Fifty percent of pre-absorption service as Commission Bearer qualifies for reckoning pension and terminal benefits.

The applicant, a retired Helper Grade-I from the Southern Railway, joined service as a Commission Bearer on October 3, 1977

He was later designated as a Salaried Commission Bearer on March 27, 1989, and was formally absorbed into service on July 29, 1989

He retired on May 31, 2013

The applicant sought a declaration that 50% of his service as a Commission Bearer (from 1977 to 1989) should be reckoned for qualifying service for pension and terminal benefits, citing parity with similar orders passed by the Tribunal and High Court

The respondents contested the claim, arguing that the pre-absorption period was a commercial contract rather than employment, records were unavailable due to the expiration of the retention period, and the claim was barred by inordinate delay

1. Whether 50% of the service rendered as a Commission Bearer/Vendor prior to regular absorption should be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits.

2. Whether the application is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of inordinate delay and laches.

The Tribunal primarily applied Rule 24 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, which provides for the counting of service rendered on a contract basis followed by substantive appointment

It relied on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Munshi Ram [2023 (2) SLR 570 SC], which held that Commission Vendors are entitled to have 50% of their pre-absorption service counted for pensionary benefits

The Tribunal distinguished earlier contrary rulings, such as Union of India v. K.V. Baby [(1998) 9 SCC 252], noting that the later decision in Munshi Ram prevails

the principle of "recurring cause of action" regarding pension claims was applied to mitigate the effect of delay, while the "fence-sitter" doctrine was used to limit the grant of arrears

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s continuous service from 1977 to 1989 was sufficiently established by appointment orders and security deposit receipts

Although the respondents claimed the engagement was a commercial contract, the Tribunal observed that the legal landscape evolved with Munshi Ram, where the Supreme Court explicitly upheld counting 50% of such service for pension purposes

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' reliance on K.V. Baby, concluding that the later Bench's decision in Munshi Ram is binding

Regarding the issue of delay, the Tribunal noted that while the applicant retired in 2013 and filed the O.A. in 2023, pension disputes constitute a recurring cause of action

However, because the applicant failed to assert his rights within a reasonable time after the law was settled in 2006-2009, he was classified as a "fence-sitter"

The respondents were directed to rework the applicant’s pension and retiral benefits within four months. Due to the unexplained delay in filing, the recovery of arrears was restricted to three years prior to the institution of the O.A. If the rework and payments are not completed within the stipulated period, the amount will carry interest at 9% per annum