Railway substitutes with ten years’ temporary service qualify for pension where educational qualifications are not prescribed.

The respondent worked as a substitute Porter for the Eastern Railway from June 1989 until his superannuation on 30 June 2018, completing approximately 29 years of service.

He sought pensionary benefits on the basis that he had rendered more than 10 years of temporary service.

In an earlier application, the Tribunal had directed the Railways to investigate his school certificate if they wished to complete his screening for regularisation; the Railways sought verification in 2021, and the school stated that he was not a bona fide student.

The Tribunal allowed his later application for pensionary benefits on 12 February 2026.

The Railways challenged that order before the High Court.

1. Whether the respondent, having served as a substitute Porter for more than 10 years, was eligible for pensionary benefits under the applicable railway rules

2. Whether the school’s statement that the respondent was not a bona fide student disentitled him to those benefits

Rule 18 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 provides that a temporary Railway servant who retires after rendering at least 10 years of temporary service is eligible for superannuation retirement gratuity and family pension.

Clause 2301 defines a temporary Railway servant; Clause 2315(ii) defines a substitute as a person engaged in a Railway establishment on the regular pay scales and allowances of the post; and Clause 2318 extends to substitutes the rights and privileges admissible to temporary Railway servants.

The Court also considered Master Circular No. 20 concerning substitutes and found no provision requiring a Porter substitute to possess a minimum educational qualification.

No judicial precedents were cited.

The respondent’s claim concerned pensionary eligibility based on temporary service, not regularisation.

The Court found that he had served as a substitute Porter for more than the 10-year period specified in Rule 18 and that the applicable provisions extended temporary-servant rights and privileges to substitutes.

Because no minimum educational qualification was prescribed for a Porter substitute, the dispute over the school certificate did not affect his pension claim; the Court therefore rejected the Railways’ contention that the certificate invalidated his entire service for pension purposes.

It dismissed the Railways’ petition as devoid of merit and discharged the rule.