Pension must be refixed on the Passenger Attendant Grade I pay scale for similarly situated employees.

The applicants, former Railway employees, claimed that their pension and retiral benefits had been calculated on the basis of a lower post, although they were entitled to the pay scale and status of Passenger Attendant Grade I under a Delhi High Court judgment concerning similarly situated employees.

After the Coach Attendant posts were surrendered, the applicants were declared surplus, were not found suitable for redeployment as Ticket Collectors, and did not join the post of Helper Grade I offered to them.

In earlier proceedings, the Tribunal directed payment of pension and retiral dues based on service rendered until the applicants ceased attending duty, but declined notional benefits for the period thereafter.

The respondents subsequently issued PPOs using the post held before redeployment.

The applicants brought this OA seeking revised pension and retiral benefits

1. Whether the applicants were entitled to have their pay, pension, and retiral benefits refixed on the basis of the post of Passenger Attendant Grade I, despite not joining the redeployed post of Helper Grade I

2. Whether closure of the applicants’ contempt proceedings on the ground of substantial compliance precluded further relief concerning the basis used to calculate their pension and issue their PPOs

The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court’s judgment in All India Shramik & Coach Attendants Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 566 of 2000, dated 7 February 2008, which directed placement of the petitioners in the pay scale of Passenger Attendant Grade I, with revised scales and consequential benefits

It also applied its earlier order dated 22 December 2021, which directed payment of bona fide pension and retiral dues based on service rendered until the applicants were actually present on duty, while denying notional benefits for the period after they stopped attending duty.

No statute or rule was identified as the basis of the decision.

The Tribunal held that the Delhi High Court judgment applied to the applicants as employees similarly situated to those represented in that case.

It considered the earlier Tribunal order’s direction to sanction bona fide pension, and found that the respondents had calculated the applicants’ arrears and PPOs by reference to the post held before redeployment rather than the Passenger Attendant Grade I status recognized by the High Court judgment.

The Tribunal further held that closure of the contempt proceedings for substantial compliance did not bar the present claim, because the dispute concerned the post and pay used to calculate pension

The exercise was to be completed within four months of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

No costs were awarded [p. 6].