Fifty percent of casual and temporary status service counts as qualifying service for pensionary benefits.

The applicants were initially engaged as casual laborers by Eastern Railway between 1972 and onwards

They subsequently attained temporary status (effective from 01.01.1981 onwards) and were eventually regularized in service from 1988 onwards

Following their retirement on superannuation, the applicants sought to have 50% of their casual service (period before attaining temporary status) and 100% of their service under temporary status (period before regularization) counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits

The respondents had previously issued a speaking order dated 19.07.2018, granting only 50% of the temporary status service as qualifying service, citing a pending review application (RVW No. 221 of 2017) in the related Santosh Deb case

Although the review application was dismissed by the Calcutta High Court on 20.12.2019, the respondents failed to grant the full benefit to the applicants, prompting this application

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to count 50% of their pre-temporary status casual service and the entirety of their temporary status service for the purpose of pensionary benefits

2. Whether the ratio laid down in Union of India v. Sarju or the subsequent judgment in Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar governs the calculation of qualifying service for similarly placed railway employees

Rule 31 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, which provides for counting service paid from contingencies as qualifying service for pension

Union of India v. Sarju (SLP (C) No. 20041/2008), which upheld the counting of 100% of the temporary status period

Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3938/2017), which clarified that casual workers are entitled to reckon 50% of casual service (pre-temporary status) and 50% of service rendered after obtaining temporary status till regularization for pensionary purposes

The Tribunal noted that the applicants were identically placed to the employees in the Santosh Deb case

It rejected the respondents' contention that previous judicial pronouncements were in personam, holding that the issue of counting past service for pension is generic and applicable to all similarly situated employees

The Tribunal observed a discrepancy between the earlier Sarju judgment (advocating 100% temporary status count) and the later Rakesh Kumar judgment (establishing a 50/50 split for both casual and temporary periods)

The Tribunal reasoned that since Rakesh Kumar represents the current law and was delivered after the respondents’ decision in Santosh Deb, its ratio must be applied to the present applicants

Consequently, the court found the applicants entitled to 50% of their casual service and 50% of their temporary status service as qualifying service

It directed the respondents to recalculate the applicants' pension and retiral benefits by adding 50% of the period spent as casual workers and 50% of the period spent as temporary status workers to their regular service period

The respondents were ordered to pay the revised pension and arrears within four months of receiving the order

The O.A. was disposed of with no order as to costs