Allowed¶84-85

Union of India v. G.a.Jaleel

Pension – Qualifying service

Madras HC1 Dec 2025WP/21941/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court writ petition under Article 226 by Union of India/Southern Railway against CAT Chennai order in O.A.No.192 of 2018. Keywords: qualifying service; temporary status employee; casual labour; counting of service paid from contingencies; Rule 31 Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1993; Rule 20; Contingency Fund vs Consolidated Fund; 50% weightage; pensionary benefits; regularisation 17.04.1978; retirement 31.12.1993; Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar (2017) 13 SCC 388; certiorari; Tribunal order set aside; writ allowed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Tribunal order dated 01.12.2022 in O.A.No.192 of 2018 is set aside; the Writ Petition stands allowed; the connected Miscellaneous Petition (W.M.P.No.21293 of 2023) is closed; no order as to costs. ¶84-85

Union of India Vs G.a.Jaleel — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶84-85

Issue for consideration

Whether the 1st respondent's temporary status service rendered between 01.01.1963 and 17.04.1978 (prior to regularisation on 17.04.1978) is to be counted in full or only 50% for reckoning qualifying service for pensionary benefits, under Rule 31 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 and the ratio in Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar.

¶34

Court's answer

The expressions 'temporary status' and 'temporary capacity' must be considered with reference to the source of salary payment: a temporary employee whose salary is paid from the Contingency Fund of India is entitled to counting of only 50% of the temporary services under Rule 31 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, whereas a temporary employee whose salary is paid from the Consolidated Fund of India is entitled to full services being reckoned for qualifying service.

¶70

Ratio / Principle

Since the counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal revealed that the applicant's service as casual labour substitute, before and after conferment of temporary status, was paid out of the contingency fund, the 1st respondent cannot be construed as a regular employee of Indian Railways and is eligible for counting of only 50% of his temporary services rendered between 01.01.1963 and 17.04.1978 as qualifying service under Rule 31.

¶78

Key takeaways

The Central Administrative Tribunal failed to consider the nature of salary paid to the temporary status employee (Consolidated Fund versus Contingency Fund); its direction to count the 1st respondent's full services contravenes Rule 31 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar.ratio¶79

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Pension – Qualifying service – Casual labourer granted temporary status w.e.f. 01.01.1963, regularised w.e.f. 17.04.1978, retired 31.12.1993 – Railway employer reckoned only 50% of temporary status service; Tribunal directed full counting – Held, applying Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 388 (paras 53.1, 53.3) and Rule 31, Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, entitlement turns on the source of salary: a temporary employee paid from the Contingency Fund of India gets only 50% of pre-regularisation service counted, while one paid from the Consolidated Fund of India gets full counting – Counter affidavit showed the applicant's service was paid out of the contingency fund, so only 50% of service from 01.01.1963 to 17.04.1978 counts and he is not a regular employee – Tribunal's failure to consider the salary source rendered its direction contrary to Rule 31 and Rakesh Kumar – Writ petition allowed; Tribunal order set aside (S.M. Subramaniam and C. Kumarappan, JJ.).

¶1

2025:MHC:2760

¶2

W.P.No.21941 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED : 01.12.2025

¶5

CORAM :

¶6

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶9

W.P.No.21941 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.21293 of 2023

¶10

1.Union of India, Represented by The General Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town P.O,

¶11

Chennai – 600 003.

¶12

2.The Sr.Divisional Personnel Officer, Chennai Division, Southern Railway, Chennai – 600 003. ... Petitioners

¶13

Vs.

¶14

1.G.A.Jaleel

¶15

2.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

Page 1 of 10

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

W.P.No.21941 of 2023

¶20

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶21

praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, c alling for the records from the file of the 2^nd respondent in O.A.No.192 of 2018 dated 01.12.2022 and quash

¶22

the same.

¶23

For Petitioners : Mr.G.Mutharasu CGSC For R1 : No Appearance For R2 : Tribunal

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

[Order of the Court is made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM , J. ]

¶26

The order of the Central Administration Tribunal dated 01.12.2022 in

¶27

O.A.No.192 of 2018 is sought to be assailed in the present writ proceeding.

¶28

The Union of India, represented by the General Manager, Southern Railways is the writ petitioner before us. The 1^st respondent was initially engaged as Casual Labour in the Chennai Division in Southern Railways and was subsequently granted temporary status with effect from 01.01.1963.

¶29

The temporary services of the 1^st respondent ended with an order of

¶30

regularisation with effect from 17.04.1978 against a substantive vacancy in Page 2 of 10

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.No.21941 of 2023

¶33

the time-scale of pay. The 1^st respondent subsequently retired from service on 31.12.1993.

¶34

A dispute arouse regarding the calculation of qualifying services for retirement benefits. The petitioners have calculated 50% of the temporary status services rendered by the 1^st respondent from 01.01.1963 till 17.04.1978, and 50% of the service alone was reckoned for the purpose of calculating the qualifying service.

¶35

Not satisfied with the said calculation of the 50 % of the service, 1^st respondent filed O.A.No.192 of 2018. The Tribunal allowed the original application and directed the writ petitioners to calculate the entire temporary services in full for reckoning the qualifying service to settle the pensionary benefits. Aggrieved by this order, the Union of India has preferred the present writ petition.

