Temporary-status casual labour service paid from contingencies counts as only 50% qualifying service for pension.

The applicant was initially engaged as a casual labourer/substitute in the Southern Railway and was granted temporary status with effect from 21 September 1975.

He was regularised against a substantive vacancy on 9 November 1989 and retired on superannuation on 30 April 2008.

The respondents did not reckon the entire period from 21 September 1975 to 9 November 1989 as qualifying service for pensionary and retirement benefits.

The applicant’s representation seeking such reckoning was rejected by order dated 24 November 2017.

He therefore filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking quashing of the rejection order, full counting of the temporary-status service, revision of retirement benefits, and consequential arrears with interest.

The respondents contended that, under Rule 31 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, only 50% of the service rendered as a casual labourer paid from contingencies could be counted.

Whether the applicant’s entire service from 21 September 1975 to 9 November 1989, rendered after grant of temporary status and before regularisation, was liable to be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits under Rule 20 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993

Whether the applicant’s service was governed by Rule 31, under which only 50% of service paid from contingencies and followed by regular absorption could be counted for pensionary purposes

Whether the respondents’ rejection of the applicant’s claim by order dated 24 November 2017 was legally sustainable in light of Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar & Others and the subsequent Madras High Court decision in W.P. No. 21938 of 2023

The Tribunal considered Rules 20, 24, 18 and 31 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.

Rule 20 generally provides that qualifying service commences from the date on which a Railway servant assumes charge of the post to which he is first appointed, whether substantively, officiatingly or temporarily.

Rule 31 provides that, subject to specified conditions, only half of service paid from contingencies may count after absorption in regular employment; the rule expressly applies to casual labour paid from contingencies.

The Tribunal applied Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar & Others, (2017) 12 SCC 388, wherein the Supreme Court held that a casual worker after obtaining temporary status is entitled to reckon 50% of such service until regularisation; pre-temporary-status casual service is also reckonable at 50%; and the entire period is reckonable under Rule 20 only where the worker is appointed to a post substantively, officiatingly or temporarily.

It also relied on the Madras High Court’s decision dated 1 December 2025 in W.P. No. 21938 of 2023, which held that the applicable treatment depends on whether the employee’s service was paid from the Contingency Fund or the Consolidated Fund, and that service paid from contingencies attracts the 50% benefit under Rule 31.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant’s reliance on Rule 20 and paragraph 53.3 of Rakesh Kumar.

It distinguished between a casual labourer granted temporary status and a person appointed to a post in a substantive, officiating or temporary capacity.

Since the applicant’s service was treated as casual/temporary-status service paid from contingencies and was followed by regular absorption, the governing provision was Rule 31, not Rule 20.

Applying paragraph 53.1 of Rakesh Kumar, the Tribunal held that only 50% of the service rendered between grant of temporary status and regularisation could be counted for pension.

The Madras High Court’s reasoning in the substantially similar case further supported the conclusion that temporary status by itself did not entitle an employee to full reckoning of service where remuneration was drawn from the Contingency Fund.

Accordingly, the applicant failed to establish any entitlement to count the entire period as qualifying service.

His claim was governed by Rule 31 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, under which only 50% of the eligible contingency-paid service could be counted.

The Original Application was dismissed as devoid of merit, and no order as to costs was made.