Judgment:
Grievance of the applicant in this case is that he is deprived of the pensionary benefits on the ground of in-sufficient qualifying service to earn pension.
2. To narrate briefly, according to the applicant, he entered the services as Casual Labour sometimes in 1973 up to May, 1974. Thereafter, he was re-engaged again in May, 1978 and this time engagement continued up to April, 1982. He was thereafter, appointed as Temporary Gang Man under Civil Engineering Department on 17.12.1998 and after screening, was absorbed with effect from 16.12.1998. Ultimately he retired on 31.3.2007. In view of the fact that his qualifying service was reckoned from the date of absorption, the same being less than the minimum qualifying service for the purpose of pension, the applicant could not be granted any pension. Through this OA the applicant has prayed that his services as Casual Labour beyond the first 120 days be reckoned as qualifying service at 50% thereof as provided for in the case of temporary status employees.
3. Respondents have contested the OA. They have first of all contended that the application is time barred. Again they have stated that the applicant has only 7 years, 11 months and 10 days as qualifying service and as such his case cannot be covered under the rules. They have also referred to Railway Board circular of 14th October, 1980 which clearly states that daily rated casual labour employees on projects are not covered for the purpose of working out the qualifying service.
4. At the time of hearing counsel for the applicant submitted that in two OAs Nos. 620 of 2007 and 644 of 2007 where the facts are identical, this Tribunal disposed of the OAs by giving direction to the applicants concerned to prefer proper representation to the respondents to consider their cases, from the administrative side. In respect of OA 644 of 2007 this Tribunal on 29th October, 2008 disposed of the OA as under:-
"3. Counsel for applicant submits that in an identical case (O.A.620/07) this Tribunal has passed the following order:
"3. I have heard Advocate Mr. Pratap Abraham for Mr. P. Ramakrishnan for the applicant and Advocate Mr. Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil for the respondents. According to the applicant, he is not in a position to substantiate his claim that he had worked for sufficiently long period without any interruption prior to 1.12.1998 which would entitle him for counting the said period for the purpose of pension. The applicant's counsel has submitted that after he has been given temporary status, no casual labour card was given to the applicant and his service can be ascertained only from the muster roll maintained by Railways. He has, therefore, sought time to verify the service position from the muster roll with permission of the respondents and to make further representation in the matter. I do not think that there is any harm in granting the aforesaid request of the applicant's counsel. Accordingly this O.A. is closed with permission to applicant to make a representation to the respondents after duly verifying his service during the period from 10.2.1983 to 1.12.1998. There shall be no orders as to costs.."
4. Counsel for the applicant submits that an identical order in this case also would meet the ends of justice.
5. Counsel for the respondents has no serious objection against the same.
6. This Tribunal also feels that, such a decision as in the other case would meet the ends of justice.
7. In view of the above, this O.A. is disposed of with permission to the applicant to make a representation to the respondents in respect of his past engagement as Casual Labourer and on receipt of the same the respondents shall consider the case of the applicant and pass a judicious order. Before making his representation, if the applicant seeks permission to peruse the Muster Roll in the concerned department, necessary assistance shall be given to him in that regard. No costs."
5. Though time bar is a factor to be considered in the instant OA, since normally qualifying service is counted at the time of retirement and since the qualifying service has a direct baring on the admissibility/quantum of pension, which is a recurring cause of action as argued by the counsel for the applicant, time bar may not come in his way. As such, case being identical to those as of OAs 620 of 2007 and 644 of 2007, it will be appropriate to follow the decisions of the aforesaid OAs.
6. Accordingly, this OA is disposed of with direction to the applicant to move an appropriate representation to the authorities concerned in regard to counting of casual labour service as temporary service to work out the qualifying service. If the applicant files such representation within four weeks from the date of communication of this order, the respondents may consider the case judiciously and arrive at a decision and communicate the same to the applicant. If the applicant makes a request for perusing the muster roll he may be given necessary assistance in this regard. It is made clear that no opinion has been expressed in regard to the character of service rendered by the applicant prior to his absorption (viz. namely whether they qualify or do not qualify as service for the purpose of pension). No costs.