Railway Track Maintainer’s Old Pension Claim Fails At Allahabad CAT, Which Cites Only 128 Past Casual-Work Days

The applicant, a former casual labourer, claimed that he had acquired Monthly Rated Casual Labour (MRCL) status from 5 December 1989 and should receive coverage under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS), with 50% of his past casual service counted towards qualifying service.

After earlier proceedings, he was appointed as a Track Maintainer on 2 September 2013 pursuant to the Tribunal’s order dated 1 June 2012.

The respondents’ Casual Labour Register recorded 128 days of prior work.

The applicant’s earlier request for OPS coverage and counting of past service had been rejected by an order dated 5 February 2021, which he did not challenge.

He later sought relief under Railway Board Establishments (RBE) Nos. 28/2020 and 69/2022.

The applicant relied on Railway Pension Rules, 1993; IREM paragraph 2005(a); and RBE Nos. 28/2020 and 69/2022, seeking pension-related recognition of his past casual service and OPS coverage.

He also relied on earlier Railway Board instructions dated 28 February 2001 and 20 September 2001 concerning screening and regularisation of casual labour.

The Tribunal did not set out or derive a broader legal test from these instruments; it concluded that the cited RBEs did not apply to the applicant’s circumstances and treated the respondents’ recorded service of 128 days as the relevant past service.

The Tribunal relied on the Casual Labour Register, which recorded 102 days at Chitrakoot and 26 days at Katni, totalling 128 days.

It found that the applicant’s appointment in 2013 followed fresh screening pursuant to the Tribunal’s 2012 order, rather than regularisation effective from 2003–04.

In the absence of evidence establishing additional past service, the Tribunal declined to accept the applicant’s claim for OPS coverage under the cited RBEs.

It also held that the applicant’s reliance on authorities concerning substitute workers was misplaced because he had not worked as a substitute.

The Tribunal noted that 50% of the recorded past casual service had already been considered under the unchallenged order of 5 February 2021.

It noted that the 50% reckoning of his recorded past casual service had already been considered by the respondents.

No costs were awarded, and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.