Counting of pre-absorption service as Mobile Booking Clerks for pensionary benefits of similarly situated employees.

The deceased employee, Ramesh Chand Gupta, served as a Mobile Booking Clerk from 10.11.1979 to 1989

He was subsequently appointed as a regular Commercial Clerk on 21.03.1989 and retired as Chief Booking Clerk on 30.06.2016

The applicant sought to have his service period from 1979 to 1989 counted for pensionary and seniority benefits, citing a precedent set by the CAT Principal Bench in OA No. 551/2002 (confirmed by the High Court in WP (C) No. 1932/2005), where similarly situated Mobile Booking Clerks received such benefits

After the deceased employee's initial representation was ignored, he filed OA No. 361/2016, resulting in a direction to the respondents to decide his claim

The respondents subsequently rejected the claim via an order dated 30.06.2016, leading to the present OA filed by his widow

1. Whether the service rendered by the deceased employee as a Mobile Booking Clerk from 10.11.1979 to 1989 is liable to be counted for service benefits in light of judicial precedents

2. Whether the rejection order dated 30.06.2016 was arbitrary and violated the principle of equality

The court primarily assessed the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, specifically regarding "similarly situated employees"

It referred to the judicial precedent established in OA No. 551/2002 and WP (C) No. 1932/2005, which mandated the regularization and counting of past services for Mobile Booking Clerks

The respondents relied on Railway Board guidelines dated 20.04.1985 (Annexure R-1) and Letter No. E(NG)II/77/RC1/80 dated 21.04.1982 regarding the recruitment and absorption of Mobile Booking Clerks against regular vacancies

The Tribunal found that the deceased employee’s work history as a Mobile Booking Clerk from 1979 to 1989 was undisputed

It observed that the respondents failed to provide a technical or legal distinction between the deceased employee and the successful applicants in OA No. 551/2002

The court noted that the impugned rejection order was issued in a "perfunctory and casual manner" without assigning specific reasons or addressing the parity of the employee with the cited judicial precedent

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that if the employee was indeed situated similarly to those in the previous litigation, denying him the same benefits would be arbitrary and illegal

The court held that the respondents must reconsider the claim in the context of the finality of the order in OA No. 551/2002

The respondents were directed to determine if the deceased employee was at par with the applicants in the cited case and, if so, extend the consequential benefits to the widow (the current applicant) within three months through a reasoned and speaking order

No order as to costs was made