¶36

The learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners would submit that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Rakesh Kumar

¶37

and Others¹ , has been erroneously interpreted by the Central Administration

¶38

(2017) 13 SCC 388 Page 3 of 10

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P.No.21941 of 2023

¶41

Tribunal. Consequently, the relief granted in favour of the 1^st respondent is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Rule 31 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.

¶42

The 1^st respondent was initially engaged as a casual labourer, and temporary status was subsequently granted to him. He continued to work as a temporary employee, and his salary was paid from contingency fund of India. His salary was not paid from the consolidated fund of India. As per the rules, he is therefore entitled for counting of 50% of service rendered for reckoning the qualifying service for the payment of pension.

¶43

The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent would oppose by stating that the temporary status granted to the 1^st respondent is sufficient to establish that he is a regular employee. Once the temporary status was granted and the 1^st respondent was allowed to continue his service, resulting in regularisation, the 1^st respondent is entitled for counting of entire temporary services in full for reckoning the qualifying services. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly considered the issues, and therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be rejected.

¶44

Page 4 of 10

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

W.P.No.21941 of 2023

¶47

Considered the arguments as advanced between the respective learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties to the lis on hand.

¶48

The facts of the case are not in dispute. The 1^st respondent was initially engaged as a casual labourer and was subsequently granted temporary status on 01.01.1963. The said temporary service ended with an order of regularisation with effect from 17.04.1978. He was later allowed to retire from service on 31.12.1993.

¶49

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rakesh Kumar cited supra considered the issues relating to the regularisation of temporary status employees, pensionary benefits and calculation of qualifying service.

¶50

In paragraph 53.1, the Apex Court held that “The casual worker after obtaining temporary status is entitled to reckon 50% of his services till he is regularised on a regular/temporary post for the purposes of calculation of pension”.

¶51

In paragraph 53.3 states that “Those casual workers who are appointed to a post either substantively or in officiating or in temporary capacity are entitled to reckon the entire period from date of taking charge of Page 5 of 10

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

W.P.No.21941 of 2023

¶54

such post as per Rule 20 of the 1993 Rules”.

¶55

With reference to the above ratio laid down by the Apex Court, it is

¶56

relevant to consider Rule 31 of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993,

¶57

which reads as under:

¶58

“ 31. Counting of service paid from Contingencies - In respect of a railway servant, in service on or after the 22nd day of August, 1968, half the service paid from contingencies benefits on absorption in regular employment, subject to the following condition namely: -

¶59

(a) the service paid from contingencies has been in a job involving wholetime employment;

¶60

(b) the service paid from contingencies should be in a type of work or job for which regular posts could have been sanctioned such as posts of malis, chowkidars and khalasis;

¶61

(c) the service should have been such for which payment has been made either on monthly rate basis or on daily rates computed and paid on a monthly basis and which, though no analogous to the regular scales of pay, borne some relation in the matter of pay to those being paid for similar jobs being performed at the relevant period by staff in regular establishments;

¶62

(d) the service paid from contingencies has been continuous and followed by absorption in regular employment without a break;

¶63

Provide that the weightage for past service paid from contingencies shall be limited to the period after 1st January 1961 subject to the condition that authentic records of service such as pay bill, leave record or service-book is available. NOTE -

¶64

(1) the provisions of this rule shall also apply

¶65

Page 6 of 10

¶66

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶67

W.P.No.21941 of 2023

¶68

to casual labour paid from contingencies.

¶69

(2) The expression “absorption in regular employment” means absorption against a regular post.

¶70

Therefore, the word “temporary status” or “temporary capacity” must be considered with reference to the sources of salary payment for such temporary status employees, specifically whether it was paid from the Contingency Fund of India or the Consolidated Fund of India.

¶71

Conversely, if a temporary employee holds a substantive post and their salary is paid from the Contingency Fund of India, then those employees are entitled for counting of 50% of the temporary services under Rule 31 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules. If a temporary employee holds a substantive post and their salary is paid from the Consolidated Fund of India, then those employees are entitled for full services for reckoning the qualifying services.

¶72

With reference to the above distinction between temporary employees, the counter affidavit filed by the writ petitioners before the Tribunal reveals that the applicant's service as casual labour substitute before and after the conferment of temporary status was paid out of contingency

¶73

Page 7 of 10

¶74

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶75

W.P.No.21941 of 2023

¶76

fund and only 50% of the service will count for qualifying service in terms of

¶77

Rule 31.

¶78

Therefore, the 1^st respondent is eligible for counting only 50% of his services as qualifying services under Rule 31. When the counter affidavit reveals that the 1^st respondent received his salary from the contingency fund, he cannot be construed as regular employee of Indian Railways. For all purposes, he is a temporary employee, who received his salary from contingency fund of India. As per Rule 31 of Railway Service (Pension) Rules, he is entitled for counting of 50 % of the temporary services, rendered by him between 01.01.1963 to 17.04.1978.

¶79

The Central Administrative Tribunal, however, failed to consider the nature of salary paid to such temporary status employees whether from Consolidated Fund of India or from the Contingency Fund of India. Consequently, the Tribunal granted a direction for counting the 1^st respondent's full services, which, in our opinion, contravenes Rule 31 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, as well as the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rakesh Kumar ( supra ).

¶80

Page 8 of 10

¶81

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶82

W.P.No.21941 of 2023

¶83