCL temporary status from 17 November 1989 and was regularised by order dated 31 May 1990.

The applicant filed no rejoinder.

Whether the applicant was entitled to have his service counted from his initial engagement as a daily-wage worker in 1980, despite the respondents’ assertion that he worked in broken periods and did not complete 120 days of continuous service.

Whether the claimed earlier service entitled him to consequential seniority, grade-pay fixation, and other service benefits.

Rule 2005 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Volume II (Revised Edition, 1990), provides that service before absorption into a temporary, permanent, or regular cadre after the prescribed selection or screening does not count for seniority; it also permits half of the service rendered after attaining temporary status and before regular absorption to count as qualifying service for pension, subject to applicable conditions.

The Tribunal also relied on Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 388, describing it as recognising the distinction between service before and after temporary status and stating that casual service does not, by itself, confer a right to count the entire initial-engagement period for seniority or promotion.

The respondents’ evidence was that the applicant’s work from 1980 to 1984 was intermittent and did not satisfy the 120-day continuous-employment requirement, while temporary status was granted only from 17 November 1989 and regularisation followed in 1990.

The applicant produced no material establishing an earlier acquisition of temporary status or a rule or judicial direction requiring the earlier broken periods to count for the benefits claimed.

The Tribunal held that initial engagement alone could not establish entitlement to count the entire period for seniority or consequential grade-pay fixation.

It dismissed the Original Application as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.