Half of pre-regularization casual and temporary status service counts toward qualifying service for pension and MACP.

The applicant was engaged as a casual labourer in the North-Central Railway on January 15, 1975

He was granted temporary status on June 22, 1979, and subsequently regularized on September 1, 1989

He retired from the post of Clerk on July 31, 2014

The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking the counting of 50% of his casual service (prior to temporary status) and his temporary status service for the purposes of pensionary benefits and the third financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme

The respondents had previously rejected his representation via a speaking order dated January 30, 2019, asserting that casual service prior to temporary status is non-countable under Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993

1. Whether 50% of the casual service rendered by the applicant prior to the grant of temporary status (from 15.01.1975 to 21.06.1979) is countable toward qualifying service for pensionary benefits

2. Whether the period of service rendered under temporary status is countable for determining eligibility for financial upgradation under the ACP/MACP Schemes

The court primarily relied on the precedent established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Rakesh Kumar & Ors., which held that 50% of casual service rendered both before and after attaining temporary status must be reckoned for pension calculations

It further applied Rule 31 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, which mandates counting half of the service paid from contingencies upon regular absorption

Regarding MACP, the Tribunal applied Railway Board Circular R.B.E. No. 215/2009, which clarifies that 50% of temporary status casual labour service counts toward the residency period (10/20/30 years) required for financial upgradations

The Tribunal first dismissed the respondents' objection regarding limitation, noting that the delay had already been condoned in a prior miscellaneous application

On the merits, the Tribunal observed that the respondents’ refusal to count casual service prior to temporary status directly contradicted the Supreme Court's mandate in Rakesh Kumar

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s service profile—comprising regular service and 50% of his ten-year temporary status service—exceeded the 30-year threshold required for the 3rd MACP upgradation

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' defense that the applicant was a "casual labourer" and not a "substitute," clarifying that the benefit of counting service extends to all casual labourers granted temporary status

The Tribunal deemed the respondents' reliance on a "suitability test" conducted at the verge of retirement to deny MACP as unfair and irrelevant, as MACP is a time-bound financial upgradation not strictly dependent on promotional vacancies

It held that the applicant is entitled to have 50% of his casual service (1975–1979) counted for pension and MACP purposes

The respondents were directed to: (i) recalculate the applicant’s qualifying service; (ii) fix the 3rd MACP upgradation and refix the pension accordingly within eight weeks; and (iii) pay all arrears, with interest at the GPF rate applicable for any delays beyond the stipulated eight-week period