Reinstatement with Retrospective Effect Regularizes Service Interruption as Qualifying Service for Pensionary Benefits

The respondent, a Line Clear Porter, was originally punished with a pay reduction in 2011. Upon filing an appeal, the appellate authority exercised suo motu review and removed him from service on 19.09.2011.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) quashed this removal on 11.05.2017 and remitted the matter.

On 22.08.2017, the appellate authority reduced the punishment to pay reduction and withholding of increments. Consequently, the Railway administration reinstated the respondent on 09.10.2017, effective from 19.09.2011.

However, after his retirement in 2020, the petitioners issued a memo (dated 10/11.11.2017 but communicated only in 2021) treating the period from 2011 to 2017 as 'dies-non' (non-qualifying service for pension). The respondent challenged this before the CAT, which ruled in his favor, leading to the present writ petition by the Union of India.

1. Whether the Original Application before the CAT was barred by limitation given that the 'dies-non' order was passed in 2017 but the challenge was made in 2022.

2. Whether the period between removal and reinstatement (19.09.2011 to 09.10.2017) qualifies as service for pensionary benefits under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.

Rule 37 addresses the counting of suspension periods as qualifying service.

Rule 39(1) stipulates that a railway servant reinstated on appeal/review is entitled to count past service as qualifying service, while Rule 39(2) states that the interruption period between removal and reinstatement shall not count as qualifying service unless regularized as ‘duty’ or ‘leave’ by a specific order of the reinstating authority.

The court also applied the principle that "recurring loss" in pension prevents a claim from being barred by limitation.

Regarding limitation, the court found the challenge was timely because the 'dies-non' memo was first communicated to the respondent on 03.12.2021. Furthermore, since the reduced pension caused a "recurring loss," the CAT was justified in overlooking the delay.

On the merits, the petitioners argued that under Rule 39(2), the period must be specifically regularized. The Court observed that the reinstatement order dated 09.10.2017 explicitly directed reinstatement "w.e.f. 19.09.2011". This effectively regularized the period as duty.

The Court further reasoned that the respondent did not voluntarily stay away from work but was kept out by an illegal removal order subsequently quashed/modified; therefore, the principle of 'no work no pay' could not be used to penalize him for an unfair action by the employer.

The court held that the period from 19.09.2011 to 09.10.2017 must be treated as regular service notionally for all consequential benefits.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the CAT's order. The petitioners were directed to issue revised orders for pension and retirement benefits, payment of permissible subsistence allowance, and arrears of pension.